An Analysis of Environmental Management Approaches with Six Midwestern Dairy Farms: Informing Progress Toward a Sustainable Agriculture

An Analysis of Environmental Management Approaches with Six Midwestern Dairy Farms: Informing Progress Toward a Sustainable Agriculture

Summary

The second phase of our project focused on the Environmental Management Systems (EMS) and related life cycle analysis protocols to help identify the “gaps” in environmental performance of the six case study farms. We worked to identify options, priorities and feasible strategies for filling those gaps. Meeting this goal involved developing a continuous improvement Environmental Management System (EMS) with each of the six farmers. The following report contains much of the data resulting from our EMS development on six case study farms. For the remainder of the project, due to end in September 2007, we will focus on Objective 4 (To assess the viability of EMS to move all farms toward genuine sustainability in light of our case study experiences) along several outreach efforts to share project results.

Impacts and outcomes for the project so far include:
1. A comparative assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of six environmental management programs for Midwestern dairy farms;
2. Six case studies of farmers working with each of these different programs;
3. EMSs developed for six farms using six different programs;
4. Environmental improvements made on each of the farms as a result of the EMS process.

In the final report for this project expected outputs will include:
1. Further evaluation of improvements on the six dairy farms achieved through an EMS;
2. Evaluation of the viability of the EMS process to move all types of farms toward genuine sustainability;
3. A journal article on project findings aiming to increase clarity among practitioners and advocates about the environmental sustainability potential of different management programs, and improved understanding of what an EMS offers to sustainable agricultural practice;
4. Completion of a number of other outreach materials such as a power point presentation, a web video, and the online environmental program comparison matrix.

Objectives/Performance Targets

Objectives/Performance Targets:

With Phase One (Objectives One and Two) complete, project staff Karl Hakanson and Mrill Ingram focused on Objective Three: Develop an environmental management system for each farm to address gaps in environmental performance identified in Objective Two.

The second phase of our project focused on the Environmental Management Systems (EMS) and related life cycle analysis protocols to help identify the “gaps” in environmental performance of the six case study farms. We worked to identify options, priorities and feasible strategies for filling those gaps. Meeting this goal involved developing a continuous improvement Environmental Management System (EMS) with each of the six farmers.

Definition of EMS:
An Environmental Management System (EMS) is a decision-making process that has been formalized as an international “standard” in order to respond to growing interest in a production process that includes the environment as a core aspect of management (von Zharen 1996). The EMS approach, like Holistic Management (http://www.holisticmanagement.org), offers a methodical process through which practitioners can gain insight into the specific environmental vulnerabilities they face, and also devise a management system that integrates environmental health along with other goals such as economic and social viability. The EMS offers a powerful decision-making aid for farmers facing a diversity of pressures and handling many variables. The process is designed to assist producers in a wide range of enterprises to move toward sustainability on multiple fronts. Farmers building an EMS work to identify the environmental missions and long term goals of their operations, as well as to develop emergency and other contingency plans, create systematic and verifiable procedures for continuous improvement, and communicate about these efforts with employees and neighbors.

Objective three of this project was to integrate findings into our program of EMS technical assistance to set a standard for EMSs that enhances actual environmental performance on all the farms that follow the international protocol. We wanted to test whether the EMS approach can help fill gaps in the six management approaches, and likewise whether those programs can help us clarify the EMS as a viable strategy for sustainable agricultural management. We hypothesized that the EMS and Holistic Management approaches will be roughly equivalent in their power to move a farm continuously closer to environmental sustainability, though the EMS approach, if supported by “regulatory flexibility” programs like Wisconsin’s Green Tier program will be more attractive to larger scale farmers contending with regulations. Holistic Management may better support improved management of the whole farm (including aspects other than environmental stewardship).

EMS Background and Materials
The protocol used was based on approaches developed as part of a USDA-funded research project (www.uwex.edu/AgEMS/livestock) that pilot tested various EMSs in different agricultural settings in ten states, and the AgEMS Guidebook developed for farm audiences (http://ems.unl.edu/WIAgBooklet.pdf) as part of the Wisconsin portion of this project. The approach used was to have a “functionally equivalent” EMS to the International Standards Organization (ISO) 14001 Environmental Management Systems International Standard. An ISO 14000 EMS consists of seventeen elements (www.epa.gov/ems/info/elements).

The ISO 14000 is a series of standards developed to promote environmental protection for all industries and organizations with the goal of enhancing global trade (see www.iso.org). The ISO 14000 emerged primarily as a result of the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations and the Rio Summit on the Environment (1992). The basis for an EMS is the “plan-do-check-act” model of quality control, made popular in the manufacturing sector by Dr. W. Edwards Deming.

The potential benefits listed in the AgEMS Guidebook, which mirror the benefits touted in most EMS materials, include: improved employee performance and morale; cost savings and improved efficiency; improved relationships with regulators, neighbors, community members; lower insurance rates; market premiums, maintaining or obtaining market access, and, that it is a voluntary, management-driven process. A 2006 study of Australian farms documents a similar suite of advantages, from enhanced regulatory compliance and business management to cost savings and improvements in BMP adoption and effectiveness (Carruthers, G., 2006).

Many industries, organizations, state and national governments now use and promote the EMS approach in an effort to move beyond the “command and control” approach to environmental protection. While many successes are attributed to the regulatory approach to environmental protection (for example the US Clean Air and Water Acts), increasingly the regulatory approach is viewed as having limits. Primarily these have to do with the lack of flexibility and site specificity and, that by their very nature, regulations set minimum standards with no incentives or mechanisms to encourage superior or restorative environmental practice. It is also pointed out that many of the most important aspects of the environment are not regulated at the level of individual businesses, such as energy consumption or waste generation.

The U.S. government, with Executive Order 13148 (www.epa.gov/EMS/position/eo13148), and the U.S. EPA (www.epa.gov/ems) have embraced the EMS approach, as have many state agencies, including Wisconsin’s Green Tier program (www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/environmental). Approximately 103,500 companies and organizations, including the world’s largest corporations, are currently ISO 14000 certified (www.ecology.or.jp/isoworld/english/analy14k.htm). The tremendous growth in the use of EMSs worldwide has called into question the extent to which this expenditure of time and resources has resulted in appreciable environmental improvements (Goodwin, Max. 2007). There are critics who fear an EMS can be used as the ultimate in “green washing”, where polluters determine which environmental impacts are significant and the measures for determining success in correcting them (McCloskey, 1996, Kritkausky, 1997).

References

Carruthers, Genevieve. 2006. “Outcomes of EMS Implementation on Australian Farms.” Pgs. 33-45 in Farm Policy Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4: November.

Goodwin, Max. 2007. “EHS Performance Improvement.” A presentation from ERM Certification and Verification Services. Jan.

Kritkausky, Randy. 1997. “ISO 14000: A Bridge to the Environmental Community?” Presentation at Energy Week Conference. “Environmental Issues: Future Trends in Corporate Environmental Management” Workshop. January 28. Houston, TX.

McCloskey, Michael. 1996. “ISO 14000: An Environmentalist’s Perspective.” Roundtable Meeting (EPA Region III): “Exploring the Uses and Potential Benefits of ISO 14000”. April 26, Philadelphia, PA.

Von Zharen, W. M. 1996. ISO 14000 Understanding the Environmental Standards. Government Institutes, Inc., Rockville, MD.

Accomplishments/Milestones

Developing EMSs on Six Dairy Farms

The farmers in this project agreed to engage in the EMS process. We relied on the Environmental Systems Guidebook for Wisconsin Farms, (http://www.uwex.edu/AgEMS/livestock/pdf/WiGuidebookFinal.pdf), a resource developed by our office as part of a USDA-IFAFS funded project on EMS. One of the objectives of the IFAFS grant was to develop EMS tools that would make the process more accessible to smaller farms, and the guidebook was one product. For our SARE funded project, Karl Hakanson acted as “EMS coach,” introducing each farm family to the process, and then locating resources and expertise, conducting research and data collection, and generally facilitating the development of the EMS. He also compiled, edited and reviewed the EMS documents and worksheets developed for each farm. The basic EMS process used for this project was:

Conduct “Environmental Aspects Inventory” to identify priority issues;

Prioritize two aspects to work on for this project; one energy-related;

Assess current status of priorities;

Develop objectives and plan of action to address and improve environmental performance;

Implement plan, document actions, people involved, changes made, resources used;

Monitor and document results; continually look for ways to improve and get input;

Continue working on priorities, re-plan, assess, monitor, review —beyond scope of this project.

Impressions of EMS
None of our collaborating farmers had prior experience or awareness of the formal EMS process. Based on the initial meetings and after reading the materials provided, the farmers shared their impressions of the EMS process.

Positive Impressions
·One positive impression shared by all of the participants was related to the emphasis placed on family and employee communications. As one of the farmers said, “If you have other people around you need to communicate somehow or it’s just not going to get done”.

· Documentation, standard operating procedures or better organization of tasks and procedures was seen as a way to improve employee management and performance. The use of standard operating procedures was of particular interest to the owner of the large, permitted dairy. A big concern of family-run businesses was the considerable work and worry associated with leaving the farm to others. Taking vacations or even leaving the farm for one milking can be a problem when protocols are not understood due to the complexity of properly managing, livestock, equipment and facilities. In this way an EMS could give farmers confidence that others will know exactly how they want their farms to be managed. Better communications in relation to potential emergency situations and employee response and safety also elicited positive impressions.

· Farmers liked the Environmental Inventory Process. These environmentally conscientious farmers appreciated that there are aspects of the environment that they, and certainly other farmers, do not consider. Going through the materials caused them to consider a broader range of environmental issues than they normally consider in relation to their faming operations. “It’s actually useful because it brings up ideas that you don’t even think about as being environmentally related,” one farmer said. “I think it was useful in that it brought to light more of the ideas of some of the things that need to be done. It forced [us] to take a closer look and say, yah, this is probably more important than that. I think it was a useful exercise.”

· This conscientious group also appreciated the emphasis an EMS places on reducing risk when making changes or trying new things. This was an interesting observation as trying new things and taking risks is a trait these successful farmers have in common.

A related positive impression was that the EMS approach encouraged farmers to “think out of the box” and actively consider new ideas and approaches. As farmers are very busy with the daily, demanding work of farming in rural locations, exposure to new ideas and information can be a challenge. This may be especially true for smaller operations with limited employees and hence ability to get off the farm for meetings or other forms of interaction. “We tend to be home all the time and don’t talk to people”, said one farmer.

· One of the keys to the EMS process is to constantly seek out new ideas and expertise. Several of the farmers were already familiar with “brainstorming” sessions and pasture walks, where many ideas are aired and discussed from different perspectives and angles. Getting new ideas and ways to evaluate and keep working on them, including planning and documentation, were other positive impressions of the EMS process.

Negative Impressions
· Every farmerwe have worked with on this and previous projects expressed concerns about the time commitment and paperwork related to an EMS. The potential value of an EMS in return for the farmer’s efforts is a major drawback for busy farmers. Unlike the adoption of specific production practices, the potential benefits to adopting a management system are not apparent. One of the participants summed it up saying, “It looked to be a lot of work for what we may get out of it…I can see where it is coming from. It looked to me to be a lot of paperwork, but, I think it’s a good thing.”

Upon refection, however, was a realization that it may not be as onerous as first imagined when farmers realize they are doing many of the steps already, “I think it’s one of those things we have to make time to do. You know, I started reading that (AgEMS Guide) book and I thought, well…we’re doing this, we’re doing that…to us that was just common ordinary things we’d normally take care of.”

· The considerable amount of documentation required was a strong negative for farmers. Farmers put in long days and they wonder where they will find the time to do all the “paperwork”. The EMS process does indeed require more bookwork than most farmers are used to. This is perhaps the key impediment to an ISO-style EMS and the less formal “functional equivalent” approach used here.

One of the small family labor farms spoke for many when he said, “When I read the (guide)book it made me terribly frustrated…there is a lot of documentation. For me, I’m management, I’m labor and I’m the guy who cleans up the messes when it goes wrong…to document it all is just one more layer of paperwork that I found very unnecessary.”

When farmers read the many steps such as “implement practices”, “assign responsibility for each issue”, “provide training”, “monitor what happens”, they wondered how all this would get done. One farmer added, “It’s good, but for some of us, that’s a lot to go through.” When the workload and lack of recognizable benefits are evaluated, most farmers conclude that the formal step-wise EMS process is not for them.

Experience with Similar Programs or Procedures
The WPDES farm recognized a number of similarities with their permitting process. The public meetings required for their dairy expansion plans were analogous to the need for “communications with external stakeholders” in an EMS. This was the only farm of the six that was explicitly required to encourage input and feedback from the community.

In hindsight, the owners of the large farm operating under the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES), said they would have done things differently as they were not prepared for negative reactions at these meetings. They would have provided better education and explanation to the public prior to the meeting showing what kind of operation that they were planning. This kind of reflection and lessons learned from communications with those outside the farm is a key aspect of an EMS. Face-to-face communication with interested publics is another key EMS feature. For this large farm, it was a legal requirement that makes it a more contentious setting than what would be desirable in terms of getting people to work together on solutions, a goal of an EMS.

The WPDES farmers also recognized their work with the local Land Conservation Dept. on soil erosion and manure management and emergency response planning as similar to an EMS. Working with experts and seeking consultation in this kind of planning process is very much in line with what an EMS requires, as is accident avoidance and emergency planning. One of the outcomes of the public input and subsequent soil and manure management planning was a requirement in the permit to inject the liquid manure. One of the WPDES farmers explains:

“That (requirement to inject manure) was part of the county ordinance, one of the stipulations that our local people wanted. That came out of the meetings. It turned out to be a great deal for us. I would never go out and put our manure on top of the ground. I am very happy we do it that way and we’ll never do anything else different. We worked with the LCD and the DNR and the local people, in case of an emergency or we had a major leak or problem out here, things were going to be covered.”

This unforeseen positive outcome, a touted potential benefit of an EMS, is what can result when people work together on solutions that satisfy multiple objectives. In this case the farm is more economically and environmentally efficient, including labor and machinery savings, the local community is not impacted by manure odors, and relationships all around are improved.

Two of the farmers mentioned similarities to the organic certification process. The planning and documentation aspects of organic certification requires getting people and resources involved in the form of inspectors and organic farming assistance organizations. In addition, it was brought up how organic certification has gotten more rigorous and thus requiring more documentation. Organic inspectors focusing on what organic farmers are doing to improve wildlife habitat was one example sited.

Managed grazing plans are another similar process to an EMS sited. Applications for governmental programs and cost-sharing are inducements to complete the planning and paperwork for managed grazing. A good grazing plan looks at sensitive environmental areas, how you plan to treat them and how you are going to monitor what your treatment is doing so that you can make changes. Goal setting, planning and on-going monitoring come into play, just like an EMS.

Holistic Management is very similar to the plan-do-check-act basis of an EMS. The HM farmer saw it as “real similar…were you are constantly monitoring what affect your actions are having.” The Food Alliance farmer as well said that concerns about wildlife habitat, wages and treatment of workers as well as the continuous improvement aspect paralleled the EMS process. He felt it was very complimentary to FA certification.

The role of a “coach” in the EMS process
The concept of a “coach” helping develop an EMS was well received.

1. The fact that the coach, in this case project staff, was not selling a product or a paid consultant but an objective, critical independent observer was another well received quality of an EMS coach.

“…it’s nice to have somebody taking a look at your farm, the way you do things and so on, …that you are not paying,… not somebody that is trying to sell you something…somebody that is just independent.”

2. Having another set of eyes and ears was a major theme mentioned as a real plus to having a “coach,” as well as having somebody to call who knows other people to call. The farmers appreciated having a knowledgeable person to offer ideas and suggest possible solutions. The use of parasitic wasps for fly control was one example mentioned that “would not have been thought of if it hadn’t been brought up by the “coach.” Another aspect to the coach concept that was well received was that of “having another set of eyes to look at things, somebody who is not there everyday and stuck in the ruts you get stuck in. One farmer stated:

“To have somebody come in and say ‘have you ever thought of this’, or to say, you know what, from the road this looks kind of crappy, or something like that. I think it’s good to have somebody who is not directly involved in the farm. I think farmers get so wrapped up in what they are doing and they don’t take the time to stop and think. They get one thing done and they are thinking about the next thing. And so things kind of get pushed aside until they are forced to think about it.”

3. For several farmers, a positive aspect of the coach was having a person there nudging them on that helped, or in as one said in plain language, “Somebody bugging them” with e-mail reminders and calls. As one of the farmers put it: “Yeah, we need someone to prod us a long a little bit.”

4. Another similar role to an EMS coach many were familiar with was the coordinator of a grazing network. This person typically acts as the facilitator of the entire group, brings the group together, an organizer, who brings up ideas, gather resources, keeps records and so on.

A suggested addition or alternative to a personal coach was a group approach, similar to farmer networks, where farmers could work on environmental management together getting the benefits of increased ideas and more assurance when trying new things. A key related aspect of a coach in helping further the EMS process was in the area of documentation. This was a benefit mentioned not only in terms of simply getting paperwork done, organized and making better use of it, but also in terms of getting governmental and other program benefits. One farmer said documentation was important to, “verify that the practices were worth the extra effort”.

Time Spent Working on EMS Development
Project staff made 14 visits to these farms for the EMS portion of the project. With travel time this averaged approximately 6 hours per visit. The two Minnesota farms were visited only once to work on the EMS. Project staff spent roughly 226 hours, or 36 hours per farm gathering resources and communicating with each farm and spent another 34 hours on average developing materials specific to each farm. On average each farm brought four new contacts on to their farms to work on their projects. The amount of time a “coach” or consultant would spend on a farm’s EMS development is dependent on many factors including the interest and ability of the farm staff, the size and complexity of the farm, and the reasons for engaging in the EMS process in the first place, notably, if it is to be a certified by an accredited third-party auditor or not.

Identification of Environmental “Aspects”
Using the AgEMS Guidebook, a farm meeting was convened to introduce the EMS process and guide farmers though the “Environmental Aspects Inventory” exercise. The “Environmental Aspects Inventory” exercise leads the user through a consideration of potential environmental aspects and impacts of a farm. In the language of EMS, “environmental aspects” are any element of a farm’s activities, products or services that can interact with the environment. An “environmental impact” is any change to the environment, whether adverse or beneficial, resulting from a farm’s activities, products, or services. This exercise is organized into six major categories of farm activity –Manage Cropland to Produce Feed and Recycle Manure; Milk Cows; House and Feed Livestock; Store and Move Manure; Store and Handle Chemicals, Petroleum, Pharmaceuticals; Store and Transport Feeds– with a comprehensive list of potential aspects listed for each. For each environmental aspect one chooses either “Not applicable”; “Practices in Use” (if procedures, practices or plans were currently in place that address this aspect); “Current Priority” if this is an aspect that is a significant problem or issue to be addressed. A forth option is to leave the aspect blank if none of the other choices apply, for example if one is if unsure of the significance of this aspect. This last choice would be one that would be revisited during the next iteration of the EMS.

These six farms identified over 80 issues of concern on their operations. These concerns included issues of soil quality, runoff pollution from fields and feedlots/barnyards (surface water quality), nutrient management, riparian area management, groundwater quality, wildlife issues, energy use, air pollution, and aesthetics. It has been the experience of project staff that every farm that engages in this or similar exercises can easily identify at least a dozen environmental aspects and impacts of concern to their farming operations.

Prioritization of Environmental Impacts
The next step in the EMS process is to figure out which of the priorities to work on recognizing there is always a limit on one’s time and resources. Each farm was asked to choose two priority environmental aspects based on the guidance offered in the AgEMS Guidebook. It was further stipulated that one of the two aspects be an energy related aspect. Our analysis of the six environmental management schemes revealed that none of these programs or approaches addresses energy use and conservation directly. As the use and environmental consequences of fossil fuel use are far-reaching and globally significant, and if environmental sustainability is the goal, we argue that not addressing energy is a major flaw in these agricultural environmental programs. We required each farm pick one energy-related aspect to ensure each farm addressed an issue not specifically part of their environmental management scheme.

This structured format of thinking about aspect and impacts and then a prioritization process was well received by all of these farmers. As with many aspects of the EMS process, none of this was particularly new or unusual except the more formalized process of sitting down and conscientiously going through with other family or partners. These distinct steps, with guidance, helped focus attention and direct decision-making.

Final Participant Meeting
In the fall of the second year of this project an all day meeting was organized for all the farmers involved in this project. The objectives were to engage the farmers in reflecting on their experiences, observations and results of each of their EMS projects. All but one of the farms was represented. This farm was later visited separately and was provided with the same information and asked the same questions relative to their EMS work.

We located a meeting room in the new Trempealeau Community library (at no cost), which was approximately centrally located for our farmers. Refreshments, meals at a local restaurant and mileage were provided. Staff endeavored to create a comfortable venue for the participants where everyone’s ideas and opinions were welcome and encouraged. The meeting was held during the middle of the day to accommodate these dairy farmer’s chore schedules. Two of the farm families do not have hired help and milked their cows before and after the meeting with about an hour drive each way. Getting a group of farmers together has its challenges and the many logistical details are important to a successful meeting.

Throughout this project staff endeavored to include these farmers as co-collaborators and provided significant financial compensation for their considerable time and effort. Having the funds to treat farmers as professionals was greatly appreciated by project staff and improved our ability to demand time and attention for EMS development and reflection.

Agenda:
After introductions, project reviews, and a preliminary look at project findings, a series of questions were presented and carefully considered. All the conversations were recorded as sources of data and analysis.

REFLECTIONS ON EMS
-After talking with (project staff) and reading the guidebook and other materials, what do you remember were your impressions of EMS?
-How useful was the prioritization of environmental aspects exercise?
-Thoughts about the role of a “coach” in environmental and farm management.
-How well does the EMS process fit in with your environmental management program?
(i.e., Organic, HM, Biodynamic, Food Alliance, WPDES, Soil and Water Conservation)
-What were the most significant changes made as a result of this project?
-Actions taken, practices installed or planned?
-New information or expertise used or brought onto farm?
-New ways of doing business started or planned? (e.g., meetings, staff or consultant involvement, communication strategies, record keeping, monitoring, etc.)
-Would you have made these changes without engaging in the EMS process?
-Overall, what do you now think of the usefulness or applicability of the EMS process?

Each farmer was also given these questions on paper and encouraged to reflect and provide more details and ideas when they got home after the meeting.

This meeting was illuminating in a number of ways. As these farmers talked they realized many common interests, experiences and challenges of running profitable dairy farm. These experiences in common stimulated lively conversation on all aspects of these questions, and also provided project staff a useful source of information for the overall evaluation of this SARE project.

There were several specific ideas that never came up in any of the previous individual meetings or contacts that only emerged from the discussion. Many of them were very successful results of the EMS process but were not necessarily recognized as such:

· Upon reflection, the HM farm saw their accomplishments differently and actually completed several aspects of employee and visitor health and safety and non-chemical parasitic wasp fly control.
· The “conventional” S&W farm is now pursuing managed grazing for the milking herd after considering all the ramifications of energy use, manure management and farm management.
· The certified organic farm is moving ahead with more use of no-till in soybean production.
· The WPDES farmer, during the individual meeting, stated that he realized he had been engaged in many aspects of an EMS already. It increased his excitement about participating in the State of WI’s EMS-based Green Tier sustainable business program. They are now working on a variety of organizational and management issues to more formally engaged in an EMS.
· The Food Alliance farm was moved to prioritize and act on a few key practices and improvements they had long considered.
· The Biodynamic farmer stated that he was considering an entirely new approach to his constant problems of manure management, bedding expense, costs and excessive labor. This farmer decided to leave his farm for an entirely different pursuit, so he did not move beyond the planning stage of his EMS, although he participated actively in the evaluation/assessment aspects of the project.

Impacts and Contributions/Outcomes

Conclusion
This report contains much of the data resulting from our EMS development on six case study farms.

For the remainder of the project we will focus on Objective 4 (To assess the viability of EMS to move all farms toward genuine sustainability in light of our case study experiences) along with several outreach efforts to share project results.

Thus impacts and outcomes for the project so far include:
1. A comparative assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of six environmental management programs for Midwestern dairy farms.
2. Six case studies of farmers working with each of these different programs.
3. EMS’s developed for six farms using six different programs
4. Environmental improvements made on each of the farms as a result of the EMS process.

In the final report for this project expected outputs will include:
1. Further evaluation of improvements on the six dairy farms achieved through an EMS;
2. Evaluation of the viability of the EMS process to move all types of farms toward genuine sustainability;
3. A journal article on project findings aiming to increase clarity among practitioners and advocates about the environmental sustainability potential of different management programs, and improved understanding of what an EMS offers to sustainable agricultural practice.
4. Completion of a number of other outreach materials such as a power point presentation, a web video, and the online environmental program comparison matrix.

Collaborators: