Campus Sustainability Report

Introduction & Overview | Energy | Water | Material Management | Land Use | Transportation

Since our report in 2003 there has been increasing evidence that the planet’s ecological integrity is under going stress. The 2005 UN Millenium Ecosystem Assessment showed a majority of the world’s ecosystems in decline. The newly released International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report (2007) shows increased concerns regarding global climate change and the speed with which it is occurring. As we think about our environment we need to remember that much of what we do here goes far beyond our boundaries. What we put into the air and water travels far from home. Physicists tell us that each of us has a few molecules of Caesar’s last breath in us! The coal, paper, food, motor vehicles, asphalt, chemicals, etc., that we consume here originate in other places. They are produced with human labor, natural resources, and energy that we do not see. We need to begin to put that data into our equation for a sustainable future.

One example that became more visceral to us since our last report is our relationship to coal. The winter of 2005-06 brought the nation and the world face to face with the dangers of coal mining as we lost 12 miners in West Virginia. We, as an institution, should consider the type of impacts we create with our choices of fuel source, including the impacts on the environment of mining that source. What is our responsibility to present and future generations? Where might we reduce negative impacts without harming our own long-term sustainability? We should make choices that enhance our mission by changing our activities that would have mutual benefits beyond our borders, including selection of fuels. We need to look for the low-hanging fruit that can easily be reached to improve our environmental footprint, along with searching for new solutions to the problem through research and pilot projects on campus. Institutions of higher education have the responsibility to offer solutions to global climate change and to research opportunities regarding alternatives for society.

In the sections that follow on energy, water, materials management, land use, and transportation you will see many figures. Are we growing what is good or what is bad for the planet? What else might we measure in the future? What can we do individually and as a community to reduce our ecological footprint while strengthening our social fabric and enhancing our economic well-being? Moving to renewable energy sources holds much hope for reducing our fossil fuel consumption and resulting greenhouse gases, yet how can we make the transition? How much are we willing to invest in that transition?

What about our food? As you’ll see, our Housing and Food Service operations are among the largest of their kind, feeding 15,000 people several meals a day. How might we increase the amount of local and organic food, while meeting student nutrition and taste needs? We consume more than 150,000,000 sheets of copy paper a year. Can we reduce that quantity without inhibiting effective communication, increase the amount of recycled content in it, and recover more of it to be recycled into paper that we can use again?

The Red Cedar River is getting healthier thanks in part to a significant investment of expertise and funds. How does what we do on campus affect our water quality and quantity? Can we rethink our uses of water? How does the way we travel to, from, and on campus affect the watershed, safety, air quality, and aesthetic quality of campus? Are the benefits and harms evenly shared among the community or do some benefit and some suffer more than others? Are you willing to add your talents into helping us develop a campus that shrinks its ecological footprint while enhancing our educational mission?

In response to President Simon’s “Boldness by Design” initiative, Vice President for Finance and Operations, Dr. Fred Poston, has initiated a campus-wide Environmental Stewardship program. Using teams of faculty, staff, and students through a systems-mapping approach, this initiative is examining energy production and consumption as well as solid waste generation and disposal and identifying where we can make significant improvements. Drs. Simon and Poston have also committed MSU to greenhouse gas reductions through our November 2006 signing with the Chicago Climate Exchange. MSU is embarking on a mission to truly become a green leader, thus we expect to see significant changes in many of the numbers presented in this snapshot.

Back to Top

Rationale for Indicators - There are numerous reasons to look at energy supply and demand as key indicators of institutional sustainability. On the economic side, both the short-term and long-term changes in financial impact can be substantial to the organization. When fuel costs for the university exceed $25 million annually, every single percent change represents $250,000. With costs expected to climb at rates above the inflation rate, the need to control the costs are important. While the financial costs and savings may capture the interests of some, the environmental impacts of our energy consumption are increasingly seen as being crucial to global sustainability. Having joined the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) we are committed to reduction of our greenhouse gas emissions. How does our production and use of energy affect our social fabric – how might we enhance our social fabric and reduce our energy footprint? These are questions we urge you to consider as you review the data.

How are we doing?- MSU’s electricity consumption grew by 8% between our last report (2001-02) and last year (2005-06). Two relatively flat consumption years between 2003 (-0.43%) and 2005 (0.33%), followed a significant increase in 2002-03 (5.58%) Those flat years are likely a response to an energy awareness campaign run during that period. In FY 2005-06, MSU’s electricity consumption returned to previous historical trends, growing by 2.6%. This new growth is in spite of financial investments in efficiency, like the major relighting effort across campus. Increased use of electronic devices, increased use of electrical energy for cooling and additional square footage are likely part of the cause. Hidden from view is the potential impact caused by increases or decreases in hot days (cooling degree days) that drive increased air conditioning consumption.

Figure 40 Campus Electricity Consumed

MSU can take pride in our electrical consumption per square foot. Historical bench-marking among the Big Ten and other some additional universities in the region indicates MSU’s system is very efficient.

Figure 41 Big Ten and Friends Utilities Benchmarking FY 2004-05

While there is good reason for pride, that should be tempered to appreciate the range of differences between institutions, including those that run large 24-hour teaching hospitals. But then, MSU is the only university with a Superconducting Cyclotron.

Since MSU has a co-generating power plant we use the steam both to make electricity and to heat and cool many of the campus buildings. As the graph below shows, since the early 1980s we’ve been increasing our use of steam for producing electricity.

Figure 42 Electricity and Steam Consumption

The MSU’s Simon Power Plant relies primarily on coal as its source of fuel for its cogeneration process. Changes in coal consumption during the periods between 2001-02 and 2005-06 track with changes in electrical consumption. A significant increase in 2002-03 (9.1%) is followed by two flat years (1.0% and -3.9%) responding to an active energy conservation program. FY 2005-06 had an increase of 5.4%. Hidden from view is the impact of reduction in plant efficiency created by installation of low NOx combustion controls in 2002-03

Figure 43 Coal Consumed by T.B. Simon Power Plant

This might be better appreciated by looking at the graphs below that note our air emissions. During this period particulates and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) declined.

Figure 44 Actual Fee-Subject Emissions

Seventy percent of MSU’s typical coal burn is from low sulfur coal, which requires no on-site sulfur reduction. The other third of the coal, with higher sulfur content, is burned in the newer boilers where the plant reduces SO2 and NOX emission at levels 50-70% below the average of the older boilers because of the newer equipment. Annual plant total emissions are directly influenced by the plant’s ability to optimize operation of the plant’s newest equipment. Power plant operators strive to maximize use of the cleaner boilers to minimize emissions. Nonetheless, our reliance on coal means our greenhouse gas emissions are significant contributors to the global warming the world’s scientific community has declared is underway.

Figure 45 Actual Fee-Subject Emissions (in tons)

The other major non-transportation fuel we consume is natural gas. As the graph below indicates, our use of this fuel has declined in recent years. Whereas the cost of fuels is a contributing factor in the use of natural gas, other forces, including the need to meet campus demands during periods of coal system unavailability and using natural gas for plant combustion stability, affect the choices. MSU’s recent expansion of a gas turbine, heat recovery steam generator, and steam turbine recently was awarded the 2007 Pacesetter Plant Award from Combined Cycle Journal for its high efficiency and clean production.

Figure 46 Natural Gas Burned and Average Cost/mcf

Back to Top

The Michigan State University campus is situated in the Red Cedar watershed and is home to a number of surface water bodies. The Red Cedar River, which winds through campus, is the most visible water body is and arguably the natural focal point of campus life. The university’s water needs are supplied by the Saginaw Aquifer, a deep sandstone formation that lies beneath much of central Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. This water is used for drinking, washing, bathing, irrigation and, of course, for steam to make electricity and to heat and cool the campus infrastructure.

Rationale for Indicators – While we think of our fortunate location in the Great Lakes Basin, quantity of consumption and water quality for both our groundwater and surface waters are still important signals of how sustainably we are living here and what resources we leave for those who follow.

How are we doing? - Almost all of the water that is consumed at Michigan State University for drinking, irrigation, etc., is pumped from the Saginaw Aquifer via seventeen wells into a reservoir located on the south end of campus. Water quality measurements are performed regularly and our water meets or exceeds all State of Michigan and EPA standards. MSU’s Wellhead Protection Plan was approved by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality in 2000 and updated in 2006. In addition, MSU has been designated a Groundwater Guardian (GG) community by the Groundwater Foundation since 2001. GG is a national program that recognizes communities for proactive groundwater protection activities.

MSU has a team of faculty, staff and students who address storm water management to fulfill requirements of Phase II Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit. Activities include working with 20 jurisdictions within the Greater Lansing Area to implement watershed management plans in the urbanized areas; identifying and eliminating illicit discharges to the Red Cedar River; modeling storm water flow on the campus; incorporating low impact development techniques in areas of new development; and implementing a public education plan that includes a storm drain marking program and Red Cedar River cleanup events, among other outreach activities.

Water from the 17 wells is pumped to the reservoir, except for water used for irrigation at the farms and golf-courses. From the reservoir it is sent around campus for the various buildings. Water consumed for uses other than irrigation has risen steadily (3.3%) since our last report. Irrigation uses have increased 17% during the same period, not including use of Red Cedar water. However, seasonal weather variation influences irrigation water demand. So far this fiscal year (2006-07) water consumption across campus is down 16% for the first eight months!

Figure 47 Water Pumped at Wells vs. Water Pumped at Reservoir

The Grounds Department records indicate that the two Akers golf courses use an average of 34,000,000 gallons of water a year, or nearly 10% of the water used for irrigation. Additional water for irrigation is pumped from the Red Cedar River for areas adjacent to the river, which the Grounds Department estimates to be about 160 acres. There is no record of how much water is used for this effort. Additional wells are used for irrigation on the MSU farms, the fields near the Intramural East Sports Building, and the stadium football field; no data is available for how much water is pumped from these wells.

Figure 48 Campus Irrigation

The Wellhead Protection program is a planning and management approach designed to protect public groundwater supply systems from contamination. As part of its plan, MSU inventoried potential sources of contamination within the area that supplies water to its wells, and for the past several years has been implementing best management practices within those areas to protect the water. Examples of management strategies include incorporating groundwater protection measures into the university’s construction standards and ensuring that secondary containment is provided for potential contaminants.

Sewage from MSU is sent to the East Lansing Wastewater Treatment Plant. Here the sewage is treated through three stages--primary, secondary and tertiary treatment. The plant can handle 19 million gallons a day and generally receives about 12 million gallons daily from all local area sources, including MSU. After being treated the water ends up back in the Red Cedar River. Solids are filtered out and are sent directly to the landfill. The exact amount of sewage sent to the plant from MSU is unknown as MSU shares sewage pipes with the city of East Lansing. The formula that MSU and East Lansing use to determine the fees that MSU must pay for sewage treatment is based on an agreement formulated many years ago. It takes into account the amount of water pumped from campus wells minus the estimated amount of water used for irrigation as well as that lost to evaporation, in addition to the cost of running the plant. Hence, we have no hard data on how much sewage MSU sends to the plant.

While the Red Cedar River is the largest, most visible surface water body on the
MSU campus, the MSU-WATER (Watershed Action Through Education and Research) Committee’s surveys reveal a multiplicity of fish and wildlife habitats. Below is a list of the surface water bodies located on campus, a product of the committee’s efforts.

• Baker Woodlot – northwest pond vernal pool
• Baker Woodlot – north pond vernal pool
• Baker Woodlot – west pond vernal pool
• Baker Woodlot – corner pond woodland pond
• Beal Pinetum forested floodplain
• Bennett Wetland marsh
• Biebesheimer Woodland vernal pools
• College Road – southwest wetland created wetland
• College Road – southeast wetland Marsh
• College Road – central wetland created wetland
• Commuter Lot Treatment Wetland marsh/created wetland
• Farm Lane Pond created wetland
• Getzel Wetland marsh
• Goritz Southwest Pond marsh
• Goritz Wetland marsh
• Hicks South Wetland woodland pond
• Hicks West Wetland woodland pond
• Industrial Park Wetland marsh
• Lott Woodland (North) forested wetland
• Lott Woodland (South) forested wetland
• Natural Resources Pond – east pond
• Natural Resources Pond – west pond
• Red Cedar Natural Area forested floodplain
• Sanford Natural Area forested floodplain
• Toomey Woodlot woodland pond

The Red Cedar weaves its way through campus and is visited each day by thousands who cross the footbridges, walk along its pathways, or gather on its banks. Efforts initiated since the MSU-WATER committee was formed have brought renewed interest to the health of the river. Attempts to find sources of pollution entering the river on and upstream from campus have helped reduce the occurrences of higher levels of E. coli events that are harmful to humans. The graph below shows a steady trend of increasingly fewer events of E. coli contamination, which result mainly from heavy rains that bring contaminants into the river.

Figure 49 E. coli Counts at Farm Lane Bridge

River cleanup events are held twice each year (fall and spring semesters). Students, faculty, staff and East Lansing residents volunteer to remove debris from the river, including bikes, furniture, beverage and fast food containers, cigarettes, and so forth. The spring 2006 cleanup attracted 66 volunteers, who pulled 45 bags of trash plus the usual array of bikes, furniture and other large items from the river.

Back to Top

While what we consume has significant impacts upstream from campus, we don’t have the data to examine most of that impact. So we focus instead on what happens to material once it arrives on our East Lansing Campus, where we do have more control on its use and ultimate destination. 2005 saw the completion of a campus wide Solid Waste White Paper researched by a team of faculty and students. The white paper inventoried most of our solid waste streams from food waste in cafeterias to oil filters in our transportation department.

Rationale for Indicators - Consumption of material goods has impacts on and off campus. Financial costs arise at purchase, handling, and finally disposal. Likewise the environmental impacts of the materials and their use and disposal are also significant. While quantities are easiest to measure, the quality of the material and the relative impacts they produce vary.

How are we doing? - Housing and Food Services have launched expanded recycling services in the Residence Halls, and VP Fred Poston has brought together a team of faculty staff and students to do a thorough systems review of our waste streams. As the data below notes, there is still plenty of waste to reduce, reuse and recover.

MSU houses approximately 15,000 students preparing the equivalent of 50,000 meals a day. The amount of food consumed is hard to fathom, for example, 2.6 million eggs per year. While we do have data on the volume of food consumed, we have little data regarding either the source (geography) of the food or how the food is produced. Since our last report, meat and cheese consumption have increased the most at 15% and 14%, respectively. Frozen vegetables (excluding french fries) have declined slightly (3%) as have cereals (5%) during the same period. It appears, although we don’t have data back as far, that fresh fruit and vegetable consumption is increasing substantially based upon data from the past couple of years.

Figure 50 Food Consumption

The chart below shows an overall decline in cold beverages consumed since 2001-02. Most of that decline has been the result of decreased consumption of milk and fruit juices. Soft drink consumption has risen slightly.

Figure 51 Beverage Consumption

Bottled water use continues to remain elusive to track. The five-gallon office containers proliferate across campus and arrive here from a number of vendors in the area. Review of data from last year analyzed by Ashley Miller, a recently graduated member of UCSC, indicates that last year University Stores distributed 766,758 liters throughout campus for consumption. This figure includes water sold at campus. The origin of the water based upon limited sourcing information provided either on the containers or by the companies themselves vary. How much additional bottled water is brought to campus is unclear. We do know that more and more of our solid waste stream contains non-deposit water bottles.

Two recent studies have looked at food waste in the residence hall cafeterias. The initial but very short and small sample study in Spring 2006 found 0.5 lb./person/meal food waste. Currently a more rigorous and ongoing study 2006-2007 suggests the figure, including preparation waste, and unconsumed food is closer to 0.7 lbs./person/meal. While the study is to determine the quantity of food waste for possible use in an anaerobic digester (more is better in this case), reducing waste on the front end is likely more beneficial both financially and environmentally.

Besides the emissions and the electricity and steam produced from burning coal, the other output from our power production is the coal ash. MSU has been recycling virtually all of the fly ash from the burning of coal since 2001-02. The ash is either used as an ingredient in cement or combined with sewage sludge as a fertilizer. More recently some tests have looked at combining some of the ash with sewage sludge as a fuel source for the Power Plant.

Figure 52 Coal Ash Recycled and Land-filled

We focus here on general and larger trends. The graph below looks at our direct contribution to the landfill. Note that this is waste from MSU that MSU delivers to the landfill. It does not include waste from campus projects that are carried out by contractors, such as demolition, construction, or asbestos removal, who may take material to the landfill. Since our last report our waste taken to landfill increased 6%. But since 2003-04 the amount has decreased by 3%, a trend we hope to continue as we enhance our recovery efforts.

Figure 53 General Refuse Disposal to Landfill

Our recovery of paper fiber for recycling increased by 17% between 2001-02 to 2005, with the largest gains in ‘newspaper’ and ‘other’ which includes shredded paper and books. Recycling of office paper – combined white and mixed - fell 23% since 2001-02. While that drop might raise a concern, it does correspond to a decrease of purchased copy paper.

Figure 54 Paper Recycled at MSU

Since our recycling numbers are most complete for paper fiber in its various forms, it is useful to look at a related area of purchasing – copy paper – that is the source of some of the paper that gets recycled. Trends in this area are mixed. Currently we purchase more than 150,000,000 sheets of paper a year through University Stores. This is down from 2001-02, when purchases totaled more than 177,000,000, a drop of 15%. These numbers do not include paper used by University Printing, nor paper purchased through off-campus printing jobs or office supply stores.

While the total amount of purchased paper fell significantly, the amount of recycled content copy paper fell even more, by 20%. The percentage of the copy paper we purchased in 2005-06 that had some recycled content made up 30% of total paper purchased for 2005-06, down from 38% of the total purchased in 2001-02. The amount of 100% post-consumer recycled paper purchased accounts for 10% of all copy paper purchased in 2005-06. There are many other paper products for which we don’t have trend data, including envelopes, legal pads, notebooks, etc. The environmental benefits of production of recycled paper as quantified by the Paper Task Force are substantial.

Figure 55 Purchased Copy Paper

MSU Surplus continues to accelerate its recovery of materials and total sales. Sales grew nearly 160% between 2001-02 and 2005-06. The growing use of e-Bay and other marketing efforts have greatly enhanced this operation. Surplus also has been a source of reuse on campus, like the MSU Bike Project, that has repaired and leased out over 400 bikes on campus, the majority coming from MSU Surplus.

Figure 56 MSU Surplus Sales

While trying to measure in any detail what is able to be reused through sales is currently impossible to track, the following give us a bit of a picture from one significant project. The annual “Pack-up, Pitch-in, Move Out” program run by University Housing, Recycling and Waste Management, and Surplus has rescued usable clothing, food, lumber, carpet and other goods from the landfill. The graphs below show the volumes, which tend to vary greatly from year to year. Much of the recovered material is donated to local nonprofits.

Figure 57 Move Out Materials Collection

Figure 58 Move Out Materials Collection

In addition to the resale of unwanted university property, Surplus has developed, in response to an avalanche of unwanted computing hardware, an effort to triage the equipment for reconfiguration, resale and, finally, recycling the growing e-waste for the university.

The research arm of the university, which continues to grow, is primarily responsible for the generation of waste that is deemed hazardous and thus requires special handling and disposal. The amount we handled in 2005 is 17% higher than in 2001 and 30% more than in 2004. While that may appear startling, this increase is the result of a large removal of waste from decommissioning Cyclotron equipment (38,928 lbs.). If we remove this one-time activity from the equation we actually see an 8% drop from 2001. Given the increases in research activity, these declines are heartening. However, although there was an overall decline during the period, the past year has seen a 12% increase in hazardous waste generation.

Figure 59 Hazardous Waste Removed (lbs.)

Part of the overall decline can be in part related to the expanded training programs created and operated by ORCBS. As the graph below indicates, total training sessions have increased dramatically (64%) between 2001-02 and 2005-06.

Figure 60 Total ORCBS Training Numbers

MSU continues to use large amounts of ink jet and laser cartridges. In 2005-06 we purchased 7,636 ink jets and 8,335 laser jet cartridges through University Stores. A large portion of these – 5,096 ink jets (66%) and 6,766 (81%) laser jets – appear to get recycled. What is not clear is how well we are closing the loop by buying recycled/remanufactured jets for use.

MSU’s farm animals for research and teaching produce significant amounts of manure that must be handled properly. MSU’s manure management operations include a large compost facility at the Dairy Cattle farm, which utilizes manure, bedding, and feed waste from all farm facilities, including the Pavilion. We are also currently exploring the feasibility of an anaerobic digester that could take the liquid manure from the Beef Cattle, Dairy, and Swine facilities, commingle it with cafeteria food wastes, and use it to generate methane gas for the production of electricity. The following graph shows the amount of solid and liquid manure handled by the farms since 1999. The volume is directly related to the number of research and teaching animals on the south campus farms and the requirements of the specific projects. Volume dropped significantly after 2002 but has shown a slight increase in the last year reported.

Figure 61 Volume of Manure Generated

Compost is currently generated from the Dairy Cattle facility, where it is both used on campus and sold through MSU Surplus sales. 2006 saw MSU farms produce nearly 12,000 cubic yards of finished compost.

Back to Top

Rationale for Indicators - How we use the land beneath our feet has significance for the environment, quality of life, and both short-term and long-term economic impacts. Whether it is made impervious through construction, used to beautify our surroundings, to grow plant material for feed, or, of increasing importance, sequester carbon from the atmosphere, the choices we make are important to current and future generations. From the planning stages through implementation we can measure not only our intention, but our accomplishments.

How are we doing? - MSU occupies 5,200 acres in East Lansing, and an additional 17,400 acres of off-campus properties throughout Michigan. This report only addresses the East Lansing campus. The North campus area (2,044 acres north of Mt. Hope Road) is primarily comprised of academic, research, athletic uses along with three large natural areas and the iconic Red Cedar River corridor. The area south of Mt. Hope is primarily farms including the Pavilion for Agriculture and Livestock Education and Diagnostic Center for Population and Animal Health (DCPAH), natural areas and two golf courses.

MSU Campus Map

The 2020 Master Plan was completed in December 2001. A five-year update of that plan is just being completed. The planning principles have considered the environmental, economic, and cultural impacts from the beginning. The newly revised plan enhances these commitments with the addition and strengthening of the following principles:
• Preserve and protect existing natural areas and systems to support teaching and research
• Maximize utility efficiencies
• Maintain intramural/recreation fields in reasonable proximity to residential districts to a support healthy residential campus environment
• Implement compact campus development and incorporate principles of low impact development
• Protect open space that is not identified as a future building opportunity
• Organize and arrange design of buildings and exterior spaces to encourage human interaction and foster a sense of shared community
• Consolidate support services into a compact and contiguous land use district
• Incorporate best management practices for storm water
• Integrate public art appropriate to surrounding context
• Emphasize parking on the campus perimeter
• Incorporate traffic calming measures where appropriate
• Enhance the pedestrian realm incorporating the special needs of persons with disabilities
• Establish a coordinated bicycle system including convenient and appropriately sized storage facilities, bike lanes within roadways, and pathways where appropriate.

MSU - Map of Open Space
Source: Campus Planning and Administration

MSU has moved forward to recover land used for parking. Using an existing surface lot we recently completed a multi-story parking facility on the North edge of campus. This is permitting the removal of unsafe on-street parking. Some of those slots have been removed and returned to turf covered ground. Plans are underway to remove large surface lots surrounding the Farm and Shaw Lane intersections and return to open and green space.

MSU - Map of Protected Space
Source: Campus Planning and Administration

Within the East Lansing campus the following built environment footprints are currently present:
• Buildings         8,734,032 SF or 200.5 acres
• Parking lots     8,373,101 SF or 192.2 acres
• Sidewalk          3,700,000 SF or 84.9 acres
• Roads              3,410,068 SF or 78.3 acres

MSU has over 600 buildings on its campus, with more than 160 of them major facilities. Their replacement value was estimated at $3.36 billion in 2006. These buildings total more than 22,000,000 square feet (including parking ramps). Square footage of buildings continues to grow at about 1,000,000 square feet per decade. New development will emphasize infill development over expanding into the farther reaches of the campus. Since our last report we have seen the completion of a new parking ramp on an existing parking area, construction initiated for new University Village Apartments (fewer beds allowed removal of buildings and parking from existing floodplain) expansion of the Chemistry Building (which is seeking LEED Silver rating), and renovation of Snyder Phillips residence hall to accommodate a new Residential College in Arts and Letters. The Chemistry expansion is noteworthy as it represents the first of future efforts to embrace green building standards as our design guidelines, including a 95% recycling rate of all demolition and waste from the project.

Chemistry Expansion

MSU Engineering and Architectural Services conceived and conducted an internal research effort, utilizing faculty and students from the School of Planning, Design and Construction, intended to improve the sustainable characteristics of campus building construction projects that comply with LEED NC 2.2 Green Building Rating System. A two phase project was undertaken. Phase One identified appropriate LEED credits for use on all MSU projects and LEED certifiable projects. Phase Two consisted of standards research and the development of new MSU Construction Standards and details. The research team developed and proposed a variety of MSU Construction Standards changes. Sustainability statements were developed for a total of 59 CSI specification sections where MSU had no preexisting construction standards and language changes were developed for over 60 existing MSU Construction Standards. In addition, suggestions were made for modifying numerous standard construction details to enhance their environmental makeup.

Our Grounds Department, recently moved to the Physical Plant Division, maintains 1,250 acres of lawn and athletic fields, 20,000 trees and more than 8,000 different plant taxa. Annually they plant an additional 260 trees, more than 600 shrubs, and flowering plants to keep our campus park-like setting. In the process they use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies to minimize pests and chemical inputs. Since our last report, application of fertilizers (35%), weed (10%) and insect (85%) controls have all decreased. A severe grub manifestation led to increase use of insect control in 2001-03. Budget cuts impacted fertilizer and weed control usage in 2001-04.

Figure 62 Weed and Insect Control Product Use

Grounds has embarked on an effort to protect our trees by signage before home football games to reducing parking near trees, lessening soil compaction. Since our last report they have continued to reduce mowing, especially along riparian zones, and are adding signage to educate our community regarding these changes.

MSU South Campus Farms continue their crucial supportive role for our agricultural teaching and research. Since our last report they have taken initiative in a variety of areas including:
• Switching from premium diesel and limited B2 to B20 soy diesel for all diesel powered trucks, tractors, and equipment.
• Encouraging idle reduction for all vehicles and equipment when not in active use
• Minimizing mowing of roadsides and open areas for fuel and labor savings
• CF bulbs have replaced incandescent bulbs at all South Campus Farms and Off- Campus Stations
• Composting manure, bedding, waste feed and leaves for transfer off the South Campus Farms land base – 12,000 plus cubic yards being utilized by Grounds and general public.
• Utilizing trucks vs tractors for commodity transport – higher fuel efficiencies, time savings, and use of fewer pieces of equipment being realized.
• No-till farming practices (limited tillage) being implemented provided 250 gals of fuel savings in first year (will increase over time) due to fewer passes over the fields.
• Water conservation practices are utilized for all irrigation applications.
• Providing waste/extra produce to area Food Banks and Gleaning/Harvest groups.
• Recycling of waste wood products and materials with Grounds for their use as mulch.

As the graph below indicates there has been a steady loss of acreage available to support agriculture. The decrease is the cumulative affect of additional buildings and facilities, departmental research projects, and environmental requirements and setbacks. The total animal population on South Campus farms currently classifies MSU as a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO). This requires the livestock facilities, Pavilion, CVM Veterinary Research Farm to operate under additional restrictions.

Figure 63 Cumulative Research Support Acres

The amount of total phosphorus in soils on some acreage of the farms has become elevated and has led to the need to limit spreading of animal manure to fields with lower soil test levels. As an earlier graph (p.65) notes, manure generation has not decreased during the same period. Thus MSU has expanded approaches to handle the manure through an expanded composting facility at the Dairy Cattle facility and research into use of anaerobic digesters that might assist in producing alternative energy for parts of campus from a combination of other manure, food waste from residence hall cafeterias, and other potential biomass.

Figure 64 Cumulative Spreadable Acres

Back to Top

Rationale for Indicators - While people need to move to and about campus, how we do matters. From the cost of vehicles and fuel to the release of greenhouse gases and safety, the impacts can be many. Likewise, how we move can have benefits for human health, increase social capital, and enrich our knowledge and appreciation of the places we work, study and visit.

How are we doing? - MSU is home to many vehicles, both those the university owns and those that bring faculty and staff from home to campus. Motor Pool vehicle numbers have declined 22% since 2001-02, while departmental vehicles are currently 3% lower than 2001-02. Most of the decline has been in ownership of sedans and station wagons, which fell 64% over that period while ownership of vans and trucks has 6%.

Figure 65 Total University Vehicles

The average length of trips for motor pool vehicles varies greatly but has dropped slightly (less than 1%) between 2000-01 and 2005-06. What we don’t have available at this time are figures on passenger miles, perhaps a more sustainable measure than vehicle miles. If more people are in the vehicles, the passenger miles decrease for the same amount of fuel.

Figure 66 Average Length of Trip for Motor Pool

Fuel pumped on campus, for Motor Pool vehicles and Departmental vehicles, increased by 3% between 2000-01 and 2005-06. Data on fuel purchased off-campus is not easily accessible at this time.

Figure 67 Service Garage Fuel Pumped

More and more students and employees are taking the bus to and from campus. CATA off-campus ridership grew by 80% between 2001-02 and 2005-06. One likely reason is the growth of apartment complexes north of campus that now offer free bus passes to residents. Ridership has also increased on campus almost 53% during the same period. Given that MSU’s campus covers 5,200 acres, mass transit is an important option on-campus as well as off. CATA has also purchased both hybrid electric buses and low-emission vehicles for its fleet since the last report.

Figure 68 Public Transportation Ridership On- and Off- Campus

Parking permits are still the chief measure of how many vehicles come to campus. Student permits have declined 6% between 2002 and 2005. It should be noted that many more students bring their unregistered cars to campus, especially after 6:00pm when many lots are open and do not require permits.

Employee permits are done on both one-year and two-year schedules. Combining 2002 with 2003 and 2004 with 2005, we see an 8% decline in employee vehicle registration. One cause of that decline could be that some people who have registered two vehicles in the past have discontinued that practice, or that we have fewer employees.

Just as we realize that not all student vehicles are registered with DPPS, we recognize that not all bicycles are registered. Nonetheless we have seen a significant 75% increase in bicycle registrations between 2002 and 2005.

Figure 69 Vehicle and Bicycle Permits

Another good sign is the decline in traffic accidents. This is in part a response to efforts from the 2020 Vision Master Plan to redesign intersections and other more frequent accident sites with safer designs - reducing parking on West Circle being just one example.

Figure 70 On Campus Traffic Accidents

Most members of the community don’t think much about the travel we do off campus, and most likely don’t think about the impacts of air travel. Air travel is estimated to account for 1.6% of global CO2, but those releases have two to four times the impact given their release at high altitudes. Not only did we spend more than $8 million on air travel, but we made a record number of trips in the 2005-06 fiscal year. This follows a sharp decline that resulted after the September 11, 2001 disaster; travel decreased by 17% the following year. Since the low point of 2001-02, air travel has increased 17%, with most of that increase coming from domestic air travel. In fact, international travel by faculty and staff decreased 5% since 2001-02.

Figure 71 Air Travel

The most frequent destination is Washington DC, accounting for 7% of all domestic flights. Chicago, Boston and Atlanta were a distant 2nd, 3rd and 4th respectively, with each less than half the number of flights as Washington.

Figure 72 Top Five Domestic Air Travel Destinations (2004-2006)

London and Beijing were most popular international destinations in 2005-06. MSU’s expanding program development with China clearly has been the primary driver of the Beijing connection increase.

Figure 73 Top Five International Air Travel Destinations (2004-2006)

Back to Top