Report No. CSS02-04 April 2002
Sustainability Assessment and Reporting for the University of Michigan's Ann Arbor Campus
Sandra I. Rodriguez, Matthew S. Roman, Samantha C. Sturhahn & Elizabeth H. Terry
Sustainability Assessment and Reporting for the University of Michigan's Ann Arbor Campus
By:
Sandra I. Rodriguez Matthew S. Roman Samantha C. Sturhahn Elizabeth H. Terry
A project submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Natural Resources and Environment)
University of Michigan Ann Arbor
April, 2002
Faculty Advisors: Professor Jonathan W. Bulkley Associate Research Scientist Gregory A. Keoleian
A report of the Center for Sustainable Systems Report No. CSS02-04 Document Description
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN'S ANN ARBOR CAMPUS Sandra I. Rodriguez, Matthew S. Roman, Samantha C. Sturhahn & Elizabeth H. Terry Center for Sustainable Systems, Report No. CSS02-04 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan April, 2002 415 pp., tables, figures, 48 appendices
This document is available online at: http://css.snre.umich.edu
Center for Sustainable Systems School of Natural Resources and Environment University of Michigan 440 Church Street, Dana Building Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1041 Phone: 734-764-1412 Fax: 734-647-5841 Email: [email protected] Web: http://css.snre.umich.edu
© Copyright 2002 by the Regents of the University of Michigan The University of Michigan Sustainability Assessment and Reporting Team would like to recognize the invaluable guidance of Dr. Jonathan W. Bulkley and Dr. Gregory A. Keoleian (Center for Sustainable Systems), without whose support this project would not have been possible.
In addition, we would also like to thank our client, the University of Michigan Facilities and Operations, and specifically the project liaison, Occupational Safety and Environmental Health Department (OSEH), represented by Mr. Andrew Berki and Mr. Terry Alexander, for enabling us to access the vast resources of the University.
Sandra Rodriguez Matt Roman Samantha Sturhahn Elizabeth Terry
iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared in close collaboration with the following departments at the University of Michigan:
University of Michigan Departments Consulted Bentley Historical Library M-Stores - Central Stores Central Power Plant M-Stores - Food Stores Department of Public Safety Nichols Arboretum Dining Services Office of Budget and Planning Division of Research Development and Administration Office of Gift Administration Edward Ginsberg Center for Community Service and Learning Office of Government Relations Facilities and Operations Office of the Registrar Financial Operations Plant Fund Plant Landscape Financial Reporting Office Printing Services Grounds and Waste Management Services Property Disposition Human Resources and Affirmative Action State Outreach Office Intercollegiate Athletics Transportation Services Investment Office UM Health Services Waste Management and Recycling LS&A Environmental Studies Program U-M Press Marketing Communications University Employee Relations and Compensation Matthei Botanical Gardens Utilities and Plant Operations
The following members of our Steering Committee provided invaluable assistance in the form of several peer reviews during the course of this project:
Sustainability Assessment and Report Master's Project Steering Committee Name Organization Name Organization Terry Alexander Facilities & Operations, Greg Keoleian Center for Sustainable University of Michigan Systems, University of Michigan Andy Berki Facili ties & Operations, Chris Kolb State Representative, 53rd University of Michigan District Laura Berry Emissions Lab, US Jaymie Meliker University of Michigan Environmental Protection Student (PhD) Agency Jonathan Bulkley Center for Sustainable Scott Noesen The Dow Chemical Company Systems, University of Michigan Rob Frederick Corporate Governance, Ford Barbara Stanton Former Detroit Free Press Motor Company Editorial Writer Robert Gray Associate Dean - School of Bill Verge Purchased Utilities, Public Health, University of University of Michigan Michigan Julian Keniry Campus Ecology Program, National Wildlife Federation
Finally, the Center for Sustainable Systems, the Wege Foundation, and the Department of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH) all provided guidance and financial support throughout this project.
iv ABSTRACT
This project assesses the sustainability of the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor campus (U-M AA). Objectives are to propose a definition of sustainability and a framework for assessment tailored to the U-M AA, to use the framework to evaluate a set of sustainability indicators, to highlight findings in a Prototype Sustainability Report, and to provide recommendations for an institutionalized reporting process.
The assessment framework utilizes the “triple bottom line” concept, which recognizes environmental, social and economic spheres of sustainability. Each sphere is divided into categories and further into indicators. Environmental categories ranged from water use to greenhouse gas emissions, social categories from wages to community development and financial categories from revenues to investment policies. A total of fifty indicators are presented, including twenty-five environmental, twenty social, and five economic. Certain indicators are normalized into metrics in order to account for the growth of the campus. Geographic boundaries delineate activities that occur within the U-M AA system, including education, research, medical care, housing, food service, recreation, arts and community development. Temporal boundaries define the time period for study as 1990 plus 1995 through 2001. Life cycle analysis is used for certain indicators to measure upstream and downstream impacts. Data gathering and analysis were conducted in close collaboration with over thirty U-M AA departments.
Results show both positive and negative trends and provide a baseline for setting short- and long-term goals. This study recommends that the U-M AA institutionalize annual sustainability assessment and reporting to enhance its position as a leading educational institution. Challenges encountered during this study generated other recommendations, including commitment from University leadership to champion the process, wider involvement of internal and external stakeholders in framework and indicator refinement, and the creation of a centralized sustainability assessment entity.
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction...... 1 1.1 What is Sustainability? ...... 2 1.2 Why is Sustainability Important? ...... 3 1.3 Moving Toward Sustainability ...... 6 1.4 Project Objectives ...... 12 1.5 History of Sustainability at the University of Michigan...... 13 1.5.1 Energy...... 15 1.5.2 Faculty and Education...... 16 1.5.3 Joint degree programs...... 16 1.5.4 Transportation...... 17 1.5.5 Pollution Prevention/ Waste Minimization/ Recycling ...... 17 1.5.6 De-icing/Anti-icing initiatives ...... 18 1.5.7 Center for Sustainable Systems (CSS)...... 19 1.5.8 Students’ and other campus initiatives ...... 19 1.5.9 Internationally relevant events...... 20 2 Methods ...... 21 2.1 Definition of System...... 21 2.2 Profile of the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor ...... 22 2.2.1 Geographical Extent...... 22 2.2.2 Campus Demographics ...... 23 2.2.3 Academic Units...... 24 2.2.4 Research Activities ...... 24 2.2.5 Housing...... 25 2.2.6 Athletics ...... 25 2.2.7 Hospital System ...... 26 2.3 Framework ...... 26 2.4 Methodology...... 28 2.4.1 Developing a Working Definition of Sustainability for the University of Michigan 30 2.4.2 Indicator Selection ...... 31 2.4.3 Data Gathering...... 33 2.4.4 Data Analysis...... 34 2.4.5 Data Verification...... 34 3 Environmental Indicators...... 35 3.1 Energy...... 35 3.1.1 Indicators...... 35 3.1.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice ...... 35 3.1.3 Context within U-M AA ...... 38 3.1.4 Methodology...... 38 3.1.5 Results and Discussion ...... 44 3.2 Materials consumed ...... 51 3.2.1 Paper use ...... 52
vi 3.2.2 Pesticide Use...... 61 3.2.3 Fertilizer Use...... 68 3.3 Water use ...... 71 3.3.1 Indicators...... 71 3.3.2 Description of Indicator and Rationale for Choice...... 71 3.3.3 Context within University of Michigan ...... 72 3.3.4 Methodology...... 73 3.3.5 Results and Discussion ...... 74 3.4 Food Consumption...... 78 3.4.1 Indicators...... 78 3.4.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice ...... 78 3.4.3 Context within the U-M AA System ...... 81 3.4.4 Methodology...... 82 3.4.5 Results and Discussion ...... 85 3.5 Land and Vegetation...... 88 3.5.1 Indicator ...... 88 3.5.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice ...... 88 3.5.3 Context at U-M AA ...... 89 3.5.4 Methodology...... 89 3.5.5 Results...... 90 3.6 Air Emissions...... 93 3.6.1 Indicators...... 93 3.6.2 Definition of Indicators and Rationale for Choice...... 93 3.6.3 Methodology...... 96 3.6.4 Results and Discussion: ...... 100 3.7 Effluents...... 105 3.7.1 Indicator ...... 105 3.7.2 Description of Indicator and Rationale for Choice...... 105 3.7.3 Context at U-M AA ...... 106 3.7.4 Methodology...... 106 3.7.5 Results...... 107 3.8 Solid Waste...... 109 3.8.1 Indicator ...... 109 3.8.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice ...... 109 3.8.3 Context within the U-M AA System ...... 110 3.8.4 Methodology...... 112 3.8.5 Results and Discussion ...... 114 3.9 Hazardous Waste ...... 118 3.9.1 Indicator ...... 118 3.9.2 Description of Indicator and Rationale for Choice...... 118 3.9.3 Context at U-M AA ...... 118 3.9.4 Methodology...... 120 3.9.5 Results and Discussion ...... 121 4 Social Indicators ...... 124 4.1 Quality of Management ...... 124 4.1.1 Indicators...... 124
vii 4.1.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice ...... 124 4.1.3 Context within U-M AA ...... 124 4.1.4 Methodology...... 125 4.1.5 Results and Discussion ...... 125 4.2 Wages and Benefits Category...... 126 4.2.1 Indicator ...... 126 4.2.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice ...... 126 4.2.3 Context at U-M AA ...... 126 4.2.4 Methodology...... 127 4.2.5 Results...... 127 4.3 Health and Safety Category ...... 131 4.3.1 Indicator ...... 131 4.3.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice ...... 131 4.3.3 Context at U-M AA ...... 131 4.3.4 Methodology...... 131 4.3.5 Results and Discussion ...... 132 4.4 Training for Faculty and Staff...... 138 4.4.1 Indicator ...... 138 4.4.2 Indicator Description and Rationale for Choice ...... 138 4.4.3 Methodology...... 138 4.4.4 Results and Discussion ...... 138 4.5 Freedom of Association ...... 142 4.5.1 Indicator ...... 142 4.5.2 Definition and Rationale for Choice...... 142 4.5.3 Context within U-M AA ...... 142 4.5.4 Methodology...... 142 4.5.5 Results and Discussion ...... 143 4.6 Non-discrimination ...... 145 4.6.1 Indicators...... 145 4.6.2 Definition of Indicator and Rationale for Choice ...... 145 4.6.3 Context at U-M AA ...... 146 4.6.4 Methodology...... 147 4.6.5 Results and Discussion ...... 148 4.7 Community Development...... 163 4.7.1 Indicators...... 163 4.7.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice ...... 163 4.7.3 Context within U-M AA System ...... 163 4.7.4 Methodology...... 164 4.7.5 Results and Discussion ...... 167 4.8 Sustainability in Education ...... 171 4.8.1 Indicators...... 171 4.8.2 Description of Indicator and Rationale for Choice...... 171 4.8.3 Context within U-M AA System ...... 172 4.8.4 Methodology...... 173 4.8.5 Results and Discussion ...... 176 5 Economic Indicators ...... 181
viii 5.1 Investments ...... 181 5.1.1 Indicators...... 181 5.1.2 Description of Indicator and Rationale for Choice...... 181 5.1.3 Context at U-M AA ...... 181 5.1.4 Methodology...... 183 5.1.5 Results and Discussion ...... 183 5.2 University Revenues and Expenses ...... 185 5.2.1 Indicators...... 185 5.2.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice ...... 185 5.2.3 Methodology...... 185 5.2.4 Results and Discussion ...... 187 6 Recommendations...... 190 6.1 Things that U-M AA can do now ...... 190 6.1.1 Ensure leadership participation...... 190 6.1.2 Set short-term and long-term goals...... 191 6.1.3 Publish a first sustainability report…soon...... 192 6.2 Getting ready for tomorrow ...... 193 6.2.1 Coordinate data gathering...... 193 6.2.2 Create a Sustainability Board of Advisors for U-M AA...... 194 6.2.3 Get involved in national and international campus sustainability initiatives 194 6.3 Keeping the process alive ...... 194 6.3.1 Refine framework and indicators on an ongoing basis...... 195 6.3.2 Emphasize the development of leading as well as lagging indicators...... 195 6.3.3 Enhance in-depth analysis...... 195 7 Conclusion ...... 197 8 References ...... 199 9 Appendices ...... 220 APPENDIX A - U-M AA Building List (FY 2000)...... 220 APPENDIX B - Historical Energy Data...... 225 APPENDIX C - Fleet Fuel Economy and Emission Factors...... 226 APPENDIX D - Energy and Emissions Graph Data ...... 237 APPENDIX E - Fuel Cycle Energy and Emission Factors...... 239 APPENDIX F - Conversion factors...... 243 APPENDIX G - Key GREET 1.5a Input Assumptions...... 244 APPENDIX H - Determination of 1990 Fleet Vehicle Mileage...... 252 APPENDIX I - Water Use ...... 255 APPENDIX J - Regional Water Use in 1995 ...... 257 APPENDIX K : Materials Consumed - Estimated Total Paper Use ...... 258 APPENDIX L : Materials Consumed - Paper Purchases Through M-Stores...... 260 APPENDIX M : Materials Consumed - Summary of Total Pesticide Applications ..... 261 APPENDIX M-1 : Materials Consumed - Pesticide Applications – Grounds...... 262 APPENDIX M-2 : Materials Consumed - Pesticide Applications - Athletics (not including golf courses)...... 280 APPENDIX M-3 : Materials Consumed - Pesticide Applications - Radrick Farms Golf Course ...... 283
ix APPENDIX M-4 : Materials Consumed - Pesticide Applications - Blue Golf Course. 294 APPENDIX M-5 : Materials Consumed - Pesticide Applications – Arboretum...... 300 APPENDIX M-6 : Materials Consumed - Pesticide Applications – Matthei...... 303 APPENDIX M-7 : Materials Consumed - Pesticide Product Information Summary Sheet ...... 305 APPENDIX N : Materials Consumed - Fertilizer Totals...... 308 APPENDIX N-1 : Materials Consumed - Fertilizer Use - Radrick Farms Golf Course ... 1 APPENDIX N-2 : Materials Consumed - Fertilizer Use - Blue Golf Course ...... 312 APPENDIX N-3 : Materials Consumed - Fertilizer Use - Athletics (not including golf courses) ...... 314 APPENDIX O-1 : Food Consumption - Meat, Grains, Legumes Totals and Overall Summary Data ...... 316 APPENDIX O-2 : Food Consumption - Produce Data - 6-Month Quantity ...... 328 APPENDIX P-1 : Food Consumption - Ecological Footprint Summary ...... 359 APPENDIX P-2 : Food Consumption - Ecological Footprint Calculation for 2001 (including Produce)...... 360 APPENDIX Q : Solid Waste Generated (Recycled and Disposed Of) ...... 363 APPENDIX Q-1 : Solid Waste Generated (Recycled and Disposed Of) - Hospital only ...... 365 APPENDIX R - Hazardous Waste Key...... 366 APPENDIX S - Emission factors by source...... 367 APPENDIX T - Global Warming Potentials ...... 371 APPENDIX U - U-M AA Land Area...... 372 APPENDIX V - Wages and Benefits...... 376 APPENDIX W - U- M AA Salary Schedule ...... 378 APPENDIX X - U-M AA Health and Safety ...... 379 APPENDIX Y Total Faculty Headcount ...... 380 APPENDIX Z : Non-Discrimination...... 386 APPENDIX AA : Non-Discrimination - Student Demographics...... 387 APPENDIX AB : Non-Discrimination - Degrees by Ethnicity...... 388 APPENDIX AC : Graduation Rates ...... 389 APPENDIX AD : Education Attainment US Census 2000...... 390 APPENDIX AE : Community Development - Student Contributions ...... 391 APPENDIX AF : Community Development - Faculty and Staff Contributions...... 392 APPENDIX AG : Sustainability in Education - Enrollment in Key Undergraduate Sustainability Classes...... 393 APPENDIX AH : Sustainability in Education - Undergrad and Grad Courses Addressing Sustainability Concepts...... 394 APPENDIX AI : Sustainability in Education - Research Dollars Devoted to Sustainability Research at U-M AA ...... 399 10 Prototype Sustainability Report ……...back of document
x TABLE OF INDICATORS
Indicator 1 Percentage of on-site energy consumption by category ...... 45 Indicator 2 Total electricity used (separated by purchased vs. self-generated) ...... 46 Indicator 3 Total on-site energy consumed by key activities (electricity & heating/cooling only) ...... 46 Indicator 4 Total on-site energy consumed separated by renewable and non-renewable feedstock...... 47 Indicator 5 Transportation energy by non-fleet, private/commuting vehicles...... 49 Indicator 6 Total fuel cycle energy consumed, separated by renewable and non-renewable feedstocks...... 49 Indicator 7 Total fuel cycle energy vs. on-site energy consumption (electricity & heating/cooling only)...... 50 Indicator 8 On-site transportation energy separated by renewable and non-renewable feedstock ...... 50 Indicator 9 Total paper purchased through M-Stores, including recycled-content and chlorine-free paper...... 58 Indicator 10 Total Paper Consumption at U-M AA (Estimated)...... 59 Indicator 11 Total Liquid and Solid Pesticide Applied, by EPA Toxicity Ranking and PAN Bad Actor Classification ...... 66 Indicator 12 Total Fertilizer Nutrients Applied, Calendar Year 1999 - 2001...... 70 Indicator 13 Total U-M AA water use per day...... 75 Indicator 14 Total Quantity of Food Purchased through M-Stores by Key Category (Excludes all food purchased from facilities not supplied by M-Stores)...... 86 Indicator 15 Total Quantity of Organic Food Purchased through M-Stores...... 87 Indicator 16 Ecological Footprint of Food Purchased through M-Stores...... 87 Indicator 17 Total land area...... 90 Indicator 18 Total amount of flora, separated into native and non-native species...... 91 Indicator 19 On-site GHG emissions (includes CO2, N2O, CH4) ...... 100 Indicator 20 Total fuel cycle GHG emissions (includes CO2, N20, CH4)...... 102 Indicator 21 On-site emissions of criteria pollutants (electricity and heating/cooling only) ...... 103 Indicator 22 Emissions of toxic and carcinogenic substances to air...... 104 Indicator 23 Available effluent data for fiscal year 2001 ...... 107 Indicator 24 Total Solid Waste Generated (Disposed Of and Recycled) – Hospital data not available prior to 1999...... 114 Indicator 25 Hazardous waste generation, 1999...... 121 Indicator 26 Employee retention rates...... 125 Indicator 27 Evidence of student/employee orientation to organizational vision...... 125 Indicator 28 Evidence of student/employee engagement in shaping management decision making...... 125 Indicator 29 Ranking of the organization as an employer in internal and external surveys ...... 125 Indicator 30 Job satisfaction levels...... 125 Indicator 31 Wage Distribution at U-M AA, in 2001$...... 128 Indicator 32 Local cost of living in Ann Arbor ...... 130 Indicator 33 Number of injuries to U-M AA employees while working reported per year...... 133 Indicator 34 Number of crimes reported to U-M AA Department of Public Safety (DPS) by violation type...134 Indicator 35 Ratio of budget assigned for training to annual operational costs...... 138 Indicator 36 Number by type of legal actions related to antiunion practices...... 143 Indicator 37 Percentage of women and ethnicities in senior executive, administrative and tenure-track positions ...... 151 Indicator 38 Enrollment in undergraduate and graduate programs by gender, ethnicities and income level ....155 Indicator 39 Graduation rate by gender, ethnicity and income level from graduate and undergraduate programs ...... 160 Indicator 40 Undergraduate and graduate tuition costs vs. equality of access to financial aid...... 160 Indicator 41 Student Contributions to Community Development ...... 168 Indicator 42 Faculty and Staff Contributions to the Community Development ...... 169 Indicator 43 Enrollment in Key Undergraduate Sustainability Courses...... 177 Indicator 44 Percent of Undergraduate and Graduate Classes That Address Sustainability Issues...... 178 Indicator 45 Sustainability Research Awards as Portion of Total Research Awards, Per Fiscal Year...... 179 Indicator 46 Presence or absence of investment policies related to sustainability...... 183 Indicator 47 Total Revenues by Source (includes Flint, Dearborn, healthcare subsidiaries, wholly owned subsidiaries)...... 187
xi Indicator 48 Percentage of total revenue by source...... 188 Indicator 49 Total expenditures by destination (includes Flint, Dearborn, healthcare subsidiaries, wholly owned subsidiaries)...... 188 Indicator 50 Percentage of total expenditures by destination ...... 189
TABLE OF METRICS
Metric 1 On-site energy consumed per capita ...... 48 Metric 2 Per capita paper purchased through M-Stores...... 58 Metric 3 Per capita paper consumption at U-M AA (estimated) ...... 60 Metric 4 Daily Water Use per capita ...... 75 Metric 5 Daily water use per square foot building space...... 76 Metric 6 On-site GHG emissions per capita (includes CO2, N20, CH4) ...... 101 Metric 7 On-site GHG emissions per square foot building space (includes CO2, N20, CH4)...... 102 Metric 8 Per Capita Solid Waste Generated (Disposed Of and Recycled)...... 116 Metric 9 Normalized Hazardous Waste Generated by U-M AA in 1999...... 122 Metric 10 Crimes Normalized Per Capita ...... 135
xii 1 INTRODUCTION
Founded in Detroit in 1817 and relocated to Ann Arbor in 1837, the University of Michigan (U-M) is an internationally renowned research and educational institution that offers an outstanding education at the undergraduate and graduate levels. The U-M attracts top students and faculty from around the world. Its overall undergraduate program has been ranked #25 in the nation, and #3 among public institutions (U.S. News & World Report 2000a). Many of its professional programs are regularly ranked in the top 10 nationally, including Business, Education, Engineering, Law, Medicine and Social Work (U.S. News & World Report 2000b, 2001). U-M also has exceptionally highly respected graduate programs including Classical Studies, Creative Writing, History, Philosophy, French, Geology, Mathematics, Microbiology, Pharmacology/ Toxicology, Anthropology, Archaeology, Political Science, Psychology, School of Natural Resources and Environment, School of Public Health, School of Social Work, Sociology, and Music.
In addition to its education and research activities, the U-M’s principal Ann Arbor campus and two smaller campuses in Flint and Dearborn support a wide variety of related activities, including recreation, health care, housing, food service, and community development. The U-M’s Short Mission Statement reads:
The mission of the University of Michigan is to serve the people of Michigan and the world through preeminence in creating, communicating, preserving and applying knowledge, art, and academic values, and in developing leaders and citizens who will challenge the present and enrich the future. (University of Michigan 2002a)
The University also has a much longer Mission Statement, which articulates its goals. The following is an excerpt:
Any discussion of the role of a modern complex university must recognize that such an institution has at least three vital missions. The first of these is to educate students in the light of certain general educational goals. The second is the preservation and refinement of knowledge already acquired, along with the production, dissemination, and utilization of new knowledge. The third role of the modern university is that of helping to define and assist in the solution of the problems of society. (University of Michigan 2002b)
The primary goal of the U-M is to fulfill its stated mission. Increasingly, however, it has recognized as a priority the need to do so in a way that is sustainable.
Developed with the invaluable assistance of over 30 departments within the U-M and the peer review of a diverse group of external stakeholders, this report introduces a framework and indicators for assessing the “triple bottom line” sustainability of the U-M, and presents a first assessment of the U-M’s historical and recent performance.
1 1.1 What is Sustainability? The U.N.-appointed World Commission on Environment and Development, known as the Brundtland Commission after chair and Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, published Our Common Future in 1987. In this report, the Commission offered one of the first definitions of sustainable development as “…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). In the decade following the publication of the Brundtland Report, over 100 alternate, more detailed definitions of the sustainable development, and the related term sustainability, were proposed (Elkington 2002, Murcott 1997)1. This proliferation was not only a reflection of the complexity of defining sustainability for a wide variety of actors, from individuals to communities to organizations, but also signaled a mounting concern over the deteriorating health of natural and social systems and a growing recognition of the economic benefits of sustainability.
Although they may differ in scope depending upon whether they are designed for individuals, companies, or national governments, most definitions of sustainability share the same foundation. This foundation consists of three fundamental premises:
1. Continued development depends upon the availability of critical inputs. This dependence can be either direct or indirect. These inputs fall into one of four categories (Gladwin 2001):
S Ecological – renewable resources, such as food and timber, and services, such as protection from ultraviolet solar radiation, water filtration by wetlands, and many other services (Ecological Society of America 1997)2, which are provided by healthy natural ecosystems. In a 1997 article in the journal Nature, Robert Costanza et al estimated the annual economic value provided by ecological systems and the natural capital stocks that produce them to be approximately US$33 trillion at a minimum (compared to a 1997 global gross national product totaling US$18 trillion). Most of the value provided by such services exists outside current economic markets (Costanza et al 1997). S Material – non-renewable resources S Human – knowledge and the means, including income, health, human rights (United Nations 1948)3, freedom (Sen 1999)4, and opportunity, to apply that knowledge
1 For an extensive list of definitions of sustainable development, see Susan Murcott, Appendix A: Definitions of Sustainable Development, presentation at Sustainability Indicators Symposium, 1997. Accessible at
2 S Social – trust, reciprocity norms, equity, and other conditions that permit coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit
2. That there are limits to the availability of finite material resources and to the regenerative capacity, or carrying capacity, of ecological resources
3. Ecological, social, and economic systems are interdependent complex systems. As such, they are heterogeneous, dynamic, non-linear, and adaptive groupings of agents whose actions have impacts within each of the three realms (Center for the Study of Complex Systems 2002).
Building on the foundation of these shared premises, most definitions of sustainability agree that sustainability, regardless of what entity is considered, involves two critical elements (Sustainable Measures 1998):
S Ensuring that there are sufficient supplies of the ecological, material, human, and social resources necessary to allow humans to meet basic needs and to support continued development, and
S Ensuring that access to this sufficient supply of resources is equitable both intergenerationally (among all members of the current generation) and intragenerationally (between this and future generations) (Sen and Anand 1994).
1.2 Why is Sustainability Important? The importance of sustainability can be defined in two ways. First, sustainability can be seen as a necessity in order to avoid the costs of deteriorating social, environmental, and economic systems. Second, sustainability can be seen as a source of new opportunities to improve the rate and extent of human development.
Sustainability as a Necessity- Beginning with Thomas Malthus’ seminal Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798, and continuing with Meadows’ et al’s 1972 Limits to Growth, scientists have long warned of the dangers of unconstrained expansion of human consumption. International leaders convened for the first time around the issues of global environmental and development needs at the U.N. Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972 (Earth Summit 2002). Two years later, Lester Brown founded the Worldwatch Institute, now publishers of the annual State of the World publication, in an effort to increase access to information about emerging environmental problems. Today, countless publications and websites chronicle the ways in which human society is failing to abide by the sustainability postulates outlined above, and thus risking the health of the global ecosystems and life-supporting natural services upon which it depends. While debate over
participation in trade and production) can help to generate personal abundance as well as public resources for social facilities. All of these freedoms strengthen each other.” Amartya Sen, "Economics and the value of freedom," Civilization: The Magazine of the Library of Congess (June/July 1999), p. 84, Quoted in Business and Human Rights in a Time of Change (Christopher L. Avery, Nov. 1999), published by Amnesty International UK, < http://www.business-humanrights.org/Avery-Report.htm>, accessed 1-27-02.
3 the extent and risk of these failings occurs, most scientists and experts agree upon a number of core challenges to the health of environmental and social systems (EPA 1990, Elkington 2001). The list below is derived in part from a national risk ranking exercise undertaken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
Figure 1-1 World energy consumption by fuel type
S Global climate change: The atmospheric concentrations of key anthropogenic greenhouse gases (i.e., carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and tropospheric ozone (O3)) reached their highest recorded levels in the 1990s, primarily due to the combustion of fossil fuels (see Figure 1), agriculture, and land- use changes (UNEP 2001). Projected concentrations of CO2 in the year 2100 range from 540 to 970 parts per million (ppm), compared to about 280 ppm in the pre- industrial era and about 368 ppm in the year 2000 (UNEP 2001). While the effects of increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases are complex to predict, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has forecasted that global mean temperatures will increase from 1.4 to 5.8 degrees centigrade, with average predictions in the neighborhood of 2.5 degrees centigrade (IPCC 2001a). Further, it is predicted that global warming will cause a 50 cm rise in sea level that risks displacing millions of people in low-lying delta areas and small island states, a shift in agricultural production zones that risks reducing production capabilities in the tropics where food deficiencies already exist, and an increase in the frequency of severe weather events (UNEP 1997). S Habitat destruction, species extinction, and loss of biological diversity: Over 90% of the original vegetation in the world’s 25 most diverse regions, or hotspots, has been lost (Conservation International 2002). Habitat destruction and overuse of resources has also led to shrinking amounts of productive cropland and collapsing fisheries around the world. S Stratospheric ozone depletion: Without the blocking effect of stratospheric ozone, ultraviolet radiation (UV-B) can enter the Earth’s atmosphere. UV-B radiation has adverse human health effects, and can disrupt natural ecosystems. Following the phase-out of CFCs in industrialized countries mandated by the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete The Ozone Layer, much progress has been
4 made in repairing the hole in the ozone layer. However, production in many developing countries remains a concern (UNEP 1997).
Figure 1-2 Estimated and projected population of the world, 1950-2050
S Population growth: The world’s human population reached 6.1 billion in mid-2000 and is currently growing at approximately 1.2% per year. Six countries account for roughly half of this annual growth: India (21%), China (12%), Pakistan (5%), Nigeria (4%), Bangladesh (4%), and Indonesia (3%). The United Nations Population Division estimates that by 2050, world population will register between 7.9 billion (low variant) and 10.9 billion (high variant), with the mean projection of 9.3 billion (UNEP 2001). By 2025, the total population living in urban areas is projected to double to more than 5 billion people, putting increasing pressure on urban resources. 90% of this increase is expected to occur in urban areas within developing countries (UNEP 1997). S Access to fresh water: Underground water tables are falling in many areas as withdrawal rates exceed rates of recharge. Under China’s agricultural plain, which produces around 40% of the country’s grain, the water table is falling by 5 feet per year. Nearly one sixth of the world’s population lack access to improved water sources (UNDP 2001). S Human health: Over one third of the world’s population lacks access to basic sanitation. This and other health problems are concentrated predominantly in the developing world (UNDP 2001). S Increasing inequity in income distribution and education: Of the 4.6 billion people in developing countries, 1.2 billion live on less than $1 a day, 2.8 billion live
5 on less than $2 a day, and 854 million adults are illiterate, over half of them women (UNDP 2001).
Many of these same problems exist at regional levels as well. In the state of Michigan:
S Over 5 acres of open space and farmland in Michigan are converted to suburban and urban development every hour. Half of the state’s wetlands have been destroyed, and between 1982 and 1992, over 12,000 farms were lost (Michigan Environmental Council 2002). S The total amount of hazardous waste imported into Michigan more than doubled between 1992 and 1999, and in 1999, Michigan was a net importer of hazardous waste (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 2001). S As of 1998, levels of contaminants in all of the Great Lakes were above safe levels, making fish consumption unsafe for any wildlife (U.S. EPA 2002). S Michigan’s total consumption of energy ranked as the 9th highest in the United States in 1999, and the state’s use of coal also ranked as the 9th highest in the United States in 1999 (Energy Information Administration 1999).
Sustainability as a Source of Benefits In addition to the life-supporting services provided by healthy environmental, social, and economic systems, many advocates of sustainable development, including a growing number of multinational corporations, recognize that pursuing sustainability leads to the identification of vast new opportunities to create value. Often referred to collectively as the “business case for sustainability”, these opportunities include:
S Cost savings due to dramatically improved efficiency S Risk reduction S Identification of new markets for new products and services S Enhanced reputation, leading to improved customer acquisition and retention and improved access to financial markets
1.3 Moving Toward Sustainability As discussion of the definition of sustainability continues and evidence mounts that sustainability is of critical importance to continued human prosperity, a growing number of entities ranging from individuals to organizations, institutions, corporations, and governments, have begun to define their own responsibilities toward global sustainability. Specifically, these groups are articulating more precise principles of sustainability to guide their actions and are making internal and external commitments to improve the sustainability of their operations. They are also identifying ways to assess and report on their performance against sustainability targets.
S Governments
Principles and Commitments A growing number of international conventions allow countries (as well as communities, businesses and other organizations) to publicly pledge
6 their commitment to improving their sustainability. On the 20th anniversary of the Stockholm Conference, global leaders gathered for the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. The Summit introduced Agenda 21, which both inventoried the pressing problems facing human societies and proposed strategies to prepare the world for coming challenges. Specifically, Agenda 21 called on all countries to introduce National Strategies for Sustainable Development, or NSSDs (NSSD 2002). A Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly (Rio +5) later set a target date of 2002 for NSSDs to be introduced, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) set a target date of 2005 for commencing implementation of NSSDs. The Earth Summit also introduced two binding treaties for signature, the Framework Convention on Climate Change (Climate Convention) and the Convention on Biological Diversity. In 1987, 24 countries signed on to the Montreal Protocol pledging to eliminate their use of ozone-depleting substances; today that number has risen to 175 (Elstom 2001). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was introduced at the Earth Summit in 1992. A protocol to the UNFCCC, known as the Kyoto Protocol, was adopted in December 1997. The Kyoto Protocol sets binding greenhouse gas emission objectives for every industrialized country. Overall, industrialized countries must achieve at least a 5% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2012 (International Energy Agency 2002).
Assessing and Reporting While no comprehensive national or international effort to measure progress toward sustainability has yet been undertaken, a number of organizations conduct annual assessments of various components of sustainability. The United Nations Development Program publishes an annual Human Development Report, and the Worldwatch Institute an annual State of the World Report.
S Communities
Principles and Commitments The International Coalition for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) describes itself as a movement, association, and agency composed of more than 350 cities, towns, and counties from around the world committed to building capacity for sustainable development at the local level. ICLEI also acts as an umbrella organization linking many other local and urban sustainability initiatives (ICLEI 2002).
Assessing and Reporting A number of resources exist to assist communities and urban areas in assessing and reporting on local sustainability. The Cities Environment Reports on the Internet (CEROI) Program, supported in part by the United Nations Environment Program, was developed as a resource to support Local Agenda 21 (CEROI 2002). CEROI lists 25 cities around the world that have already completed environmental reports, and provides information and resources related to sustainability reporting. The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a set of Healthy City Indicators designed to convey the environmental, economic, and social health of a city (World Health Organization 2002).
S Corporations
7 Principles and Commitments Beginning with the Principles developed by the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, standards and principles for sustainable business operations have proliferated almost as quickly as broader definitions of sustainability. Among the most well-subscribed of these standards are the United Nations’ “Global Compact” announced by secretary-general Kofi Annan at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in 1999, the Caux Principles for Business issued by the Caux Roundtable of senior business leaders from Europe, North America, and Japan in 1994, and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises re- launched in 2000 (Elkington 2001).
Assessing and Reporting In addition to adopting policies and undertaking actions to improve their sustainability, corporations are also developing tools for monitoring, assessing, and reporting their environmental and sustainability performance. In his 1997 book Cannibals with Forks, John Elkington proposed a triple bottom line against which corporations should measure the value they create and destroy. The triple bottom line framework consists of three equally-weighted categories of impact: social, environmental, and economic. Like definitions of sustainability, the triple bottom line framework is built on the recognition that business sustainability depends upon positive stocks of economic, environmental, and social resources.
Environmental Environmental Management Pollution Prevention Social - Environmental Environmental-Economic Environmental justice Eco-efficiency Environmental refugees Environmental accounting Inter-generational equity Ecological tax reform
Social Sustainability Economic Standard of Living Profit Education Research &Development Community
Economic - Social Business ethics Fair trade Human rights
Figure 1-3 Issues within the three spheres of sustainability (SustainAbility 2002)
8 While no agencies exist to regulate triple bottom line accounting in the way that the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) govern financial accounting, a framework of guidelines developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is gradually emerging as the de facto global standard for sustainability reporting. The GRI guidelines were developed by an international group of diverse stakeholders representing business, accountancy, human rights, environmental, labor, and governmental organizations. The framework consists of indicators, or specific and usually quantitative measurements of an individual type of information that can be used to track and demonstrate performance (GRI 2000).
In 2000, 50% of all Global 100 firms (the 100 largest firms listed in Fortune magazine’s Global 500) produced public global environmental reports detailing their performance. 25% of the G100 reports addressed issues relating to social equity (CSR Network 2001).
S Universities
Principles and Commitments In 1990, university leaders from around the world signed the Talloires Declaration articulating their shared, profound concern for the health of the environment and pledging their intent to lead their Universities in playing a “…major role in the education, research, policy formation, and information exchange necessary to make [environmental protection] possible” (Aper 2000) Today, over 275 university presidents and chancellors from 40 countries have signed the Declaration (Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future 2002). Specifically, the Talloires Declaration commits signatories to:
“1. Use every opportunity to raise public, government, industry, foundation, and university awareness by publicly addressing the urgent need to move toward an environmentally sustainable future. 2. Encourage all universities to engage in education, research, policy formation, and information exchange on population, environment, and development to move toward a sustainable future. 3. Establish programs to produce expertise in environmental management, sustainable economic development, population, and related fields to ensure that all university graduates are environmentally literate and responsible citizens. 4. Create programs to develop the capability of university faculty to teach environmental literacy to all undergraduate, graduate, and professional school students. 5. Set an example of environmental responsibility by establishing programs of resource conservation, recycling, and waste reduction at the universities. 6. Encourage the involvement of government (at all levels), foundations, and industry in supporting university research, education, policy formation, and
9 information exchange in environmentally sustainable development. Expand work with nongovernmental organizations to assist in finding solutions to environmental problems. 7. Convene school deans and environmental practionioners to develop research, policy, information exchange programs, and curricula for an environmentally sustainable future. 8. Establish partnerships with primary and secondary schools to help develop the capability of their faculty to teach about population, environment, and sustainable development issues. 9. Work with the U.N. Conference on Environmental and Development, the U.N. Environment Programme, and other national and international organizations to promote a worldwide university effort toward a sustainable future. 10. Establish a steering committee and a secretariat to continue this momentum and inform and support each other's efforts in carrying out this declaration.”
In late 1991, the International Association of Universities, together with several other organizations, convened the Halifax Conference as a follow-up to Talloires and a precursor to the Earth Summit planned for 1992. The Halifax Declaration that resulted from the Conference built upon many of the themes initiated in the Talloires Declaration (International Association of Universities 1991).
According to the National Wildlife Federation’s Campus Ecology Program, over 60% of the institutions of higher education in the United States demonstrate good environmental and/or sustainability practices (McIntosh et al 2000).
Assessing and Reporting According to a recent survey conducted at Western Michigan University, over 270 institutions of higher education around the world have produced campus sustainability assessments. Approximately half (130, or 48%) of these institutions produced comprehensive campus sustainability assessments, while the other half produced reports focused on one specific issue within the broader sustainability arena (Glasser 2002).
While campus sustainability reporting is still largely in its infancy, a number of resources are emerging to provide information about sustainability initiatives in educational institutions. These include:
S National Wildlife Federation’s Campus Ecology Program (http://www.nwf.org/campusecology) and guidebook to environmental issues and activities on campus S Second Nature: Education for Sustainability (http://www.secondnature.org/) S Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (http://www.ulsf.org/) S Ecodemia – a book by Julian Keniry
10 S Blueprint for a Green Campus – handbook published by Heinz Family Foundation, 1995 S International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education S Greening of the Campus Conferences held at Ball State University S Economicology Conferences
11 1.4 Project Objectives The U-M has a long history of leadership and innovation in environmental issues (see “History of Sustainability at the University of Michigan” below). The Sustainability Assessment and Reporting Masters Project team (here after referred to as the team) aimed to build on this tradition by developing at the U-M the capacity to monitor, analyze, and report on the sustainability of the campus.
Based on the experiences of other entities that have begun analyzing and reporting their performance, and on the unique characteristics of the U-M, we believe that analyzing and reporting on sustainability issues will bring a number of benefits to the U-M:
Benefits of Assessing Benefits of Reporting S Identify cost-saving efficiencies S Initiate valuable conversations with S Reduce environmental and social internal and external stakeholders risk S Educate the U-M community about S Measure results of performance sustainability issues, challenges, improvement initiatives and opportunities S Better identify and manage S Create new networks of intangible assets such as reputation, communication within the U-M brand, knowledge, etc. S Build lasting reputation for S Better evaluate the costs and transparency and credibility benefits of different forms of capital, including environmental, human, and social S Identify new opportunities for development
The overall goal of the Masters Project is to provide U-M with a starting point for assessing and reporting on the sustainability of its Ann Arbor campus. To this end, we recognize six specific objectives for the project5:
1. Propose a working definition of sustainability to guide assessment and reporting efforts on U-M’s Ann Arbor campus (here after U-M AA) 2. Develop a framework for assessing sustainability that is customized to the U-M AA 3. Apply the framework to conduct an assessment of the sustainability of the U-M AA during fiscal year 2000 (FY 2000), using historical data to provide an understanding of performance trends 4. Prepare a prototype sustainability report for the U-M AA (here after referred to as the Prototype Report). This Report is included as a special attachment at the end of this document.
5 The objectives originally introduced in the University of Michigan Sustainability and Reporting Workplan, April 2001, were modified during the course of the project to reflect new information gathered by the team about assessment and reporting processes.
12 5. Provide recommendations to inform the development of an integrated, institutionalized process for assessing and reporting on sustainability at the U-M 6. Propose goal-setting processes for U-M Facilities and Operations and the U-M Administration to facilitate the development and implementation of strategies to achieve sustainability goals
In addition, the team developed two key objectives for the Prototype Sustainability Report itself. These were to:
C Raise awareness of sustainability both internally and externally C Introduce a framework and a set of indicators that can serve as a management tool to monitor progress toward sustainability goals C Provide information to guide goal-setting and decision-making at different levels of the University of Michigan
In each of the above objectives, our efforts represent only an initial step. Sustainability assessment and reporting is a process that must undergo continuous evaluation and improvement, but an initial proposal provides a useful starting point for dialogue and baseline information against which future performance can be evaluated.
1.5 History of Sustainability at the University of Michigan The University of Michigan has undertaken numerous environmental stewardship initiatives (U-M OSEH 2001). The university currently has programs in recycling, energy conservation, building design, pollution prevention, emissions reduction, alternative-fuel vehicles, storm water management, and de-icing and anti-icing impact reduction. Although these programs are the most noticeable, throughout its history, the U-M has established initiatives that affect the social and economic sustainability of the institution.
According to Terry Alexander, director of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH), “Challenges for the future…include building on initiatives already in place, continuing to use pilot programs to test new programs, increasing the University community’s participation and integrating sustainability into the U-M decision-making process.” “…Collaboration and participation are the key”(U-M OSEH 2001). Figure 1-4 presents a chronology of select sustainability initiatives or events, in all three spheres of sustainability, at U-M.
13 Figure 1-4 Chronology of Select Sustainability Initiatives at U-M 1960 Peace Corps Concept Introduced Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy introduced the idea of a Peace Corps on the steps of the Michigan Union 1964 Center for the Education of Women Established U-M established the nation's first comprehensive, university-based women's center of its kind, with a commitment to helping women further their educational and employment goals, and a focus on research and advocacy for women. 1970 First Earth Day Celebration U-M became the national center of planning for the first Earth Day and held seminars that addressed new issues in environmental education. 1970 U-M Offers Public Transportation Options U-M began sponsoring vanpools for U-M employees that operate from six outlying communities in the 1970's. Today, U-M also provides free bus services (U-M blue busses are free to all U-M affiliated individuals; faculty and staff may elect free passes on city busses). 1973 Project Community Launched
Created by the Division of Student Affairs and the Department of Sociology, Project Community is one of the longest running, academically-accredited service-learning courses in the nation. Each year more than 600 students combine academic learning with meaningful service in the community 1987 Energy Conservation Project Account Created The ECPA self-sustaining fund pays for energy efficiency improvements in U-M buildings. In 1996, the ECPA received a DOE National Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Award. 1989 Recycling Program Launched The U-M's Recycling Program began with the collection of white office paper, newspaper and corrugated cardboard, and has now expanded to include many other materials. 1989 Solar Car Team Created U-M's Solar Car Team is a non-profit, student run organization whose purpose is to design, finance, build and race a solar powered vehicle in competitions in the US and globally. 1990 Solar Car Team Wins Races U-M's solar car, Sunrunner, won 3rd place in World Solar Challenge and 1st in the GM Sunrayce. In 1993 U-M won 1st price in the Sunrayce again. Since then, it has gone on to finish highly in many US and world competitions. 1992 Corporate Environmental Management Program launched The program provides business students the opportunity to become better informed about environmental issues and natural resources students an opportunity to achieve a greater understanding of the business world. Students take core courses in each School and in other ways intellectually connect business and the environment. 1995 Energy Fest Program Launched Energy Fest is an annual one-day event intended to educate the campus community about energy conservation measures used by the U-M. 1995 Salt Use Quality Improvement Team Established U-M's Salt Use Team researches alternate ways to melt snow and ice in conjunction with salt and sand, without jeopardizing pedestrian safety or the environment. 1998 Energy Star Program Launched U-M commits to upgrade lighting in all General Fund buildings and implementing other energy conservation measures. Under the program, approximately 25 million kWh of electricity are saved annually, enough to power about 1600 average-sized homes. 1998 Dialogues on Diversity Launched The program, intended to open a forum to discuss issues related to diversity on campus became digital in March of 2002. 1999 U-M Awarded Magna Cum Laude Standing in Energy Star Honor Society 2000 Installation of Ethanol Fuel Tank U-M has the largest active alternative-fuel vehicle fleet of any university in the country, and the 40th largest in the country. All U-M buses use bio-diesel fuel, and the overall fleet includes electric vehicles and other vehicles that use ethanol instead of gasoline. 2001 Joint Undergraduate Program on the Environment created 2001 Solar Car Wins National Championship and 3rd Place in World Solar Challenge 2002 Recycling Program Recognized by National Recycling Coalition as Best School Program in Country. 2002 The Resource Conservation Campaign in all residence halls during the winter '02 term, also known as Ecolympics, succeeds.
14 As information regarding greenhouse gas emissions has become more readily available, the University has come under increasing pressure from both internal6 and external stakeholders (George 2001)(Learner 2001). More specifically, it has been asked to commit to the Kyoto Protocol and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
1.5.1 Energy The university’s contract for purchasing energy requires buying more that 5 percent from renewable resources, exceeding the 3 percent requirement in the city of Ann Arbor’s franchise agreement (George 2001).
1.5.1.1 Energy Star-Green Lights Program In 1998, the University committed itself to participate in a five-year project, also known as Energy-Star, to audit all of its General Fund buildings and to upgrade lighting equipment without compromising lighting quality. The main strategy has been to convert from fluorescent lamps to systems with electronic ballast, from incandescent to fluorescent bulbs and to install of lighting controls such as occupancy sensors and dimming systems (U-M 2001).
The campus Energy Star program also involves conserving energy in building systems other that lighting. Buildings are being retrofitted with such energy-saving features as added insulation, occupancy sensors that reduce energy use when structures are empty and lab fume hoods with more efficient motors.
As of today, the U-M AA has completed Green Lights and Energy Star upgrades in 32 percent of campus facilities. Under the programs, the university is saving 25 million kilowatt-hours (KWh) of electricity annually, enough to power about 1,600 average-size homes.
1.5.1.2 Energy Fest Since 1995, the U-M AA has sponsored annually the Energy Fest, which is intended to educate the campus community about the energy conservation measures promoted and used by the University. University departments and outside organizations share information about how they save energy and offer tips for individual energy efficiency.
1.5.1.3 Energy Conservation Project Account In 1987, the University of Michigan established its Energy Conservation Project Account (ECPA), a self-sustaining fund reserved to pay for energy efficiency improvement in university buildings. Specific energy conservation measures have included installations of distributed computer control of heating and ventilating systems; installations of variable speed motor drives on fans and pumps; retrofits of buildings with variable air-volume
6 See Sustainable U-M below, section 1.5.8.1.
15 systems; lighting upgrades; and installation of “free cooling” systems for air-conditioning. The University established the account with an initial allocation of $2 million. Since that time, the account has received yearly fund transfers from the University’s utility account (where energy savings related to the ECPA are reflected). For several years now, the ECPA has been self-sustaining - that is, annual savings have exceeded the annual reimbursement for new projects (U-M PO 1996).
In October of 1996, U-M’s Energy Conservation Project Account received one of the Department of Energy’s National Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Awards. It was named that year’s top project in the Building Technology category involving over 225 entries. The ECPA was also listed by the National Awards Council for Environmental Sustainability in the 1997 Environmental Success Index, a database filled with successful environmental programs (U-M PO 1997). In April of 2000, the U-M was selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to appear on a list of ENERGY STAR participants to be recognized in the 1999 Honors Society at the Magna Cum Laude Level. To qualify for the 1999 Honors Society, participants were required to make significant progress toward completing the seven-year-long Energy Star commitment, to monitor baseline energy consumption data in ENERGY STAR buildings, and to submit energy consumption information to the U.S EPA (U-MPO 2000).
1.5.2 Faculty and Education The U-M has initiated programs on environmental and economic sustainability including residentially based initiatives in the undergraduate curriculum. For this purpose, the University has requested an appropriation of $25.4 million for the year 2002, which will help to create new programs as well as further to develop the existing ones. The main objective is to increase intergenerational learning among undergraduates, faculty, researchers, and graduate students, and to provide a model for interdisciplinary dialogue. “Our task is to provide the context for learning that best supports a free-ranging exploration of all the intellectual and social diversity and richness of this great University,” former Provost Nancy Cantor said (Frank 2000).
The University’s environmental sustainability initiative grew from discussions of the U-M’s advisory council on the environment, chaired by the U-M Interim President and former Business School Dean B. Joseph White. The new funds would be used for curricular initiatives and for grants for research proposals that approach the subject in an interdisciplinary way, Cantor explained.
Currently, there are hundreds of faculty on campus whose work has implications for sustainability. It is important to get them to work together across the disciplines and schools on problems of common interest, she added (Frank 2000).
1.5.3 Joint degree programs The U-M AA sponsors several dual and joint degree programs that facilitate the systems approach to the study and analysis of environmental, social and economic problems. At the graduate level, there are programs that are sponsored by the Horace Rackham School of
16 Graduate Studies as well as student-initiated dual degrees (U-M Rackham 2001) (U-M SNRE 2001). At the undergraduate level, the Literature, Science and the Arts has learning communities programs that facilitate multidisciplinary education for undergraduates which allow them to mold their major to their interests and abilities.7 The university also facilitates the completion of dual degrees and minors for undergraduate students with multiple interests.
1.5.4 Transportation The U-M has the largest active alternative-fuel vehicle fleet of any organization in the state of Michigan (Brown 2000). All U-M buses use bio-diesel fuel, and there are other vehicles that use ethanol instead of gasoline (Brown 2000). U-M also owns electric vehicles (Blank 1996).
The University of Michigan has sponsored vanpooling for its faculty and staff since the 1970’s. It currently has sixteen university vanpools operating from six different communities.8 Also, the university provides free bus services for students, faculty and staff. For its most recently purchased buses, U-M has also taken into account features that make commuter travel more convenient. In particular, the buses provide easier access on and off for commuters using wheelchairs or crutches through the use of lower floors and entry ramps (Brown 2001).
1.5.5 Pollution Prevention/ Waste Minimization/ Recycling The University, through the Department of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH), is actively working on developing programs aimed at pollution prevention (P2) and waste minimization. Activities undertaken by OSEH in recent months include the reduction of mixed-waste generation at the source, a reduction of the volume of ethidium bromide disposed as a liquid waste and the substitution of less hazardous substances for hazardous materials (U-M p2000 2001). Another pollution-prevention initiative involves working with university researchers to cut the amount of chemicals used in campus labs. The U-M has also established a program to redistribute chemicals used in research.9
Furthermore, the U-M actively engages in recycling. A prime example is the Move-Out Program, which reclaims dormitory discards at the end of the year (u-M Plant Operations 2002). In 1989, the U-M established a recycling collection program for the collection of white office paper, newspaper and corrugated cardboard. During more than ten years of operation, the program has produced steady improvement in terms of the proportion of goods actually recycled, and has encouraged of students, faculty and staff to increase recycling. U- M’s office of Grounds and Waste Management Services provides internal recycling and
7 Examples of these programs are the four-year academic learning communities as well as the cross-curricular residential learning communities. More information is available at the University of Michigan Housing Office [Internet] Available from
17 waste collection services. The department also coordinates all waste reduction and recycling education and promotion efforts on campus. In addition to collection of standard materials (mixed paper and containers), scrap metals and wood waste are recovered separately for recycling. The university also collaborates with and is a substantial contributor to Ann Arbor’s Materials Recovery Facility (U-M Plant Operations 2002).
The U-M hospitals and health centers received the Outstanding Public Recycling Program award from the nonprofit Michigan Recycling Coalition. It was honored as one of the state’s top four Recyclers of the year. In September of 2000, the Health System closed its medical waste incinerator and began installing a steam autoclave to sterilize medical waste and allow for its disposal as general waste. The effect has been to reduce air emissions and to put more emphasis on waste reduction. Furthermore, the U-M health system has adopted other innovative approaches to divert waste and excess materials from landfills, such as recycling bricks and concrete from renovation for use as roadbed materials and donating medical supplies not used by their expiration date, but still viable. Excess furniture and equipment are sent to the University Property Disposition facility for sale to the community or reuse by U-M units. The health systems is striving to meet a voluntary goal of 33 percent waste reduction from 1998 levels by the year 2005 and of 50 percent reduction by 2010, set by the American Hospital Association (AHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Gavin 2001). More recently, the National Recycling Coalition recognized U-M’s recycling program as the best school program in the country (George 2002).
1.5.6 De-icing/Anti-icing initiatives The University of Michigan is becoming more aware of the detrimental effects of salt and sand use during the winter. In 1995, U-M established the Salt Use Quality Improvement Team (Salt Use Team) to research alternate ways to melt snow and ice in conjunction with salt and sand, without jeopardizing pedestrian safety or the environment. The team has representatives from Building Services, Grounds & Waste Management, the Office of the General Counsel, Risk Management, Plant Operations, School of Natural Resources and Environment, and Occupational Safety & Environmental Health (U-M Plant Operations 2001).
Since the 1995-1996 winter season, U-M has been piloting calcium magnesium acetate in granular form, potassium acetate, magnesium chloride in granular and liquid form, and IceBan® as alternate de-icers/anti-icers. According to OSEH, the mission has been to “establish and promote best managing practices for deicing that minimize deterioration to buildings, infrastructure, and the environment without compromising safety”(U-M Plant Operations 2001). For the year 2001-2002, the U-M set a goal to create a geographic positioning system linkage to the University’s geographic information system, to assist in data acquisition and routing efficiency. They have set another goal of 50% reduction in usage of salt and abrasives, based on historical ten-year average use, by the year 2003 (U-M Plant Operations 2001).
18 1.5.7 Center for Sustainable Systems (CSS) CSS develops life cycle based models and sustainability metrics to evaluate the performance and to guide the continuous improvement of industrial systems for meeting societal needs. “We promote sustainability by developing these tools and knowledge in collaboration with diverse stakeholders so that better informed decisions are made”(CSS 2001). It is their vision that CSS and the University of Michigan will be nationally and internationally recognized for creative and effective teaching and research in systems based approaches to sustainability (CSS 2001).
1.5.8 Students’ and other campus initiatives
1.5.8.1 Sustainable U-M The "Sustainable University of Michigan" initiative is motivated by the students’ environmental concerns, and was triggered by the Sustainability-speakers series during the Winter1999 semester at the University of Michigan Business School. Several of the world- renowned speakers challenged the university to expand its leading role in the realm of environmental and social responsibility. Members of Sustainable U-M believe that the University of Michigan (U-M) should demonstrate its leadership by formally integrating a Sustainability agenda into its operations and educational practices.
Their current concerns include the future U-M President’s environmental stance, the Life Sciences Initiative, the U-M’s energy consumption and green house gas emissions, purchasing of office and cleaning supplies at U-M, building design and construction at U-M, non-car based commuting options for employees and students, and organic, non-genetically- modified and local food at U-M (Sustain U-M 2001).10
1.5.8.2 Michigan Recycles Michigan Recycles is the first ever student’s guide to recycling in Ann Arbor for UM students living off-campus. Designed, produced, and published exclusively by students, this unique guide offers valuable how-to information about setting up recycling in apartments, houses, co-ops, fraternities, and sororities. It also has information about bulk item disposal, move-out, and toxic substances. The publication is distributed to students through their landlords (U-M Michigan Recycles 2001).
1.5.8.3 The Michigan Solar Car Team The Michigan Solar Car Team is a non-profit, student run organization whose purpose is to design, finance, build and race a solar powered vehicle in several competitions across the US and the world. The program started in 1989. They are a society dedicated to the development of their members as teammates, scholars, competitors, teachers, and leaders. With a regard for a diverse people, values, and talents, and come from across all academic disciplines and experience levels. The Michigan Solar Car Team works year round to develop a new vehicle
10 Obtain current information at [email protected]. They also report on sustainability initiatives in other universities and colleges.
19 on a two-year project cycle. It has been one of the most exciting and involved student projects to take place at the University of Michigan (Solar Car Team, School of Engineering. 2001).11
1.5.9 Internationally relevant events
1.5.9.1 Peace Corps On October of 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy introduced the idea of a Peace Corps on the steps of the Michigan Union. Shortly after he became president, he formalized the project he had presented with his campaign in Michigan. Two University professors, Wilbur Cohen and Samuel Hayes, helped the Kennedy administration formalize the program, which Cohen said would allow young people to become familiar with world problems, to contribute to international peace and to build understanding among nations that joined the program (U-M MNIS 2000).
1.5.9.2 Earth Day In 1970, U-M became the national center of planning for the first Earth Day and held seminars that addressed new issues in environmental education. Rallies, teach-ins, and talks took place in Ann Arbor during the first Earth Day in 1970 (U-M PO 1998). Some of those became known as “Michigan Issues” in many circles, according to Pete Sandman, professor of environmental communication at Rutgers University and former associate professor of environmental communication at the U-M (Kellogg 1993). “The relationship of social justice to the environment, for example, was first explored here,” he said. “We tried to answer the ‘how’ question of environmental education, which was rare in the 1970s. The ‘what’—as in what problems needed to be solved—already was clear, so we focused on strategies for change” (Kellogg 1993). The celebration of Earth Day continues as a tradition at the U-M.
1.5.9.3 The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Conference On June 20-22, 2001 the City of Ann Arbor, USA, welcomed more than 120 visitors from cities, towns, counties, federal government agencies, and NGOs from North America to the US and Canadian Municipal Leaders Rio+10 Preparatory Meeting. Participants met to brainstorm and discuss the best approaches to creating sustainable communities within North America. The meeting, organized by the City of Ann Arbor and ICLEI, addressed North American local sustainability challenges and opportunities for inclusion in the Local Government Dialogue Paper that will be presented at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa. The meeting was hosted by the City of Ann Arbor and sponsored by several local companies. The University of Michigan Business School provided the venue for the event (ICLEI 2001).
11 Refer to the Chronology to learn about some of the Solar Car Team’s achievements.
20 2 METHODS
2.1 Definition of System The University of Michigan is composed of several properties spread primarily over three campus locations in Ann Arbor, Dearborn, and Flint. In addition to the campuses, the University also owns affiliated operations such as Michigan Health Corporation (a wholly- owned corporation created to pursue joint venture and managed care initiatives), Veritas Insurance Corporation (a wholly-owned captive insurance company), M-CARE (a wholly- owned HMO), and several satellite health facilities in southeast Michigan. The client and the team felt that the best use of the team's time was to focus on the University of Michigan's Ann Arbor campus. Although leaving such an extensive part of the University of Michigan system out of the study overlooks a significant portion of the overall University system, the variation in location, community makeup, and campus function among U-M’s campuses was too great to be captured within the scope of a single study.
The team determined that the system boundaries for this report would be the U-M AA campus and would include all university-owned and operated land and infrastructure within the city limits of Ann Arbor that is majority utilized by University faculty, staff, or students; as well as Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Radrick Farms Golf Course. The indicators and metrics analyzed in this report are based on this system boundary (see Figure 2-1). For the purposes of this assessment, the system defined here will be identified as U-M Ann Arbor (U-M AA).
University of Michigan System
U- M Ann A rbor U-M Flint U-M Dearborn Other Outlying Academic/Admin Properties Hospitals Ex. Biostation Athletic facilities Healthcare facilities and others Outside scope of project
Figure 2-1 Project system boundary
For this baseline analysis, the Team felt that the chosen delineation was the best way to identify impacts, while at the same time removing some factors over which the University did not have complete control. Including non-University-controlled areas would emphasize burdens associated with these areas without the allocation of any benefits associated with non-University personnel use of the facilities. Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Radrick Farms Golf Course were included because they are immediately adjacent to the city limits and are intensively used by students, faculty and staff.
21 2.2 Profile of the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
2.2.1 Geographical Extent
U-M AA is located in Ann Arbor, a city of approximately 114,000 inhabitants. This figure includes U-M AA students (City of Ann Arbor 2001). Ann Arbor is 45 miles west of Detroit and serves as the county seat of Washtenaw County. Townships that border the City of Ann Arbor include Scio Township, Lodi Township, Superior Township and Ann Arbor Township. U-M AA is located on 3,129 acres of campus area (University of Michigan 2000a).
The water supply for the City of Ann Arbor is drawn from two sources: 80% is from the Huron River, which flows through the city, and empties into Lake Erie, and 20% is from groundwater via wells operated by the city.
The campus includes 214 major buildings and 221 apartment buildings (University of Michigan 2000a). As a result of the boundary limitation, the total building area considered in this study was reduced according to the following table.
Table 2-1 U-M AA Building Area 12 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Building Area Total Square Total for % analyzed in Feet Project scope study (sq. ft) (sq. ft.) FY1990 22,306,275 21,885,961 98.12% FY1995 25,209,684 24,784,127 98.31% FY1996 25,668,279 25,268,193 98.44% FY1997 26,350,901 25,900,680 98.29% FY1998 26,623,564 26,134,059 98.16% FY1999 26,791,733 26,274,115 98.07% FY2000 26,912,087 26,298,312 97.72%
From 1990 to 2000, the facility area increased 20.2%. U-M AA divides campus buildings into the following eight categories for accounting purposes: Auxiliary, General Fund, Leased Property, Housing, Hospital, Athletic Buildings, Parking Operations and Miscellaneous Buildings Off Campus. This categorization is based on the budget, which is used to pay for a particular building’s utilities. The General Fund includes buildings whose utility costs have been paid for out of the utilities’ portion of the General Fund. The Utility General Fund is a part of the large General Fund budget, which is not distributed to the individual departments. Miscellaneous Buildings Off Campus are owned by U-M, but are not located on the campus. Thus, the category Miscellaneous Buildings Off Campus was excluded from this baseline
12 A complete listing of the facilities that this categorization covers is shown in Appendix A.
22 analysis. If the utilities of a particular building are paid for by more than one budget, it may fall into more than one category (Foster 2002).
2.2.2 Campus Demographics The number of students at U-M AA grew between 1990 and 2000. In 1990, there were 36,394 students while in 2000, there were 38,103 students, an increase of 4.5%. The faculty also grew from 3,708 in 1990 to 4,342 in 2000, an increase of 14.6%. The staff grew from 17,527 in 1990 to 20,305 in 2000, an increase of 13.7%. This growth shows that U-M AA is thriving; that students want to attend, that faculty wants to teach and do research, and that staff want to be employed at U-M. The products and services that U-M AA offers are in demand.
Table 2-2 Campus Student Population
Students, Undergraduate Students, Graduate and Continuing Total Students
1990 23,196 1990 13,198 1990 36,394 1995 23,575 1995 13,112 1995 36,687 1996 23,590 1996 12,935 1996 36,525 1997 23,939 1997 13,056 1997 36,995 1998 24,015 1998 13,182 1998 37,197 1999 24,493 1999 13,353 1999 37,846 2000 24,412 2000 13,691 2000 38,103 2001 24,547 2001 13,701 2001 38,248 Source: University of Michigan 2002 Table 2-3 Campus Total Population Total Campus Faculty Staff Community
1990 3,708 1990 17,527 1990 57,629 1995 3,923 1995 19,480 1995 60,090 1996 3,952 1996 17,575 1996 58,052 1997 4,005 1997 17,737 1997 58,737 1998 4,107 1998 18,807 1998 60,111 1999 4,281 1999 20,063 1999 62,190 2000 4,342 2000 20,305 2000 62,750 2001 2001 2001 Source: University of Michigan 2002
The above numbers for faculty are totals for all faculty including Regular Instructional, Regular Clinical, and Supplemental. The numbers for staff above include the following categories: Professional & Administrative, Office, Technical, Service/ Maintenance, Operating Engineers and Trades Staff, Security/ Public Safety Staff, Allied Health
23 Professional and Administrative Staff, Allied Health Technical Staff, and Nursing Staff. Table 2-4 presents the ratios of students to faculty and faculty and staff at U-M AA.
Table 2-4 Student Ratios to Faculty, and to Faculty and Staff Year Student: Faculty Ratio Student: Faculty and Staff Ratio 1990 9.8:1 1.7:1 1995 9.4:1 1.6:1 1996 9.2:1 1.7:1 1997 9.2:1 1.7:1 1998 9.1:1 1.6:1 1999 8.8:1 1.6:1 2000 8.8:1 1.6:1
The ratio of students to faculty decreased from 9.8:1 in 1990 to 8.8:1 in 2000. The ratio of students to faculty and staff remained approximately constant at 1.6:1 from 1990 through 2000.
2.2.3 Academic Units U-M AA offers approximately 6,000 undergraduate and graduate courses each semester. There are more than 225 undergraduate majors and 600 degree programs offered by the U-M AA’s 19 schools and colleges (Frank 2001). U-M AA is made up of the following academic units (U-M Academic Units 2002):
Architecture & Urban Planning Literature, Science, and the Arts Art & Design Medicine Business Music Dentistry Natural Resources & Environment Education Nursing Engineering Pharmacy Rackham School of Graduate Studies Public Health Information Public Policy Kinesiology Social Work Law
2.2.4 Research Activities
U-M AA’s research budget is among the largest for universities in the country. Table 2-5 presents U-M AA’s research expenditures (research sponsored by external sources and research sponsored by University funds):
24 Table 2-5 U-M AA Research Expenditures in $2001 1990 $286,082,483 1995 $409,235,763 1996 $441,294,540 1997 $458,478,301 1998 $491,472,206 1999 $499,673,610 2000 $545,418,036 Source: University of Michigan 2001
Research expenditures grew by 47.5% in the period from 1990 to 2000. “The University of Michigan receives more federal research money than any other university in the country”(U- M Life Sciences 2002). The University’s reputation as a leader in research allows it to attract federal funding each year. This research funding is used for diverse projects ranging from those dealing with life sciences and physics, to those dealing with history and English.
Research expenditures by sponsor group in fiscal year 2000 were as follows: Federal – 68.7%, U-M Funds – 15.8%, Industry – 6.1%, Foundations – 3.6%, Other Non- Profit – 1.4%, Trade and Professional Associations – 1.3%, Other Funding Sources – 3.1% (U-M Research 2001). These numbers show that U-M AA’s research expenditures are provided by a variety of sources, and that U-M AA is not overly, and perhaps unsustainably, dependent on a particular funding source.
2.2.5 Housing
U-M AA students are not required to live in U-M dormitories. However, freshmen and transfer sophomores are guaranteed U-M housing if they want it (U-M Housing 2002). There are 16,000 people who live in buildings operated by the U-M Housing Department. These include students, as well as the spouses and children of graduate students. The Housing Department is responsible for 4 million square feet of floor space. Most U-M AA students live off campus in rental houses or apartments, or in housing co-operatives (U-M Housing 2001).
2.2.6 Athletics
The U-M has the following varsity teams: Baseball, Basketball (Men’s and Women’s), Cross Country (Men’s and Women’s), Field Hockey, Football, Golf (Men’s and Women’s), Gymnastics (Men’s and Women’s), Ice Hockey, Rowing (Women’s), Soccer (Men’s and Women’s), Softball, Swimming/ Diving (Men’s and Women’s), Tennis (Men’s and Women’s), Track and Field (Men’s and Women’s), Volleyball, Water Polo (Women’s), Wrestling.
25 There is also a lively intramural sports program, which runs year-round. Intramural sports played at U-M AA include broomball, soccer, volleyball, inner tube water polo, ultimate frisbee and many others (University of Michigan IMS 2002).
2.2.7 Hospital System
The University of Michigan Health System includes the U-M Medical School and its Faculty Group Practice, three U-M Hospitals, community health centers, 120 outpatient clinics, the M-CARE HMO and the Michigan Health Corp. The three hospitals are University Hospital, C.S. Mott Children's Hospital, and Women's Hospital. There are 865 total licensed beds in the three hospitals. The U-M Health System employs 9,182 people. The U-M Health System experienced the following annual activity in FY 2000: there were 38,616 admissions, and 38,278 total discharges; there were 2,486 observation cases and 1,299,578 outpatient visits at all sites; there were 61,425 emergency services/ urgent care visits; there were 3,543 deliveries; and operating expenses were $851 million. The operating expense budget for 2001 is $869 million (UMHS Public Relations 2002).
2.3 Framework
The framework for assessing and reporting on sustainability at the University of Michigan consists of three main parts. These parts include the “triple bottom line” structure, the use of leading and lagging indicators for reporting, and the application of systems thinking for analysis. Each of the primary parts is discussed in more detail below.
In outlining a framework for assessing sustainability at the U-M AA, the team followed a plan consistent with the GRI, beginning with the “triple bottom line” structure. First described by John Elkington, this theory states that: “…sustainable development involves the simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity” (Elkington 1998). In the broadest sense, the triple bottom line framework rests on the idea that these three spheres of sustainability – economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity – are interrelated and overlapping, so that impacts to one sphere has implications for both of the others (see Figure 2-2).
26
Sustainability Environmental
Social Economic
Figure 2-2 Three Legs of Sustainability
Thus, in order to minimize any degree of harm resulting from its activities and, more importantly, to create economic, environmental, and social value, an organization must manage all three spheres and their areas of overlap simultaneously.
Following the GRI framework, this report then outlines a set of “performance indicators” to characterize the extent to which the U-M AA system is operating sustainably within each of the three spheres of sustainability. Performance indicators (hereto after indicators) are specific, usually quantitative, measurements of a particular aspect of performance (for example, tons of carbon dioxide emitted) that can be used to track and demonstrate performance either individually or in combination with other indicators (Global Reporting Initiative 2000a). Generally, indicators can be one of two types, leading or lagging. Lagging indicators, which are the most common, focus on measuring past performance and results. Where lagging indicators allow entities to assess where they are, leading indicators, by contrast, focus on measuring the extent of activities that will drive future performance, thus allowing entities to assess where they will be.
In designing the framework for assessment and reporting, the team also embraced the related concepts of global systems thinking and life cycle assessment. Systems thinking and life cycle assessment involves including all of the impacts associated with a given activity in the measurement of that activity. In the ideal case, this would include not only the direct impacts associated with conducting the activity, but also the indirect impacts associated with the stages preceding and following it. Limitations on available time and resources prevented a detailed account of all possible impacts of any of the activities covered. As a result, the Team has relied on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods to demonstrate a portion of this broader view within the environmental category. LCA is defined by the international standard ISO 14040. This standard specifies the general framework, principles and requirements for conducting and reporting life cycle assessment studies. In general, the
27 principles detail a process that includes goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation for evaluating the environmental attributes associated with a product, process, or service (see Figure 2-3). For the purposes of this study, greater emphasis was placed on developing a goal and scope as well as an inventory analysis for each item studied under the LCA guidelines.
Goal and scope definition
Inventory analysis Interpretation
Impact assessment
Figure 2-3 Life Cycle Assessment Framework
The Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) quantifies inputs and outputs from each stage of a product or activity including material production, manufacturing of the product, use, and retirement or disposal. LCI’s normally include air and water emissions, material consumption, and energy use for all of the stages identified.
2.4 Methodology
The focus of this report substitutes the preferred in-depth investigation of all of the categories associated with sustainability at U-M AA for a broader outline of each area. For reasons including time and resource constraints, as well as to provide a document that is more easily understood by readers unfamiliar with sustainability assessment, the development of indicators for each category was constrained and should not be considered all inclusive. The intent was to create a starting point from which future refinements and improvements to the assessment could be made.
The Team attempted to demonstrate the use of key concepts, such as LCA, within the framework to provide direction for future analysis. The demonstration of these concepts weighted the total number of indicators more heavily toward the environmental category (see Figure 2-4). The depths of coverage for each category do not imply levels of importance, but rather provide a way to reduce the amount of information necessary to introduce the topic of sustainability while still providing a level of detail that would be useful for discussion and decision-making.
28 Environmental 20 Indicators
Economic Social 4 Indicators 16 Indicators
Figure 2-4 Number of indicators for each category Environmental indicators will include more detailed metrics in terms of the data presented. The use of LCI’s is introduced to provide readers with a more detailed picture of impacts associated with processes upstream and downstream of the initial activity. Information pertaining to environmental data was also more readily available. In addition, multi-year historical information was used to allow for some trend analysis of the data. As a result of these factors, more intensive development of the environmental indicators was possible despite the time constraints previously mentioned. .
Social indicators are covered at a shallower level than the environment. In this category, some topics have indicators developed while others include a characterization of the area of importance without providing data or indicators. Social indicators tend to be the most controversial and difficult to define due to the subjective nature of determining sustainable, or optimal, goals. For example, determining a “sustainable” distribution of minorities at U- M AA is sensitive to many different viewpoints and perspectives. As stated previously, the intention of the authors is to provide a base with which to build a more all-inclusive level of indicators through stakeholder involvement.
The economic indicators are the least intensively covered of the three legs of sustainability. The University reports financial metrics extensively through various reporting methods. Efforts were made to avoid duplication of this information. As a result, the development of financial indicators included an attempt to relate the available information to the other two dimensions of sustainability.
The design of the framework developed here establishes a foundation from which to build a stronger and more comprehensive assessment in the future. As sustainability assessment and reporting is still in its infancy, a truly comprehensive analysis is expected to be an ongoing process. The timeframe for development will vary depending on the resources available to pursue investigation of indicators for each of the three legs. Ultimately, the refinement process will lead to a set of sustainability indicators that function as both a management and communication tool for decision making and assessing the performance of U-M AA to its sustainability goals.
29 The framework described provided the blueprint used to support the team’s creation of a sustainability assessment and reporting mechanism for the U-M AA. The methods used to derive the final report included acknowledgement that some information could simply not be provided within the development constraints. As a result, the team will make an effort to describe a proposal for an ideal methodology while at the same time identifying areas where the team was forced to deviate from this ideal path. The report provides one method of both assessing past performance and integrating the information into future decision making processes. It is hoped that sustainability reporting becomes an iterative process that is refined year over year as U-M AA receives input from internal and external stakeholders (see Figure 2-5).
Figure 2-5 Assessment Feedback Loop The steps used in this assessment and reporting process can be divided into five main categories: sustainability definition, indicator selection, data gathering, data analysis, and verification. Each of the categories is described in more detail below.
2.4.1 Developing a Working Definition of Sustainability for the University of Michigan
In developing a working definition of sustainability that would be used for this report, the team relied not only upon the global literature about and experience with sustainability introduced above, but also on the considerable thinking about sustainability that has already taken place at the U-M. U-M leaders, departments, and affiliates have defined sustainability as: S “…living, working, and behaving in a way that will sustain the integrity and biodiversity of the local, regional, and planetary ecosystem upon which all life depends.” (U-M Housing Services 2001)
S “…a set of integrated industrial and ecological processes that equitably meets the biophysical needs of society while maintaining the integrity of life-supporting ecosystems over a long-term time horizon.” (Center for Sustainable Systems 2001)
30 S “…responsibility to present and future generations of people and biota that are affected by our actions.” (Sustainable University of Michigan 2000)
S “…mak[ing] the University as environmentally neutral as possible while meeting academic, research and operational needs, to the point where we minimize out impact on the environment and natural resources.” – Terry Alexander, Director, Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH) at U-M AA as quoted in University Record, 12 February 2001.
The team also wanted to ensure that the working definition of sustainability for the U-M was in keeping with the mission and objectives of the University. The U-M’s mission statement defines those objectives to be to “…serve the people of Michigan and the world through preeminence in creating, communicating, preserving and applying knowledge, art, and academic values, and in developing leaders and citizens who will challenge the present and enrich the future.” (University of Michigan 2001)
For the purposes of this report, sustainability will be defined as:
…the ability of the University of Michigan Ann Arbor to fulfill its mission and make decisions in a manner that is transparent and equitable, and maintains or improves the long- term quality, diversity, and regenerative capacity of the environmental, social and economic systems that support the University’s activities and needs.
While the team attempted to incorporate the wide variety of perspectives on sustainability present on the U-M AA campus, it should be noted that the above working definition should continue to be refined in an ongoing process of stakeholder dialogue.
2.4.2 Indicator Selection
The Team undertook extensive research in reviewing various formats for determining sustainability indicators and for determining the framework within which to report the assessment. Reporting procedures of universities, corporations, and other organizations were reviewed to determine the practice most suitable for U-M AA. The process began with a comprehensive listing of any known or potential indicator that might capture some aspect of university activity. In the initial brainstorming sessions, no piece of information was deemed unimportant or inconsequential. The resulting list of indicators comprised more than 150 indicators in 14 sub-categories. The Team was cognizant of the overwhelming nature of reporting this many indicators in an effective manner. Although including each of the indicators developed could be valuable, the most effective way for the University to continue conversations about the topic of sustainability is to focus on a smaller fraction of indicators that best captures the diversity and depth of activities within each of the three spheres of sustainability. This will give readers of the report a better chance of assimilating the information being presented and make it more likely for them to make suggestions or provide input. For some of the indicators selected, information is not currently available. Data availability did not play a role in the determination of indicators.
31 To provide objective feedback in the development of indicators, as well as for input throughout the process of assessment and reporting, a Steering Committee was created. The Steering Committee was comprised of a diverse set of members of University faculty and staff, corporate professionals, government officials, community members, and students (for complete list of members see Acknowledgement). The committee represented a broad range of experience in corporate reporting, sustainability indicator development, public policy, and university policy. The group provided feedback on the initial list of indicators to assist in narrowing it to a more manageable level for this first assessment. In general, the Steering Committee acted as the first step in establishing a process that would allow for refinement of the reporting process, and create an avenue for stakeholder input.
Although the final set of indicators is different, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework provided the foundation for the team’s report. In particular, indicators were chosen according to the criteria developed by the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative 2000b). These criteria include relevance, reliability, clarity, comparability, timeliness, and verifiability. The applications of these criteria were modified to suit the needs of the specific U-M AA analysis. Each of the criteria is discussed in more detail below.
Relevance: The indicators must be relevant to the decision making needs of the University of Michigan, while recognizing the diverse nature of stakeholders involved in University decisions. The indicators should not only aid in decision making, but also be used to build knowledge and foster discussion about what information is important to include. Again, this first list of indicators is intended to be a starting point, not a culmination, for sustainability reporting.
Reliability: As much as possible, the information provided is free from error or bias in reporting. The Project Team attempted to use information that is currently tracked by the University in the indicators. However, this did not restrict the development of indicators where information is currently not available. Elevating issues for discussion where information was unavailable was deemed just as important as reporting on indicators where data was provided.
The report also endeavors to create a complete picture of the impacts associated with campus activities. This means attempting to include indicators that had indirect as well as direct effects where the indirect effects were particularly significant. By including these indirect effects, the indicators provide a more balanced picture of the University’s impacts and support the global systems and life cycle assessment view mentioned earlier.
Clarity: Readers of the report are assumed to represent a broad, diverse range of stakeholders associated with the University system. It was therefore imperative that the report and associated indicators be as clear and understandable as possible. The goal of the team was to introduce indicators that the Team felt were key measures of performance to sustainability standards. As indicated previously, this is expected to be an iterative and evolutionary process. As the University continues to receive input and feedback about its indicators, it can make continue to make improvements.
32 Comparability: Many readers of annual sustainability reports attempt to use the documents to make comparisons between corporations or universities who publish their results. Indicators in this report have sometimes been normalized to per capita or per area characterizations. However, the purpose of this normalization process was to permit comparisons year over year at the University of Michigan exclusively. The many varied locations, functions, and missions of universities across the country make it difficult to draw conclusions from comparing of normalized metrics between different universities. The authors therefore feel that the best use of these metrics is to aid in management decision making for sustainable practices.
Timeliness: To apprise stakeholders of outcomes and trends, the team believes that it is imperative to report results on a regular basis. This will enable stakeholders to implement better practices in a timely manner. As evidenced by the growing amount of resources devoted to assessment and reporting, institutionalization of an annual sustainability report is an effective way to communicate these results and trends as well as to provide an avenue for stakeholder input. This will also ensure that comparable information is provided on a regular basis.
Verifiability: Because the topic of sustainability is an evolving and uncertain area, some of the data or statements contained in this report may not be verifiable or quantifiable. As stated earlier, this report attempts to utilize data that is currently tracked by the university where possible. An additional aspect of this report is to provide accurate information on where each piece of data was taken from and to identify a key contact that could provide verification of the data.
Although the framework presented in this report represents a combination of various reporting processes, the thrust of this effort is to provide a launching pad for the introduction of sustainability into both teaching and management decisions in a University setting. Refinements to this initial report are expected from all of the stakeholders associated with the University of Michigan.
2.4.3 Data Gathering An important aspect of reporting relates to the time periods covered by the assessment process. The time period must be long enough to demonstrate trends within the various indicators and assess the effect of decisions. In addition, many of the current declarations to improve sustainability efforts made by corporations and universities depend upon commitments to meeting or surpassing historical performance. The Kyoto Protocol requires reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from a 1990 baseline emissions level (International Energy Agency 1998). To provide the University of Michigan with the opportunity to make historical comparisons, this assessment will utilize data from 1990 as well as from the years 1995 through 2001. The 1990 data establishes a baseline year, while the more recent information allows current trends or patterns identification and analysis.
33 2.4.4 Data Analysis One of the primary purposes of the Sustainability Assessment and Reporting project is to develop a framework (and suggest information to be identified within that framework) that the University of Michigan can utilize to institutionalize sustainability reporting. Analysis of the data was undertaken with this concept in mind. As a result, the identification of indicators and the methods used to develop and track them took priority over comprehensive analysis of the results. However, as analysis is required for using indicators in decision making, efforts were made to present the data in a useable manner.
In order to make comparisons between separate years, many quantitative indicators were normalized. The resulting metrics identified results in terms of campus population or current building square footage.
2.4.5 Data Verification As mentioned previously, attempts were made to utilize data that U-M AA currently maintains. However, many areas within each of the sustainability categories require information not currently tracked by the University or by external sources. Some data, especially in the environmental category, requires the development of mathematical models. These models have many assumptions that should be verified and agreed upon by members of the U-M AA community and experts in the area. It is critical that the process of data collection and dissemination be made as transparent as possible. Although conflicting arguments pervade discussions regarding the impacts of various activities within each of the three legs of sustainability, it is important that the stakeholders within U-M AA agree on the proper use of data and information.
34 3 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
3.1 Energy
3.1.1 Indicators
S Indicator 1 Percentage of on-site energy consumption by category S Indicator 2 Total electricity used (separated by purchased vs. self-generated) S Indicator 3 Total on-site energy consumed by key activities (electricity & heating/cooling only) S Indicator 4 Total on-site energy consumed separated by renewable and non- renewable feedstock o Metric 1 On-site energy consumed per capita S Indicator 5 Transportation energy by non-fleet, private/commuting vehicles S Indicator 6 Total fuel cycle energy consumed, separated by renewable and non- renewable feedstocks S Indicator 7 Total fuel cycle energy vs. on-site energy consumption (electricity & heating/cooling only) S Indicator 8 On-site transportation energy separated by renewable and non- renewable feedstock
3.1.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice With an increasing world population the demand for energy continues to increase substantially. Man’s inextricable link with ecological systems during human development creates unavoidable impacts on the environment. The largest impact of human development comes from energy production, distribution, and use. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit-Rio de Janeiro 1992) recognized this fact when it met in 1992 and produced Agenda 21. This document points out that much of the world's energy is produced and used in ways that may not be sustained if overall demand continues to increase and technology remains constant. Various chapters of Agenda 21 state that energy sources need to be used in a manner that protects the environment as a whole. This implies a greater move toward the use of renewable energy sources, which much smaller associated emissions and do not require feedstock extraction methods which can harm local ecosystems.
Indicator 1 provides a snapshot of the major areas of energy consumption, giving readers an opportunity to identify the prominent sources of energy consumption as a percent of the overall total. Once the major categories are identified, further detail can be provided. In this case, electricity use is recognized as a major contributor to consumption. Electricity use comprises a major portion of U.S. energy consumption, representing 36% of net residential energy use and 49% of net commercial energy consumption in 1999 (EIA 2000a). For this reason, Indicator 2 focuses specifically on the consumption of electricity, providing information on both the amount purchased as well as the amount self-generated. Indicator 3
35 provides yet further detail about the electricity/heating/cooling portion of Indicator 2 by identifying energy consumption of each of the primary activities of the organization. This allows management to monitor performance and identify where energy resources are being allocated.
Estimates indicate that one century from now the rate of energy consumption taking place across the globe will outstrip the ability of known resources to meet this demand. Currently, fossil fuels make up about 75% of world energy use (EIA2000a). The table below identifies the available supplies, in years, of the current dominant forms of energy relative to present rates of use. Fuel sources are categorized into two main areas: reserves, which have been positively identified, and resources, which include the reserves as well as inferred supplies
Table 3-1 Mean estimate of reserves and resources (In years, at present rate of use for each fuel) remaining world reserves remaining world resources oil & nat. gas liquids 36 94 natural gas 54 155 coal 100s 100s
Source: US Geological Survey 2000, Table 1.
At current consumption levels, total world fossil reserves could last about 160 years (Rogner 1997). Energy consumption in the United States has historically grown at a rate of 1.3% per year since 1970 (EIA 2000b). To be sustainable, energy use will clearly have to move toward forms that evolve from renewable flows of energy rather than the current stocks of energy sources that can be exhausted.
Solar-related flows are termed renewable resources, indicating that they are inexhaustible as long as the sun continues to burn. Solar-related energy sources are those sources that use energy from the sun to produce energy either in stored form or directly. Some examples of these energy sources are plant material which uses sunlight to power photosynthesis, wood from trees that use sunlight for growth, and photovoltaic cells that convert sunlight directly into electrical energy. Up until the 18th century, solar-related energy sources were the dominant form of energy. These sources included burning wood for heat, feed for animal transportation, and wind and water for mechanized power. Growth in energy consumption outpaced the ability of these forms of energy to meet demand, and as a result fossil fuels were used as a replacement. Fossil fuels have remained the dominant source of energy since that time.
The United Nations has recognized the growing dependence on non-renewable fossil fuel resources. In September of 1997 the Nineteenth Special Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations recognized the need for moving toward a pattern of sustainable production, distribution, and use of energy. With the establishment of the Multi-year Programme of Work for the Commission on Sustainable Development, the UN identified a formal establishment that should contribute to a sustainable energy future for all. The
36 challenge for world governments has been to identify a way to meet the growing demand for energy. They aspire to reverse the trend of increased impact of energy supply and use on the environment in order to guarantee the long-term quality of life for global habitats. The current sources of energy supply do not meet this objective. The table below shows the estimated world and US energy consumption.
Table 3-2 Annual energy consumption
WORLD US US % of 2000 2000 total Quadrillion Quadrillion (10^15) Btu (10^15) Btu
Petroleum 154.3 38.0 24.6% Natural Gas 90.2 23.4 25.9% Coal 94.2 22.4 23.8% Nuclear 25.7 8.0 31.2% Hydroelectric 27.8 3.1 11.2%
Other (including wood, solar, wind, geothermal) 5.24 3.6 68.7% Total 397.4 98.5 24.8% SOURCE: AER 2000d Tables F1b and 1.8
As the table indicates, U.S energy consumption represents about 22% of global energy consumption. With just under 5% of the world’s population, the United States consumes a disproportionate amount of the available energy supplies. As a result of this imbalance, the US is forced to import roughly 28% of its total energy in order to meet domestic demand (EIA 2000c). Clearly, the production and consumption of energy forms require a more sustainable approach than is currently being utilized.
The solution most often identified is to move toward renewable forms of energy. Today, the most promising forms of renewable energy include biofuels (fuel derived from plant material), wind, and photovoltaic technologies. Although hydroelectric power is considered renewable there exists some debate about the hydroelectric potential of the remaining sites on the world’s rivers. Renewable sources not only have the potential to greatly reduce the environmental impacts of energy production, distribution, and consumption, but they also can be made available locally depending on the technology used. Indicator 4 identifies the renewable and non-renewable portions of energy use associated with on-site activity. Feedstocks represent the sources of energy in their natural state before conversion into a usable form of energy. Because Indicator 4 does not include transportation energy from private vehicle use, typically representing 30% of U.S energy consumption (EIA 2000a), Indicator 5 is introduced as a way to capture this information. Further information about energy use as it relates to growth in terms of the population can be derived from Metric 1, which normalizes the information in Indicator 4 according to the population of the system studied. To continue moving in the direction of sustainability, these indictors should show increased use of renewable feedstocks while maintaining or reducing the total energy consumption. The information provided by Indicator 6 and Indicator 7 are similar to
37 Indicator 4, but take the analysis a step further by including the impacts of upstream and downstream energy use associated with getting energy to the point of consumption. Total fuel cycle energy includes the energy consumed during extraction and processing of energy feedstocks, conversion of the feedstocks to a usable fuel, and finally consumption of the fuel energy. This concept, explained in greater detail in the methodology, provides a more complete picture of energy consumption. The amount of energy used in transportation that originates from renewable and non-renewable feedstocks is depicted in Indicator 8.
3.1.3 Context within U-M AA The energy necessary to provide electricity, heating and cooling, and transportation for U-M AA comes from multiple sources. The Central Power Plant (CPP), located on Center Campus is a cogeneration facility providing both electricity and heat/hot water for most of the buildings on the central campus. The CPP uses primarily natural gas to fuel gas turbines and steam boilers, although the turbines can also be powered with the use of fuel oil. The CPP serves only the central campus. Some buildings on central campus receive electricity from the electrical grid via a connection through CPP. In addition the Hoover Power Plant located on campus provides steam heat and hot water to some buildings on campus. Hoover uses primarily natural gas fuel as well. On the north campus, boilers located in individual buildings produce steam, and electricity is received through two Detroit Edison 40,000 volt circuits (Michigan 2002).
U-M AA has taken several steps to increase the use of renewable fuel sources within its vehicle fleet. As of fiscal year 2000, all University owned diesel vehicles are run on biodiesel, a mixture of 80% diesel fuel and 20% soy-based renewable diesel fuel. This not only reduces many emissions associated with consumption of the fuel but also provides a means to reduce dependence on fossil crude oil. In addition, the University has expanded ownership of dual-use ethanol vehicles. These cars and mini-vans have the capability to run on either gasoline or E85 fuel, which is a mixture of 85% corn-derived ethanol and 15% gasoline. U-M AA also has gasoline cars and trucks as well as a fleet of six electric vehicles. A complete listing of vehicles types and fuels is available in Appendix C.
3.1.4 Methodology The prioritization of energy data indicators from the University was determined by the fulfillment of two main objectives: 1.) To track and reduce overall energy consumption in order to assist with the reduction of the disproportionate amount of energy that the U.S. currently consumes, 2.) Identify renewable and non-renewable sources of energy use to help identify trends that move the University toward renewable and sustainable energy production.
Two main categories of energy use were developed for this project. The first relates to on- site energy use. These figures represent the total amount of energy that is consumed within the boundaries developed for U-M AA. On-site energy consumed represents the total amount of electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, ethanol, biodiesel, and liquid petroleum gas consumed within the system boundaries.
38 The second category reports total fuel cycle energy used. This figure represents a combination of on-site energy consumed plus the fuel cycle energy associated with this on- site energy. Fuel cycle energy is derived using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. LCA is a compilation and evaluation of inputs, outputs, and potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle. When applied to an energy fuel cycle, this includes the energy used to extract the feedstock material from its original location, the energy used to convert the feedstock into a fuel, all of the associated transportation energy associated with moving the fuel to the point of consumption, and the actual consumption of the fuel (See Figure 3-1). All of the fuel cycle energy associated with activities prior to fuel consumption is typically referred to as upstream consumption, while the actual fuel consumption is identified as on-site consumption.
Energy used Energy used On-site to acquire to convert energy feedstock Transport feedstock to Transport consumption (remove crude oil fuel (combustion of from ground) (crude oil into gasoline) gasoline)
Total fuel cycle On-site energy energy consumption consumption
Figure 3-1 Fuel cycle energy and on-site energy description
The presentation of fuel cycle energy is an attempt to provide more complete information on all energy consumption involved in the U-M AA system. Ideally, a full life cycle analysis, including each of the associated stages (material production, product manufacture, use, and disposal), would be undertaken. A life cycle energy assessment is more comprehensive than a fuel cycle energy analysis as it would include other energy uses such as tracking the energy required to construct the power plant that provides electricity, or the energy associated with the construction of buildings on campus. Total fuel cycle energy focuses on the use stage of energy consumption within an LCA. It analyzes both on-site and upstream implications of fuel energy consumption. Presentation of fuel cycle energy provides information on a significant portion of life cycle energy at U-M AA. Support for this statement is provided by two recent studies conducted at the University of Michigan. The first demonstrated that 83% of life cycle energy consumption of a standard 2,450 ft2 residential home occurred during the use-phase (Blanchard and Reppe 1998). Although academic and commercial buildings serve different functions, the team felt comfortable with the assumption that this type of allocation would also hold true for University buildings, meaning most energy
39 consumption can be contributed to providing electricity and heating/cooling the building during its lifetime. A similar life cycle analysis was conducted on a representative automobile from U.S manufacturers (Keoleian 1998). This study indicated that 85% of life cycle energy use of a standard vehicle was associated with driving the vehicle; again indicating that providing a fuel cycle energy analysis would represent the majority of transportation energy use. Both of these studies support the statement that total fuel cycle energy gives a more representative picture of the total energy use associated with a given unit of consumption of fuel.
3.1.4.1 Electricity and Heating/Cooling Once the boundary for U-M AA was established, energy data was collected from a variety of sources. The primary sources for electricity, heating and cooling, and hot water energy consumption for campus buildings were the University of Michigan Utility Annual Reports (University of Michigan 90, 95-2001). In addition electronic and hardcopy information was received from CPP personal, and Utility Department staff. Although every attempt was made to be as comprehensive as possible, not all forms of energy consumption associated with U-M AA activities are currently tracked by the University. As a result, decisions about which information to collect had to be made. AER indicates that the majority of US energy consumption can be attributed to electricity generation and consumption, building heating and cooling, and transportation. As a result, the focus of the projects indicators is centered on these areas. Some sources of significant energy consumption omitted include the following:
S Electricity and heating and cooling of non-University owned or operated buildings located on or near campus. This includes satellite medical buildings located with the Ann Arbor boundary. This also includes some restaurants and other facilities located within a University building
S fuel usage for University mechanical equipment (lawnmowers, tractors, buggies, trimmers, and other petroleum powered landscaping equipment)
The electricity and heating/cooling information that was collected was converted into common units of British Thermal Units (Btu) of energy. For a list of conversion factors used please see Appendix F. The on-site energy consumption for electricity and heating/cooling includes the following:
S fuel consumed by the CPP and Hoover Power Plants S the fuel consumed by miscellaneous and outlying boilers in U-M AA buildings that are not supplied heating and cooling by either of the power plants S electricity consumption of campus buildings supplied by external utilities, as well as any fuel usage by the University incinerators that have since been decommissioned.
The electricity and heat cogenerated by the CPP was accounted for according to the natural gas or fuel oil consumed in the plant in order to alleviate difficulties associated with attempting to allocate energy consumption associated with cogeneration.
40 To calculate the total fuel cycle energy associated with the on-site energy consumption, the energy consumed by fuel source was multiplied by a fuel cycle energy factor derived from the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emission, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) v1.5 Software Model from Argonne National Labs (Argonne National Lab 2001). Developed primarily to analyze fuel cycle energy and emissions of various short term and long-term automobile fuels, the software allows for the derivation of fuel cycle energy factors for most modern fuels.
On-site energy consumption (ex. BTU’s of natural gas) Consumption x Fuel Cycle Energy Factor =
1,000,000 Btu of Natural Fuel Cycle Energy Gas consumed
1,000,000 Btu of Natural Gas consumed x 0 .1 Btu fuel cycle energy per Btu
GREET v1.5 Modeling Program: 100,000 Btu of fuel cycle energy Fuel Cycle Energy Factor (BTU’s of fuel cycle energy per BTU of natural gas consumed)
0.1 Btu Fuel cycle energy per Btu of natural gas consumed
Figure 3-2. Fuel cycle energy calculation
The GREET 1.5 software was used in the calculation of transportation energy use and emissions, and in order to maintain consistency, the software was used to develop the electricity and heating/cooling fuel cycle energy factors. GREET 1.5 allows users to enter in fuel sources used for the production of electricity for the electricity grid. These fuel sources are used in the calculation of the upstream fuel cycle energies. For the purposes of this report, the percentage of each fuel used for electricity production in the typical Midwest electricity grid is shown in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3 Fuel source allocation for Midwest electricity grid (1995) Coal 47% Natural gas 36.4% Heavy fuel oil 0.2% Nuclear 6.1% Hydroelectric 0.3% (SOURCE: US ECAR)
41 The allocation also included a provision for 8% losses associated with transmission of electricity from the utility. A breakdown of the fuel cycle factors for each fuel type is available in Appendix E.
3.1.4.2 Transportation Energy associated with University transportation was the other major energy category analyzed. Transportation represents nearly 30% of U.S. energy consumption (EIA 2000a) and represents the fastest growing segment of U.S. consumption. Due to time and resource constraints the team was forced to limit the focus of the transportation analysis to the study of University owned or leased vehicles. The following sources of energy consumption were omitted from this study: S Air or train travel by University representatives (including athletic teams) for University associated activities S rental car usage by U-M AA members S private car usage by faculty, staff, and students S bus transportation provided to University members by the city of Ann Arbor or other commercial organizations
Private car usage represents a difficult dilemma for transportation energy indicator development. It offers the potential to mask significant energy consumption related to University activities. Any attempts to reduce energy use associated with University owned or operated transportation should consider the impacts on overall passenger use of the system. If reductions in energy use coincide with reductions in passenger use of University transportation, the burden of mobility may have merely shifted to private vehicle use. The team had designed plans to execute a poll in order to develop a sample population study of private car usage on campus by students, faculty and staff. This had to be postponed due to time limitation, but should be considered in the development of later reports.
The University of Michigan Transportation Department currently tracks annual vehicle mileage by University vehicles and this data was used to develop the energy consumption data. The fuel economy of each car and light truck was derived from information provided by the U.S EPA’s fuel economy website (EPA 2002). The average fuel economy was computed using the city/highway formula of US EPA.13 Heavy truck and bus fuel economy was taken either from individual vehicle testing of similar engines or from the US EPA Heavy vehicle webpage (EPA 2002).
Information on vehicle fuel economy was input into the GREET 1.5 model. The model outputs total primary energy consumption per mile traveled by a vehicle for several fuel types in three primary stages: feedstock, fuel, and vehicle operation. The feedstock stage includes the recovery, transportation, and storage of the raw fuel material (i.e. coal or crude oil). The fuel stage includes the production, transportation, and storage of the fuel used for actual energy. For example, the fuel stage would include the production of gasoline from the
13 City/highway formula uses an allocation of 55% city driving and 45% highway driving to come up with an average fuel economy using the following equation [1 / (city/0.55 + highway/0.45)]
42 crude oil feedstock, as well the transport and storage of gas before it is put into a vehicle. The vehicle operation stage accounts for all energy consumed while actually driving the vehicle (i.e. the combustion of gasoline to power the vehicle). GREET 1.5 requires numerous assumptions regarding inputs to the model creation. The main assumptions used for energy consumption included: S All cars and light trucks were modeled using the gasoline car category S Heavy gasoline trucks were modeled using the LDT2 category. S Heavy diesel trucks and buses were modeled using the Diesel LDT2 category S Selection of default values for fuel allocation of the US electricity grid S Selection of default values for all other upstream variables
The energy consumption per mile output from GREET was multiplied by the annual mileage for each vehicle to compute an annual energy consumption total for each University vehicle. The sum of all University vehicle energy consumption represented the total transportation energy consumption for U-M AA.
3.1.4.2.1 1990 data In order to establish a baseline year for total energy consumption it was necessary to compute transportation energy totals for the year 1990. Specific vehicle information for the University fleet in 1990 was unavailable. As a result, a model was developed to represent the energy and emissions for the 1990 U-M AA vehicle fleet.
The information available for the development of a 1990 model included figures on the total number of fleet vehicles for the years 1989 and 1991. In addition, the total fleet miles traveled by fleet cars and fleet trucks for 1991 was also available.
The first objective of the model was to determine a fleet profile for the number of vehicle miles traveled by each vehicle type (car, truck, and bus) for the 1989 and 1991 fiscal years. The average of the 1989 and 1991 fleet profiles would represent the 1990 vehicle fleet miles traveled for each vehicle type. Next, a representative vehicle for each vehicle type was chosen. This was done by determining the average age of each vehicle type in the year 2000 fleet and assuming that the 1990 fleet was comprised of vehicles of similar age. Once selected, the fuel economy of the average vehicle was determined from EPA fuel economy and emissions data. The fuel economy data for each representative vehicle type was entered into the GREET model to determine per mile fuel cycle energy use. This output was multiplied by the mileage determined previously to compute a total fuel cycle energy. A text box which walks through the step by step calculations used to derive the 1990 transportation energy information is available in Appendix H.
43 Table 3-4 Energy Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format Electricity, natural Duane Foster Utilities & Plant duanef@umic Excel spreadsheet (Utilities gas, fuel oil, LP gas Engineering h.edu Annual Report) use in campus buildings CPP natural gas, fuel George Gooch Central heating plant gegooch@umi Excel spreadsheet oil, electricity use ch.edu
Vehicle fleet mileage, Renee Jordan Transportation reneej@umich Excel spreadsheet fuel use, description Services .edu
GREET v1.5 Fuel Michael Wang Argonne National [email protected] www. Cycle Model Lab transportation.anl.gov/ttrdc/gre et/ Table 3-5 Energy - Assumptions, Sources of Omission, and Limitations Assumptions Omissions Limitations Energy - Heating/cooling category - Electricity and heating/cooling - Consumption figures taken consumption includes heat, hot water, and of non-University owned or from billing information chillers on-campus operated buildings on campus
- Fuel usage for mechanical equipment (lawnmowers, tractors, landscape equipment)
Transportation - Fleet mileage assumed to be - Private vehicle use of students, all on-campus faculty, staff - Vehicle fuel economies taken - Rental car use as city/highway average
- Air and train travel for students, faculty, staff - Bus transportation provided by commercial organizations
3.1.5 Results and Discussion
Given the available data, Indicator 1 exhibits the dominance of the electricity and heating/cooling category for energy use on campus. Comprising 99% of the on-site energy use, this category will obviously be the major influence on energy consumption. There are several explanations for the disparity between the distribution of energy use in the U-M AA system, and the U.S national average; of which transportation currently comprises about 35% of the total.
44 Indicator 1 Percentage of on-site energy consumption by category
Transportation 1%
Electricity & Heating/Cooling 99%
Most notably, the exclusion of private vehicle use on campus by faculty, staff, and students leaves a possible gap in the data. As a result, overall energy consumption associated with U- M AA activities, which may include students driving to class or staff driving to work, would be higher. Because the existing data is weighted toward electricity and heating/cooling uses, the results will focus more on this category.
Indicator 2 provides a snapshot of electricity consumption at U-M AA. U-M AA has increased the amount of electricity generated on campus from 22%(72.2 MWh) of total electricity consumption in 1990 to 31% (141.6 MWh) of the total in 2001. The cogeneration capabilities of self-generation make it a more efficient use of energy than electricity purchased from the grid, which generally does not utilize cogeneration. Overall, total electricity consumption at the University has remained relatively flat since 1998, stabilizing near the 2001 total of 459 MWh for the past four years.
45 Indicator 2 Total electricity used (separated by purchased vs. self-generated)
500,000,000 400,000,000
kWh of 300,000,000 Generated electricity 200,000,000 Purchased 100,000,000 -
0 999 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1 200 2001 Year
The key activities that consume electrical and heating/cooling energy are depicted in Indicator 3. As one might expect, General Fund activities, which include all those associated with teaching and research, currently consume approximately 65% of electrical and heating/cooling energy. A noticeable change in the total distribution has taken place in the housing activity, which declined from 12.3% of the total consumption in 1990 to 9.2% in 2001. In addition, the hospital activity has increased its portion of consumption from 15% to 17% of the total over the same time period. .
Indicator 3 Total on-site energy consumed by key activities (electricity & heating/cooling only)
100%
80% Parking Housing 60% Hospital Miscellaneous 40% Leased Property General Fund Athletic Percent of total 20% Auxilary
0% 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year
46 Indicator 4 Total on-site energy consumed separated by renewable and non-renewable feedstock
6.00E+12
5.00E+12 Non-renewable - Total
4.00E+12 Renewable - Total*
Non-renewable - Electricity & 3.00E+12 BTU Heating/Cooling
Renewable - Electricity & 2.00E+12 Heating/Cooling*
*Totals too small to be seen 1.00E+12 on graph
0.00E+00 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year
Energy consumption on-campus is presented in Indicator 4. The chart separates total energy consumption and electricity and heating/cooling by non-renewable and renewable feedstock sources. Because transportation data is only available for the years 1990, 2000, and 2001 total on-site energy consumption (renewable and non-renewable) is presented for those years only. For each of the years, renewable energy sources comprise only a small percentage of total consumption (not visible on graph). In 1990, total renewable energy consumption was 2.61 x 109 Btu out of the total 4.44 x 1012 Btu consumed, or 0.0005%. However, from 1990 to 2001, total renewable on-site energy consumption has increased by 372%. Total renewable on-site consumption stood at 1.23 x 1010 Btu in 2001. Much of the increase can be attributed to the use of alternative fuels in the University vehicle fleet.
Overall, on-site energy consumption (minus transportation) peaked in 1997 at 5.60 x 1012 Btu. Total consumption for the most recent year, 2001, was 5.31 x 1012 Btu, an increase of 19.5% from 1990 levels. As previously indicated in Figure 1-3, Figure 1-7 shows that the majority of energy consumption is attributed to electricity and heating/cooling functions.
Some indicators were analyzed further by normalizing results in relation to a contributing factor. Identified in this report as metrics, Metric 1 presents on-site energy consumption per capita as an example of this method. Energy consumption was divided by the total U-M AA population, which includes students, faculty, and staff. Year 2000 data was the most recent year campus population data was available and as such is the latest year on this graph. From 1990 to 2000, the campus population grew from 57,629 people to 62,750 people, an increase of 9%. During this same time period, total on-site energy consumption grew from 4.44 x
47 1012 Btu to 4.94 x 1012 Btu, an increase of 11.2%. Consequently, on-site energy consumption per capita increased slightly by 2.1% between 1990 and 2000.
Metric 1 On-site energy consumed per capita
1.20E+08
1.00E+08
n 8.00E+07 Total
6.00E+07 Electricity & 4.00E+07 Heating/Cooling BTU / pe rs o
2.00E+07
0.00E+00 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year
A positive trend has developed in on-site energy consumption (electricity & heating/cooling) per capita since 1997. While the campus population grew by 6.8%, energy consumption has actually decreased by 13% (5.60 x 1012 Btu to 4.87 x 1012 Btu). Some possible explanations include increased energy efficiency efforts by the University (Green Lights Program, Energy Star, etc…) and behavior changes encouraged by University efforts (shutting down computer monitors).
As mentioned previously, data on transportation energy associated with private or commercial vehicle us on campus is not currently available. The importance of this information should not be underestimated. This type of indicator can assist with evaluations of overall transportation assessments on campus. For example, without the information it is difficult to discern whether reductions in energy use of University related vehicles has merely been shifted to private vehicles. Although collection of this type of data remains difficult, one possible alternative might be a regular sample survey of the campus population’s driving habits as they relate to University activities.
48 Indicator 5 Transportation energy by non-fleet, private/commuting vehicles Data not currently tracked (recommended for inclusion in future assessments)
Efforts have been made in this report to include a more complete picture of the total impacts associated with energy consumption on-site. To this end, Indicator 6 provides the total fuel cycle energy consumption, as described in the methodology section. Similar to Indicator 4, the chart separates the consumption by non-renewable and renewable feedstocks. Again, renewable sources contribute a small portion of the overall total. In 2001, it represented 3.66 x 1010 Btu of the total fuel cycle energy consumption of 5.95 x 1012 Btu (0.6%). This represents a 65.8% improvement over the percent renewable in 1990, which made up 0.4% of the total fuel cycle energy.
The overall fuel cycle energy consumption figures follow a similar pattern to the on-site consumption figures year over year. From 1990 to 2001, total fuel cycle energy consumption has increased by 19.7%. To provide a clearer picture of the amount of additional information that a fuel cycle analysis can contribute, Indicator 7 displays the on-site energy consumption and the associated total fuel cycle energy consumption for electricity and heating/cooling. As the graph demonstrates, in 2001, for every unit of energy consumed on campus, an average of an additional 11.8% is required to convert the feedstock into an energy form that can be consumed.
Indicator 6 Total fuel cycle energy consumed, separated by renewable and non-renewable feedstocks
7.00E+12 Non-renewable - Total 6.00E+12 5.00E+12 4.00E+12 Renewable - Total Btu 3.00E+12
2.00E+12 Non-renewable - 1.00E+12 Electricity & Heating/Cooling 0.00E+00 Renewable - Electricity & Heating/Cooling 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year
49 Indicator 7 Total fuel cycle energy vs. on-site energy consumption (electricity & heating/cooling only)
7.00E+12
6.00E+12
5.00E+12
4.00E+12 Total fuel cycle- electricity & heating/cooling
BTU On-site - electricity & heating/cooling 3.00E+12
2.00E+12
1.00E+12
0.00E+00 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year
Indicator 8 concludes the energy indicators section with a depiction of on-site transportation energy for the years 1990, 2000, and 2001. The renewable portion of the on-site consumption can clearly be identified in 2001. Renewables contributed 8.5% of the on-site transportation energy consumption (9.07 x 109 Btu out of 1.06 x 1011 Btu).
Indicator 8 On-site transportation energy separated by renewable and non-renewable feedstock
1.60E+11 1.40E+11 1.20E+11 1.00E+11 Renewable 8.00E+10 Btu Non-renewable 6.00E+10 4.00E+10 2.00E+10 0.00E+00 1990 2000 2001 Year
50 3.2 Materials consumed
Quantifying the sustainability impacts associated with the consumption of materials, and the creation of those materials prior to their consumption, is difficult because of the vast diversity of materials consumed by society and the variety of manufacturing alternatives that exist for most products. As with energy, the impacts associated with our consumption of materials arise not only during their use, but also during the creation of those materials. Creation can involve mining, manufacturing, or other upstream (pre-use) phases of the product or material life cycle.
In general terms, impacts associated with the creation and use of materials fall in to the following two categories:
C Depletion creation and/or use of the material requires the use of non-renewable resources (for example, fossil fuels) or the use of renewable resources (such as natural habitat) at a rate faster than their rate of replenishment.
C Toxicity creation and/or use of the material exposes humans and/or ecosystems to toxic or polluting substances that are harmful to human or ecosystem health.
The diversity of materials used by an organization and the variety of ways in which they are used makes the impact of total material consumption difficult to track. Accordingly, three types of materials used frequently by universities have been chosen for study in this report: paper, pesticides, and fertilizer. While the impacts associated with the creation and use of these materials do not reflect the full life cycle impacts associated with all material use that occurs within the U-M AA system, they nonetheless represent examples of depletion and toxicity impacts. The indicators associated with each of the three materials are outlined below.
Several other indicators were considered by other universities within campus environmental or sustainability reports or were recommended by various reviewers during the course of report development. While it was not possible to gather data for these indicators, they could be considered for use during future assessments. These include:
C Total quantity of solvents used in facilities and laboratory settings, C Purchasing and contracting specifications for purchase of products with “ecolabels”.
51 3.2.1 Paper use
3.2.1.1 Indicators and Metrics
S Indicator 9 Total paper purchased through M-Stores, including recycled- content and chlorine-free paper o Metric 2 Per capita paper purchased through M-Stores S Indicator 10 Total Paper Consumption at U-M AA (Estimated) o Metric 3 Per capita paper consumption at U-M AA (estimated)
3.2.1.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice
Over the past few years, the pulp and paper manufacturing process has changed considerably. Some manufacturers have switched from the use of environmentally harmful chemicals to more benign chemicals in production processes (Chlorine Chemistry Council 1995), while others are developing closed-loop recycling processes that allow for the on-site generation of electricity from process waste (US Asia Environmental Partnership 1995est).
However, pulp and paper processing still requires significant consumption of scarce resources and can have negative environmental impacts. Raw material in the form of virgin wood fiber or, in the case of recycled paper, fiber obtained from other sources, is required. According to the United States – Asia Environmental Partnership, a public-private initiative jointly implemented by several U.S. government agencies including the United States Agency for International Development and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, approximately 170 gallons of oil are required on average to produce one ton of pulp from a chemical pulping process. Chemical pulping creates process residues that can be used to generate energy, and as of 1994, 57% of U.S. paper mills were completely energy self- sufficient due to their use of these process by-products to generate the energy consumed on- site (US Asia Environmental Partnership 1995). The pulp and paper industry is the largest user of industrial process water in the U.S. per ton of product made, consuming 16,000 to 17,000 gallons of water per ton of pulp produced. While this consumption has decreased from dramatically higher levels in the mid-1940s, water use remains a primary concern of the U.S. industry (US Asia Environmental Partnership 1995). In addition to resource consumption, pulp and paper processing also results in chemical releases to water (effluents) and air (emissions). The pulp and paper industry had the highest TRI chemical releases per facility, amounting to 550,000 lbs, of all industries in 1993. Compared to other manufacturing sectors, the pulp and paper industry is a primary releaser of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide (US Asia Environmental Partnership 1995). Among the most hotly debated impacts of the pulp and paper industry are those associated with the use of elemental chlorine in the paper bleaching process and the subsequent discharge of chlorinated compounds, particularly dioxin. Once in the environment, there is concern that chlorinated organic compounds can have adverse effects upon reproduction and development, suppress the immune system, cause severe skin conditions, or lead to cancer in
52 exposed in animals, including humans (EPA 2001e). The US EPA is nearing completion of its comprehensive reassessment of dioxin exposure and human health effects.
Paper made from recycled materials offers environmental benefits over virgin-content paper, although its manufacture is not completely benign. In a recent White Paper, Duke University, Environmental Defense Fund, Johnson & Johnson, McDonald’s, The Prudential Insurance Company, and Time collaborated in a life cycle analysis of virgin paper- and recycled paper-based systems. Their analysis compared three types of “system-wide” processes – the use of 100% virgin fiber in paper production plus post-use landfilling, 100% virgin fiber plus incineration, and 100% recycled production plus post-use recycling. Findings indicated equal environmental impact in some dimensions, but an overall lower environmental impact for recycled paper systems in most dimensions (Environmental Defense et al 2002). See Figure 3-3 below for a summary of findings.
53 Virgin Production plus Incineration Virgin Production plus Landfilling Recycled Production plus Recycling
1,155 SOLID WASTES (lbs/ton) 2,613 1,055
ENERGY USAGE (million Btus/ton) 21.7 Total 40.0 33.5 Purchased
Fossil Fuel-Derived
A TMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS (lbs /ton) 3,582 Net Greenhouse Gases (CO2 Equivalents) 6,665 2,459 Nitrogen Oxides
Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs)
Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS)
WA TERBORNE WA STES (lbs /ton)
Adsorbable Organic Halogens (AOX)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
10,325 EFFLUENT FLOW (gals/ton) 20,250 20,250
0.0 WOOD USE (tons of trees) 3.47 3.47 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Figure 3-3 Average lifecycle energy use and environmental releases for office paper
54 As a result of the inescapable impact of paper use, many institutions and governments have been encouraging reductions in the overall consumption of paper of any type. As of 1995, the per capita consumption of paper in the U.S. was 331 kilograms (kg), or approximately 730 pounds (lbs). The second highest per capita consumption rate in the world, 238 kg or 525 lbs, occurred in Japan (United States – Asia Environmental Partnership 1995est).
Indicator 9 and Metric 2 track the proportion of the system’s paper demand being met by recycled-content and chlorine free paper. An increase in this proportion signals a trend toward sustainability as it decreases reliance upon paper made from virgin fiber and with the environmentally harmful chemical chlorine.
Indicator 10and Metric 3 allow for an estimation of overall paper consumption resulting from the system. This includes both direct institutional uses and indirect uses caused by the institution’s products and services. In the case of universities, these indirect uses include paper use by students in notebooks, textbooks, and other uses. (These uses are explained in the Methodology section below). While trends in this indicator are more complicated to assess, the ability to decrease overall paper consumption while continuing to excel in meeting the mission of the organization indicates progress toward sustainability.
3.2.1.3 Context within U-M AA System
Most of the largest consumers of paper on campus purchase paper through the U-M AA’s central purchasing department, M-Stores. They include:
C Financial Operations C Medical School Administration C Division of Research Development and Administration C Legal Research / Law School Library C Business School Administration C University Libraries C Computing Sites C Copy Centers #1 and #2 C College of Engineering Computer Aided Engineering Network
The U-M AA’s Purchasing Services website provides information about “green purchasing” options available through M-Stores and other purchasing vehicles such as Prime Vendors and Campus Wide Vendors. These options include University-wide contracts with suppliers that offer recycled and remanufactured office supplies and equipment (Purchasing Services 2002).
3.2.1.4 Methodology
To calculate Indicator 9 and Metric 2, data regarding the total number of sheets of standard office paper (8.5x11, 20# bond) purchased per year were obtained from M-Stores and classified according to recycled-content, chlorine-free, and traditional papers. All papers
55 containing any percentage of recovered fiber, either pre-consumer or post-consumer, were counted as recycled-content papers. Sheets of paper purchased were converted to total weight of paper purchased by multiplying each sheet total by the standard ream weight for that type of paper. Standard ream weights were computed using International Paper’s online Paper Calculator (International Paper 2002).
To calculate Indicator 10and Metric 3, the team considered the following sources of paper demand, in addition to the demand met through M-Stores purchases:
C University of Michigan Press publications C Marketing Communications’ standard, high volume publications (Faculty and Staff Directory and Planning Guide) C Printing Services uses not accounted for in M-Stores totals C University newspapers – Michigan Daily, University Record, Michigan Today C Student textbook, coursepack, and notebook use
Data and estimates regarding paper usage for the above sources of demand were obtained during telephone interviews with the U-M Press, Marketing Communications, Printing Services, and the U-M newspapers. Most estimates were based on approximate annual usage rather than on specifically tracked annual data, so a trend analysis of historical data was not possible.
Estimates of paper usage by students were based on the following, probably conservative, assumptions:
C Average # coursepacks plus textbooks per class: 1.5 C Approximate % of coursepacks plus textbooks printed on recycled-content paper: 10% C Average # pages (8.5x11”) per coursepack or textbook: 50 C Average # notebook pages consumed per class: 50 C Average # classes per year per student: 10
In addition to traditional 8.5x11” 20# bond paper, the overall use estimate considered the use of newsprint. Three newspapers were included in the analysis: the student-published Michigan Daily, the weekly faculty and staff paper the University Record, and the tri-annual U-M AA News and Information Services-published Michigan Today. Average circulation and page counts were obtained via telephone conversations with each paper. Annual pages were multiplied by the weight per page for each paper, obtained by weighing 5 copies of each paper on a Setra High Resolution Counting Scale and dividing by the total page count of the 5 copies.
This analysis does not capture all of the uses of paper within the U-M AA system (see Table 3-7 below for a description of omissions). In all cases, only use-phase paper consumption was considered (estimates of the weight of waste due to cutting during book and publication manufacturing were not considered). However, this single year analysis of the overall use
56 data does permit a preliminary estimate of the paper consumption rates associated with major activities within the U-M AA system.
Table 3-6 Paper Consumption - Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format
M-Stores - Central 998- Screen shots (print outs from M-Stores paper Debby Burch Stores 7068x206 system records) and Excel files Marketing Communications Marketing bash@umich. Transmitted via telephone paper Brett Ashley Communications edu interview Printing Services timberna@u large paper use Tim Bernadelli Printing Services mich.edu Transmitted via e-mail Printing Services' Copy Center paper Transmitted via telephone use Jim Gannon Printing Services 615-7170 interview U-M Press (Production jgrucel@umi Transmitted via telephone U-M Press John Grucelski Manager) ch.edu interview Michigan Today johnwood@u Transmitted via telephone Michigan Today John Woodford (Executive Editor) mich.edu interview
Table 3-7 Paper Consumption - Assumptions, Omissions, Limitations Assumptions Omissions Limitations M-Stores paper - None - None - None Total paper - See assumptions regarding - The use of office paper not - In many cases, information (estimated) student paper use above obtained through M-Stores (no obtained from other users was an centralized data collection is estimate of annual use. undertaken for this use)
- Average weight per book - Other publications produced quoted by U-M Press was by Marketing Communications assumed to include only the and others weight of paper used - All paper used in coursepacks, - Manufacturing phase paper text books, and notebooks was consumption (ie, paper assumed to be 8.5x11” 20# bond trimmings produced during cutting)
3.2.1.5 Results and Discussion
The use of recycled paper by the U-M AA campus is encouraged via numerous mechanisms, from signage notifying users that recycled paper is in use in area printers to the arrangement of purchasing contracts with recycled-paper vendors. Indicator 9 and Metric 2 (below) report the total and per capita amounts of paper purchased through M-Stores.
57 Indicator 9 Total paper purchased through M-Stores, including recycled-content and chlorine-free paper
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
Total Paper Purchased Total (Lbs) 500,000
0 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year
Total traditional Total recycled content Total chlorine free and recycled content
Metric 2 Per capita paper purchased through M-Stores
60 50 40 30 20 10
Per Capita Purchased (Lbs) 0 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year
Per cap traditional Per cap recycled content Per cap chlorine free and recycled content
Over the past three years, the total and per capita quantity of office paper purchased through M-Stores has remained relatively constant at approximately 3 million lbs total and 48 lbs per capita. By contrast, the percentage of the total purchased paper that contained any recycled content has dropped from 17.2% in 1999 to approximately 12.8% in 2000 to 2001. The use of chlorine-free paper as a percent of the total purchase has remained steady but insignificant at 0.4% over the past three years. These results suggest that efforts to encourage the use of
58 recycled-content and chlorine-free paper have not made a significant impact on paper consumption behavior.
Indicator 10and Metric 3 (below) illustrate that paper purchased through M-Stores is likely to constitute a majority of overall paper use within the U-M AA system. The estimated share is 60.3%. In addition, traditional (non-recycled) paper is estimated to constitute the majority of total estimated paper consumption. However, as indicated above, the estimate of additional paper use beyond that purchased through M-Stores does not reflect the full magnitude of additional paper use.
Indicator 10 Total Paper Consumption at U-M AA (Estimated)
6,000,000
5,000,000 M-Stores 20# bond - traditional
4,000,000 Additional 20# bond - traditional
3,000,000 M-Stores 20# bond - recycled content
2,000,000 Additional 20# bond - recycled content Total Consumption (Lbs) Consumption Total
1,000,000 Newsprint
- Calendar Year 2000 Year
59 Metric 3 Per capita paper consumption at U-M AA (estimated)
6,000,000 M-Stores 20# bond - 5,000,000 traditional Additional 20# bond - 4,000,000 traditional
M-Stores 20# bond - 3,000,000 recycled content
2,000,000 Additional 20# bond - recycled content Total Consumption Total(Lbs) Consumption 1,000,000 Newsprint
- Calendar Year 2000 Year
60 3.2.2 Pesticide Use
3.2.2.1 Indicators and Metrics
S Indicator 11 Total Liquid and Solid Pesticide Applied, by EPA Toxicity Ranking and PAN Bad Actor Classification
3.2.2.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice
The term “pesticide” applies to any substance or mixture of substances used to control unwanted insects (insecticides and miticides), plants (herbicides), mildew and fungi (fungicides), and rodents (rodenticides) (OSEH 2002b). Pesticides can be synthetic or natural. One category of natural pesticides, biological or microbial pesticides, is pest- destroying organisms such as bacteria (California Environmental Protection Agency 2002), while the other, botanical, are derived directly from plants or plant products.
When used properly, pesticides play a valuable role in controlling pests. Pests can destroy crops and, in the case of some fungi, act as potent carcinogens (California Environmental Protection Agency 2002). If used improperly, however, pesticides can endanger both human and ecosystem health. They can be harmful to humans and animals if ingested during or after application and can, via leaching through soils or running off, contaminate ground- and surface waters (OSEH 2002d). Understanding the risks posed by pesticide use is complicated. A pesticide’s overall risk depends upon its level of hazard and on the degree of exposure an organism has to the pesticide. Hazard levels and the likelihood of exposure for a given pesticide depend in part upon its combination of physical and chemical characteristics, including its toxicity, its persistence, its solubility in water, its selectivity, or specificity of effect on natural enemies, and other attributes. Expressed in another way, a pesticide’s risk depends upon both its toxicity and the degree to which humans and/or ecosystems may be exposed to it (US EPA Office of Pesticide Programs 1999).
A pesticide’s acute toxicity refers to the immediate effects (within 7-10 days) of a particular dose on human health. Toxicity rankings and their corresponding signal words (Danger, Warning, and Caution) outlined by the US EPA and found on pesticide labels are based on the LD50, or the dose (in milligrams of the substance per kilogram of body weight) that kills 50% of the test animals in a standard assay (Extoxnet 1993a)14.
In addition to immediate effects, certain pesticides can have chronic health consequences. These can be carcinogenic, cause behavioral impairment, reproductive dysfunction, endocrine disruption, developmental disabilities, or can be neurotoxic, which most often means inhibiting the enzyme cholinesterase.
14 Extoxnet is a project of the Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, the University of Idaho, and the University of California at Davis and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State University.
61 Beyond direct human health effects, pesticides can overwhelm the natural stability of the ecosystems into which they are introduced. Pesticides can cause forest decline due to air pollution and acid deposition, decrease bird egg survival rates, threaten aquatic species and their food supplies, and disrupt the balance between pest and predator insects (Extoxnet 1993b).
Pesticides that are highly persistent in the environment have received particular attention. Pesticide persistence is usually expressed in terms of “half-life”, or the length of time needed for one half of the total amount applied to break down to non-toxic substances. Particularly hazardous are pesticides classified as Persistant Organic Pollutants (POPs). POPs are toxic substances composed of organic chemical compounds and are of particular concern because they are toxic to humans and animals, do not degrade readily in the environment, tend to bioaccumulate, and often change from solid to gaseous phase, traveling long distances in the air before being redeposited in the environment. Research on POPs has focused on 12 chemicals - the 'dirty dozen' - nine of which are pesticides and include DDT, chlordane and heptachlor (United Nations Environment Program 2000).
Indicator 11 tracks the overall quantities of pesticide used and provide information about the relative hazard of those pesticides. In so doing, this indicator provides information about how sustainably one aspect of the stewardship of natural areas is being managed. Decreasing the overall quantity of pesticides used per acre of open space owned by the U-M AA, while holding steady or decreasing the level of exposure and still maintaining the functionality of those open spaces, indicates a move toward sustainability. Whether caused by a decrease in the amount of pesticide applied to each acre of managed land (a decrease in the application rate) or by a transition of acreage from active to natural management, the resulting decrease in the overall quantity of pesticides used lowers overall hazards to ecosystem and human health.
The latter change, a transition of acreage from active to natural management, would entail a significant change in the way that open areas are perceived on the U-M AA campus. Here, as on many other university campuses across the country, large expanses of mowed green grass are seen as indicators of a vibrant campus community, and serve as gathering places for students, faculty and staff, and the surrounding community at all times of the year. Modifying impressions of what a college campus “should” look like would require significant investment in education and outreach.
Assessing the toxicity profile, as represented by the EPA’s toxicity rankings and by classification as “Bad Actors” by the pesticide information organization Pesticide Action Network, of the array of pesticides used by the U-M AA allows for an understanding of the overall hazard associated with the U-M AA’s pesticide use. A decrease in the use of highly toxic pesticides represents another way in which the U-M AA might move toward sustainability. Interpretation of this indicator is complicated by the fact that less toxic alternatives that still eliminate the targeted natural enemy may not exist for every pesticide.
62 3.2.2.3 Context within U-M AA System The management of natural spaces on the U-M AA campus is overseen by a variety of departments. Grounds & Waste provides groundskeeping services on Central Campus, North Campus, and Family Housing. Within this area, Grounds maintains gardens, trees and wooded areas, and 152 acres of turf (Grounds and Waste 2002). In addition, the Athletics department oversees management of all athletic properties, including the U-M AA’s two golf courses, the Blue Course and Radrick Farms, the football stadium, and all other athletic fields. Finally, Matthei Botanical Gardens and the Nichols Arboretum round out the major grounds areas included within the U-M AA system.
In each of these areas, the U-M AA adheres to strict Integrated Pest Management principles, following a process of inventorying, monitoring, and non-chemical remediation prior to applying pesticides as a measure of last resort (Grounds and Waste (b) 2002). When pest control measures are needed, U-M AA managers rely first on cultural, mechanical, physical, or biological measures, such as introducing species-specific parasitic and predatory insects or microorganisms to reduce or control a specific pest. In addition, the U-M AA’s Office of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH) has implemented a comprehensive Drift Management Plan designed to minimize the unintended impacts of pesticide application (OSEH 2002a).
3.2.2.4 Methodology Data regarding pesticide applications were obtained from each of the four main departments that together oversee most of the open acreage owned by the U-M AA. With the exception of a few Excel spreadsheets, most data were obtained in hard copy format from individual records kept by each department. Due to the complexity of obtaining and synthesizing data, this initial survey of pesticide use was limited to outdoor applications only. U-M AA’s Plant Operations Division manages indoor pesticide applications within an IPM framework (Plant Operations Division 2002).
A number of conventions were followed during the synthesis of pesticide data. First, while monthly data were available from some departments, other departments supplied data in calendar (rather than fiscal) year format. Rather than trying to reorganize this data into fiscal year format, all totals were calculated in terms of calendar years. Second, data regarding liquid and solid pesticide applications were summed independently, as there was no standard way to convert volume measurements to mass measurements for all of the different pesticides.
Data regarding pesticide applications in most outdoor areas within the U-M AA system were available for both 2000 and 2001. In those cases where data was not available (e.g. some of the areas within Grounds), data regarding application amounts for 2001were used to estimate calendar year 2000 applications. As no information was available regarding changes in application rates due to weather or managed acreage variation from one year to the next, calendar year 2000 applications were assumed to equal calendar year 2001 applications. The estimated applications represented 51% of the total applications calculated for Grounds in 2000.
63 Once data regarding pesticide applications had been entered into spreadsheets, total quantities of liquid and solid pesticides applied were calculated for each calendar year, 2000 and 2001. The indicators for this category present total quantities of pesticides applied, as opposed to a metric such as quantities applied per managed acre for two reasons. First, few records exist that document exact changes in managed acreage year to year, and second, the total number of managed acres is not thought to change significantly from year to year.
Pesticide applications were also classified according to two variables associated with the pesticide being used:
C EPA Acute Toxicity Rating Numerical and signal word ranking system, where - 1 (Danger) = Highly Toxic - 2 (Warning) = Moderately Toxic - 3 (Caution) = Slightly Toxic - 4 = Not Acutely Toxic
C Pesticide Action Network (PAN) “Bad Actor” Status Pesticides classified by the Pesticide Action Network as “Bad Actors” are at least one of the following (Pesticide Action Network 2002):
- Known or probable carcinogens, as designated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), U.S. EPA, U.S. National Toxicology Program, and the state of California's Proposition 65 list. - Reproductive or developmental toxicants, as designated by the state of California's Proposition 65 list. - Neurotoxic cholinesterase inhibitors, as designated by California Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Materials Safety Data Sheet for the particular chemical, or PAN staff evaluation of chemical structure (for organophosphorus compounds). - Known groundwater contaminants, as designated by the state of California (for actively registered pesticides) or from historic groundwater monitoring records (for banned pesticides). - Pesticides with high acute toxicity, as designated by the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. EPA, or the U.S. National Toxicology Program
EPA Toxicity Rankings and PAN Bad Actor statuses were available by pesticide in the Pesticide Action Network’s online database. In those cases where hard copy application records were unclear about the variety of a pesticide applied and no EPA Product Registration Number was available, the team tried first to identify the variety likely applied by U-M AA by assuming that only products currently listed as Active (rather than Cancelled) were used. If this still did not eliminate all but one possible variety, the most common Toxicity Ranking and PAN Bad Actor status for the possible varieties was used. For example, in many cases, all varieties of a pesticide were considered PAN Bad Actors. Even if application records were unclear about which variety had been applied, it was possible to
64 establish that the applied variety had been a PAN Bad Actor. Please see Appendix M-7 for a listing of all assumptions by application.
Table 3-8 Pesticide Use - Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format Grounds Marvin Pettway Grounds and Waste marvinp@um Some data available in Excel Management ich.edu format, most obtained in hard Services copy of daily application records Grounds Rob Doletsky Grounds and Waste doletzky@u Some data available in Excel Management mich.edu format, most obtained in hard Services copy of daily application records Athletic fields and Tracey Jones Intercollegiate tracmon@um Hard copy of annual Blue Course Athletics ich.edu application records Radrick Farms Golf Corbin Todd Radrick Farms corbint@umi Excel spreadsheet of daily Course ch.edu applications Matthei Botanical Mike Hommel LS&A Botanical mhommel@u Personal interview Gardens Gardens (Matthei) mich.edu Nichols Arboretum Rob Grese Nichols Arboretum bgrese@umic Personal interview h.edu Nichols Arboretum Guy Smith Nichols Arboretum guysmith@u Photocopy of daily application mich.edu log entries General pesticide John Witter SNRE (Professor) jwitter@umic Personal interview information h.edu
Table 3-9 Pesticide Use - Assumptions, Omissions, Limitations Assumptions Omissions Limitations Pesticide use - Pesticide applications for - Indoor pesticide applications - Square footage for many of those areas where 2000 data were the areas within both golf courses missing were equal to was estimated as no precise applications in 2001 measures were available
- Biological and botanical pesticide applications were not specifically requested; if applications of these substances were not included in departmental records, they were also not included in analysis
3.2.2.5 Results and Discussion
Over 60 different pesticide products have been applied within the U-M AA system over the past two years. The two graphs for Indicator 11 below characterize total liquid (first graph) and solid (second graph) pesticide applications in terms of EPA Toxicity Ranking and PAN Bad Actor Status. Trend analysis for this indicator is difficult due to the fact that comparisons of use patterns between liquid and solid pesticides is difficult, and due to the
65 fact that historical data beyond the two years presented were not available from all departments.
Indicator 11 Total Liquid and Solid Pesticide Applied, by EPA Toxicity Ranking and PAN Bad Actor Classification Liquid Pesticide Use
2000 2001 800
700
600
500
400
Gallons 300
200
100
0 2000 Liquid Pesticide 2000 Liquid Pesticide 2001 Liquid Pesticide 2001 Liquid Pesticide Use by Toxicity Use by PAN Bad Actor Use by Toxicity Use by PAN Bad Actor Classification Classification
Highly Toxic Moderately Toxic Slightly Toxic Unknown
PAN Bad Actor Not PAN Bad Actor Unknown
66 Solid Pesticide Use
2000 2001 14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
Pounds (Lbs) 4,000
2,000
0 2000 Solid Pesticide 2000 Solid Pesticide 2001 Solid Pesticide 2001 Solid Pesticide Use by Toxicity Use by PAN Bad Actor Use by Toxicity Use by PAN Bad Actor Classification Classification
Highly Toxic Moderately Toxic Slightly Toxic Unknown
PAN Bad Actor Not PAN Bad Actor Unknown
Conclusions about the trend in overall quantities of pesticides applied from 2000 to 2001 are complicated by the fact that quantities of liquid pesticides applied increased by 174%, while the quantities of solid pesticides applied decreased by 40%.
Conclusions about the use of Highly and Moderately Toxic pesticides are similarly complicated. The overall quantity of Highly and Moderately Toxic liquid pesticides applied increased from 2000 to 2001, while the overall quantity of Highly and Moderately Toxic solid pesticides applied decreased. The proportion of total pesticides applied that were Highly and Moderately Toxic decreased in both the liquid and solid categories, from over 65% in 2000 to 38.1% in 2001 for liquids and from 18% in 2000 to 7% in 2001 for solids.
The use of liquid pesticides classified as PAN Bad Actors increased from 2000 to 2001. While the proportion these pesticides represent within the overall quantity of liquid pesticides applied decreased from 2000 to 2001, in both years liquid PAN Bad Actor pesticides were used more frequently than non-Bad Actors or pesticides whose status was unknown. In other words, PAN Bad Actors were 65.2% of the total in 2000 and 48% of the total in 2001.
Both the total use of solid PAN Bad Actor pesticides and the proportion those pesticides represent in the overall quantity of solid pesticides applied decreased from 2000 to 2001.
A more detailed impact assessment, which covered both pesticide toxicity and pesticide persistence and other characteristics that increase the likelihood of exposure, would be required to more accurately evaluate the U-M AA’s pest management program. It was also suggested that future assessments of pesticide use consider a pesticide’s selectivity, or ability to eliminate the targeted pest without causing broader effects on natural systems.
67 3.2.3 Fertilizer Use
3.2.3.1 Indicator
S Indicator 12 Total Fertilizer Nutrients Applied, Calendar Year 1999 - 2001
3.2.3.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice
Fertilizer is defined by the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO) as “any substance containing one or more recognized plant nutrient(s) which is used for its plant nutrient content…”, and fertilizer material as a fertilizer that either (1) contains important quantities of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K), or (2) is derived from a plant or animal reside or by-product or natural material deposit which has been processed in such as way that its content of plant nutrients has not been materially changed except by purification and concentration (U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste 1999). Of the 54 million tons of commercial fertilizers and liming materials (materials added to soils to neutralize soil acidity), primary nutrient (N, P, K) fertilizers accounted for 91%, secondary nutrient (calcium, magnesium, sulfur) and micronutrient (boron, chlorine, cobalt, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, sodium, and zinc) fertilizers for 5%, liming materials for 4%, and organic fertilizers for 1% (U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste 1999).
As with pesticides, the use of fertilizers can have positive impacts on the efficiency of crop production, but fertilizer overuse can have negative consequences for both human and ecosystem health. As the amount of fertilizer used approaches the physiological capacity of crops to absorb nutrients, the excess nitrogen poses a threat to ecosystem health. Along with phosphorus, another key fertilizer ingredient, nitrogen promotes overgrowth of algae in rivers, lakes and bays. As the algae die and decay, they use up large amounts of the water's oxygen, depriving other species of the oxygen they need to survive (UNEP 2000). Nitrogen leaching into our ground waters and drinking water supplies is a concern because excess nitrogen in drinking water can contribute to the "blue baby" syndrome (methemoglobinemia) in infant mammals less than one year of age (NC State University 2002).
Indicator 12 tracks the total quantity of each of the primary nutrients contained in applied fertilizers. While exact predictions of the amount and source of fertilizer that is sustainable are difficult, it is deemed a positive trend toward sustainability if the amount of nutrient applied per acre decreases over time and functionality of the managed acres is preserved.
3.2.3.3 Methodology
Data regarding fertilizer applications were obtained from each of the four main departments that together oversee most of the open acreage owned by the U-M AA.
68 Data regarding 2000 and 2001 fertilizer applications at Radrick Farms golf course were accessible only for a portion of the course (the greens only). In order to estimate fertilizer applications for the entire golf course including the remaining areas (tees and fairways), applications on the greens were totaled and compared to greens applications in 1999. This ratio was then multiplied by the 1999 totals for all golf course areas to obtain the total for the current year.
Table 3-10 Fertilizer Use - Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format Grounds Marvin Pettway Grounds and Waste marvinp@um Some data available in Excel Management ich.edu format, most obtained in hard Services copy of daily application records Grounds Rob Doletsky Grounds and Waste doletzky@u Some data available in Excel Management mich.edu format, most obtained in hard Services copy of daily application records Athletic fields and Tracey Jones Intercollegiate tracmon@um Hard copy of annual Blue Course Athletics ich.edu application records Radrick Farms Golf Corbin Todd Radrick Farms corbint@umi Excel spreadsheet of daily Course ch.edu applications Matthei Botanical Mike Hommel LS&A Botanical mhommel@u Personal interview Gardens Gardens (Matthei) mich.edu Nichols Arboretum Rob Grese Nichols Arboretum bgrese@umic Personal interview h.edu Nichols Arboretum Guy Smith Nichols Arboretum guysmith@u Photocopy of daily application mich.edu log entries
Table 3-11 Fertilizer Use - Assumptions, Omissions, Limitations Assumptions Omissions Limitations Fertilizer use - Year-to-year variations in - Quantities of fertilizers other application rates for each of the than primary nutrient fertilizers main areas at the Radrick Golf applied within U-M AA Course are equal
69 3.2.3.4 Results and Discussion
Indicator 12 Total Fertilizer Nutrients Applied, Calendar Year 1999 - 2001
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000 Potassium 40,000 Phosphorous Nitrogen 30,000 Quantity (Lbs) 20,000
10,000
- 1999 2000 2001 Year
Analysis of the significance of the variation in total amounts of primary nutrients applied per year is difficult. Decisions about nutrient applications are driven by a wide variety of factors, including rainfall, temperature, and other environmental conditions, as well as by aesthetic targets. For example, nutrient applications at Radrick Golf Course increased in 1999 and 2000 because managers were attempting to revive several specific areas of the course. In addition, trend analysis is complicated by the fact that data is only available for two prior years, and the three-year time period is too short to permit rigorous trend analysis.
70 3.3 Water use
3.3.1 Indicators
S Indicator 13 Total U-M AA water use per day o Metric 4 Daily Water Use per capita o Metric 5 Daily water use per square foot building space
3.3.2 Description of Indicator and Rationale for Choice The U-M AA is an institution with a population that exceeds half of Ann Arbor’s total population, in which educational, research, residential, and recreational activities occur that require the use of freshwater. The water use level of the university has a significant impact on the ecosystem from which the city of Ann Arbor obtains its water. About 80% comes from the Huron River at Barton Pond (surface water). The remaining 20% is from the Steere Farm wells (hence groundwater) located on the west side of town (City of Ann Arbor 2000). Groundwater is water that exists beneath the soil surface. When it rains, water infiltrates into the ground and percolates through the soil until it reaches a depth where all of the pore spaces are filled with water. Water in this saturated zone is called groundwater, and it can flow vertically and horizontally at a rate influenced by the glacial and bedrock geology of the area. Groundwater is found in aquifers, geologic formations where significant amounts of water can be stored, transmitted or supplied to well or a spring. The quality of groundwater and surface waters are intimately linked. Eventually, some groundwater flows to the surface to feed into lakes and streams (MSU IWR 1999).
In Michigan, groundwater typically discharges from aquifers to replenish rivers, lakes or wetlands. Conversely, surface waters recharge groundwater sources. Land-use activities affecting groundwater quality especially through infiltration of pollutants can affect surface water quality as contaminants are carried with groundwater discharge. Thus, in one way or another, drinking water quality in Michigan requires the protection of surface as well as groundwater supplies. Business, industry and agriculture all require high quality water for sustainable economic development. It is projected that the Great Lakes Region’s reliance on groundwater will increase with continued population shifts, development pressures and demands of a water dependent economy (MSU IWR 1999). For this reason, it is important to monitor and report water consumption and manage it in a manner that is progressively more sustainable.
Indicator 13 shows the net impact that U-M AA’s activities have on the ecosystems it draws water from. When normalized into metrics, this indicator allows us to consider growth in population and building area, assuming that these will affect water use because of higher activity levels at the university.
71 3.3.3 Context within University of Michigan The University of Michigan consumes water from the Huron River-Lake Erie Watershed system. "Entire region drained by a waterway that drains into a lake or reservoir; total area above a given point on a stream that contributes water to the flow at that point; the topographic dividing line from which surface streams flow in two different directions (Smith 1992). The Huron River Watershed is made up of all the land that drains either directly into the Huron River or into the creeks that feed into the Huron River. Parts of seven counties in southeast Michigan15 drain into the Huron River and are part of the Huron River Watershed. The Huron River, in turn, drains into Lake Erie; therefore all of the land in the Huron River Watershed is also a part of the Great Lakes Watershed. The Huron River provides water for drinking, industry and agriculture, and hydropower.16 Within the U-M AA system, water is used in quotidian activities such as administrative, educational and housing facilities daily operation, food preparation, research and teaching laboratories, landscape maintenance, including parks and golf courses, among others. It is an important component of sustainable management of this university. Figure 3-4 depicts a map of the Huron River Watershed (Huron River Watershed Council 2001). Figure 3-4 Huron River Watershed
Ann Arbor’s water distribution system is comprised of five pressure districts: Gravity, West High, Northeast High, Geddes High, and Southeast High. Treated water is delivered from the
15 Ingham, Jackson, Livingston, Monroe, Oakland, Washtenaw and Wayne 16 The water plant operates and maintains four dams located on the Huron River: Barton, Argo, Geddes, and Superior. Two of the dams (Barton and Superior) generate hydroelectric power. All four dams are operated to maintain pond levels. Each of the dams has an automatic controller designed to maintain the pond level within a 0.1 feet range. See [Internet] < http://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/framed/Utilities/WTP/int-Dams.htm>
72 water treatment plant to the distribution system by gravity flow and by two sets of high service pumps which serve the West High and Northeast High pressure districts, respectively. Four outlying pumping stations are used to transfer water to the higher-pressure districts and to pump water out of the ground reservoirs during periods of high demand. Figure 1-2 shows a schematic layout of the distribution system (Hsiung and Stoebner 2001). The green shaded area corresponds to most of the U-M AA system.
Figure 3-5 Ann Arbor Water Distribution Layout The University of Michigan discharges its wastewater to the City of Ann Arbor Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is located along the Huron River at Dixboro Road. The plant, which serves the City of Ann Arbor and Ann Arbor, Scio and Pittsfield townships, operates under a permit issued by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (AAWWTP 2001). The section on wastewater (section 3.7) provides a more in depth description of this system. The water treatment plant also manages the City’s water distribution system, which is comprised of five pressure districts within the city. The main reservoir, three outlying reservoirs, four remote pump stations and two elevated tanks supply these districts. The distribution system also consists of 439.02 miles of water mains, 3646 fire hydrants, and 5635 water main valves (City of Ann Arbor 2002).
3.3.4 Methodology The water17 and sewer18 consumption data were obtained from the Utility Annual Reports of the tracked years. These reports contain consumption data for the regular operation of the buildings, but do not include water consumed in the production of steam at the power plants. The data for the power plants had to be separately requested and were obtained from the Utilities Department of the Plant Operations Division of U-M AA and from the Central Power Plant itself. Some of the data was obtained in electronic form, while other was obtained in hardcopy; therefore it was compiled into a single worksheet for manageability. Data corresponding to buildings outside of this project’s boundaries were subtracted from the totals and separate. The water use data were converted from ccu (hundred cubic feet) into
17 The water service charge includes water system maintenance and replacement, materials and supplies, equipment, and customer account management. 18 Sewer Service Charge: The sewer service charge includes sewer system maintenance and replacement, materials and supplies, equipment, and customer account management. Sewer Flow Charge: The sewer flow charge is for the collection and treatment of sewer flow
73 gallons, and the totals were normalized to volume units per capita, and per square foot building space to take into consideration growth in population, and area within U-M AA. The analysis of the yearly metrics is mainly intended to identify trends in U-M AA’s water use. The 1995 results were benchmarked with national, regional and state data. The main assumption made in the water use analysis is that the data reported by the university in the sources that the team examined, are comprehensive. Table 3-12 illustrates the assumptions, omissions, and limitations associated with this analysis, and Table 3-13 shows the sources of data that were used. Table 3-12 Assumptions, Omissions and Limitations for the Water Use Indicators Assumptions Omissions Limitations Water use - The data reported by the - Specific data gathering - Power Plant water use was not university in the sources that the procedures are not presented. included in the annual utilities team examined, are report. comprehensive. - There have not been changes - Large water spills - Data is compiled in the same in the way measurements are occurrences, not related to manner at the power plants as at defined and the procedure, regular operation of the the Utilities Department throughout the periods examined. university are unknown. They could affect the results for a particular year.
Table 3-13 Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format Water Use- Utilities Duane Foster Occupational Safety 764-2492 Hardcopy Annual Report and Environmental danef@umich. Health (OSEH) edu
Hoover Plant Water Duane Foster OSEH 764-2492 Excel spreadsheet Use danef@umich. edu Central Power Water George Gooch Central Power Plant 764-3475; Hardcopy Use- Plant utilities (Plant Engineer) gegooch@umi 1990 ch.edu
3.3.5 Results and Discussion
3.3.5.1 Total Daily Water Use The following graph, Indicator 13, illustrates the total U-M AA daily water use in 1990 and between 1995 and 2000.
74 Indicator 13 Total U-M AA water use per day
4.0E+06 3.2E+06 2.4E+06
day 1.6E+06 8.0E+05 0.0E+00 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Volume in gallons per Year
U-M AA’s yearly total water use has fluctuated since 1990. During the period from 1990- 1995, total water use increased by 19.3 %. From 1996-1998 water use decreased, with the maximum decrease of 11% between 1996-1997. Total water use seems to be presently in another increasing period since 1999. From 1998-2000, water use increased by a 17.9%. The most recent large increase of 12.7% occurred from 1999-2000. This trend is also evident in the water use per capita metrics (Metric 4), and per square foot building space (Metric 5).
3.3.5.2 Daily Water Use per capita The following figure presents the results of the normalization of the total daily water use per capita. Another factor that could affect daily water use at U-M AA is the size of its population.
Metric 4 Daily Water Use per capita
6.0E+01 5.0E+01 4.0E+01 3.0E+01 2.0E+01 1.0E+01 per capita day Volume in gallons 0.0E+00 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year
Water use per capita experienced a large increase from 1990-1995. Although the university population during this period grew by a 4.3%, the water use grew by 14.5%. From this analysis we can infer that although the population increases at U-M AA affects water use, water use is not completely dependent on population and there must be other factors that affect these use levels. Water use per capita decrease from 1996-1998. However, as the total use, it has been increasing since 1998. The net change from 1998-2000 for the university population was 4.4% and the net increase in water use for this period was 13.6%. The pattern seems to be approaching the water use observed between 1990-1995.
75 3.3.5.3 Daily Water Use per square foot building space Daily Water Use at U-M AA, normalized per square foot building space is a metric intended to take into account building space growth when examining trends in water use. The following chart illustrates the results of this analysis.
Metric 5 Daily water use per square foot building space
1.5E-01 1.0E-01 5.0E-02 0.0E+00 per sq ftper day Volume in gallons 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year
Water use, as normalized per square foot building space, exhibits a similar trend to water use per capita, with some differences. From 1990-1995, water use per square foot building space increase by a 5.4%, and decreased from 1195-1998, while from 1998-2000 it increased by 17.9%. In contrast with this square foot building space has been growing at a slow pace, with the lowest net increase of 0.09 % observed from 1999-2000. The metrics that the team selected to analyze the data, while taking into consideration the different growths that have occurred at U-M AA, seem adequate to try to explain which type of growth is more closely related to changes in water use. However, this type of analysis would provide a masked picture of the real water use levels at U-M AA. For this reason it is also important to monitor and examine the trends in total water use. The rate of increase may also depend on temporary activities that vary from year to year, such as construction, less precipitation during the summer months and watering of campus and golf courses’ lawn, among others. Steam production is clearly the primary water using activity. It is used for heating, cooling and power generation. This inference can be derived from the data as shown in Appendix I (Water use Appendix). In fiscal year1990, steam production at the power plants was accounted for a 15.8% of total water use. Subsequent percentages were 10 % for years 1995, 10.5% in 1996, 10.9% in 1997, 11.2% in 1998, 12.7% in 1999 and 11.2% in 2000.
A brief comparison between U-M AA water use data for 1995 and national, regional (Great Lakes) and state (Michigan) follows. The U-M AA used in 1995 an average of 60 gallons per capita per day, whereas the U.S. national, the Great Lakes Region and the Michigan averages in the same year were 1280 g/d, 1500 g/d and 1260, respectively. In terms of total gallons used, U-M AA used 374.4 g/d whereas at the national, regional and state scales, the averages were 0.401 g/d, 0.032 g/d, and 0.012 g/d, respectively. Information on national,
76 regional and state use was only available for 1995. It would be more instructional to be able to establish historical trends at those other levels as well.
In order to attain more sustainable water use levels, considering the increase in population in economic and research activities in the city of Ann Arbor, the University of Michigan should adopt a policy of minimizing water use and maximizing reuse of this resource. However, as the trend seems to indicate, water use will continue to move in the opposite direction. It will keep increasing as the campus’ population, area and research activity levels grow. To the team’s knowledge is no record of any current water use reduction effort at U-M AA.
To facilitate the assessment and reporting of water use, data should be kept and available in electronic format. The team recognizes that U-M AA has gone through several changes in the software they use for keeping data in general. Also, it seems natural to expect that data for fiscal year 1990 was going to be harder to obtain than for the rest of the tracked years, because there have been several changes in the record keeping computer systems since then. Therefore, the difficulties we encountered for this portion of the data is understandable.
Conversely, the Utilities Annual Report is misleading because it does not warn of the fractional nature of the data it contains. For the type of analysis the team is making, it would be more convenient that water use data for all the buildings and activities are included in a comprehensive utilities report. Therefore, an optimal way of keeping the data to facilitate this kind of analysis and reporting would be to maintain a spreadsheet, containing the data for all the buildings. Water used for the generation of steam in the power plants should also be included.
77 3.4 Food Consumption
3.4.1 Indicators
S Indicator 14 Total Quantity of Food Purchased through M-Stores by Key Category (Excludes all food purchased from facilities not supplied by M-Stores) S Indicator 15 Total Quantity of Organic Food Purchased through M-Stores S Indicator 16 Ecological Footprint of Food Purchased through M-Stores
3.4.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice
Human food consumption provides both biophysical (nutritional) and emotional value and provides a context for social interaction. At the same time, food consumption can also have negative social and environmental impacts.
There are six primary stages of food product life cycles (Kramer 2000):
(1) Agriculture (2) Food Processing (3) Packaging (4) Transportation / shopping (5) Consumption (6) Waste Handling
From an environmental perspective, food production requires inputs of water, land and energy, frequently involves the use of fertilizers and pesticides, sometimes involve the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and can lead to the emissions of greenhouse gases, while consumption can lead to human health impacts and food waste. These impacts occur at various stages along food products’ lifecycles, and in varying amounts depending upon the type of food product being consumed, the amount of processing and packaging associated with that food product, and the distance it was transported from origination to consumption. Therefore, our choices about the types of food we consume play a role in our overall environmental and social impact.
More than 99% of the world’s food supply comes from the land. The global supply of arable land at current population levels is 0.27 ha per capita. In the U.S., approximately 0.6 ha per capita are cultivated to produce a relatively high animal protein and high calorie diet. Factoring in population growth while assuming no loss of arable land, that number will decrease to 0.17 ha per capita by 2050, when world populations are expected (according to the U.N. Population Division’s “Medium” estimate) to top 9 billion (Pimentel 1996).
Given current production systems, however, it is likely that the overall amount of arable land will decrease. Topsoil erosion is a severe problem both worldwide and in the U.S. After 100 years of farming, Iowa has lost half of its topsoil, considered among the most fertile soil in the world (Risser 1981). Overall, soil erosion in the U.S. occurs at a rate 13 times faster than
78 soil formation (Pimentel 1996). Under temperate agricultural conditions, it takes between 200 to 1,000 years to form a 2.5 cm –deep layer of topsoil (Pimentel 1996). Further, topsoil erosion selectively removes critical elements from the soil. Eroded soil usually contains 1.3 to 5 times more organic matter than the remaining soil (Barrows and Kilmer 1963). Soil organic matter not only helps retain water in the soil, but also supplies the major source of natural nutrients (such as nitrogen) needed for plants to grow. A number of practices, including the use of no-till culture (leaving crop residues on the land surface) and the planting of perennial rather than annual crops, can help to decrease rates of soil erosion and increase crop yields.
Current intensive, monoculture production systems can also pose a threat to biological diversity by converting natural habitat into agricultural production, deteriorating the quality of soils supporting plant species, and exposing many faunal species to pesticides. Food types differ in the amount of fertilizer and pesticide inputs typically used in traditional (non- organic) production systems.
Food Inputs kcal / ha % of Total Potato Diesel and gasoline 4,484,576 28% Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium 4,374,300 27% Insecticides, herbicides, fungicides 4,882,050 30% Corn Diesel and gasoline 1,255,000 12% Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium 3,905,000 37% Insecticides, herbicides, fungicides 600,000 6% Source: Pimentel, 1996.
One way to think about the efficiency of animal protein production systems is in terms of the energy input required to produce a given quantity of protein output. The energy input consists of the “costs” of the feed fed to the animals slaughtered for food, the feed required to maintain the breeding herd, and the energy expenditure of any equipment used during production (e.g. tractors, trucks, etc.). The amount of energy expended in livestock production depends not only on the animal and its reproductive system but also on the type of feed (Pimentel 1996). For many types of animals, namely those with a low rate of offspring production, the energy input required to maintain the breeding herd is a significant portion of the overall energy required to produce meat for consumption.
Simple rankings of the benefits of various livestock production systems are complicated by the large number of factors, including energy use, land use, water use, feed availability and prices, and consumer preference. For example, while range-fed animals generally require lower energy inputs per kcal of protein output, considerable amounts of energy would have to be expended in order to shift what are now largely grain-fed systems to range-fed systems, and to bring marginal agricultural land into forage production. In addition, grain-fed animals put on weight more rapidly than range-fed animals and can thus be brought to market more quickly, shortening the period during which they must be maintained prior to slaughter (Pimentel 1996).
79 Table 3-3-14 Fossil Energy Input per Animal Protein Production Output
Animal production system kcal energy input / kcal protein output Chicken 16:1 Milk 19:1 Eggs 28:1 Beef 35:1 Range beef 10:1 Pork 68:1 Lamb 188:1 Range lamb 16:1 Perch, ocean 4:1 Tuna 20:1 Shrimp 150:1 Lobster 192:1 Wheat 2.2:1 Apple 1.1:1 Spinach 0.23:1 Source: Pimentel, 1996.
The way in which foods are processed (ie, treated between production and consumption) also has an impact on the energy intensity of foods. For example,
Product kcal / kg Fruits, vegetables - canned 575 Fruits, vegetables - frozen 1,815 Baked goods 1,485 Breakfast cereals 15,675 Source: Pimentel, 1996.
From a social sustainability perspective, unbalanced food consumption can cause malnutrition, obesity, and/or diet-related diseases and conditions such as diabetes (Heller and Keoleian 2000). These human and public health concerns both threaten the health of social systems, but also result in significant healthcare-related costs.
Finally, food waste can pose significant environmental impacts, both through the increase in overall food demand that waste generates and through the larger associated costs of disposal. It is estimated that approximately 26% of edible food is wasted in the U.S. (Heller and Keoleian 2000).
Indicator 14 tracks the overall amount in pounds of each of several key food types consumed per year, allowing a snapshot of the food consumption choices being made within the system. Indicator 15 illustrates the extent to which environmentally and socially preferable alternatives to traditional foods are being adopted within the system. Indicator 16 uses a framework called the Ecological Footprint to approximate the overall environmental impact of food consumption within the system. This set of indicators omits several potential
80 indicators that would be useful for assessing different aspects of the sustainability of the system. These omissions are discussed below.
3.4.3 Context within the U-M AA System
U-M AA’s Residential Dining Services operates 10 residence hall dining services and 4 snack bars. Together, these facilities serve over 14,500 students, faculty, and staff on a daily basis (Entrée Plus 2002). In addition, two other dining facilities, a cafeteria at the Hospital, and a catering service are also included within the U-M AA system. Food for each of these dining facilities is procured through M-Stores according to orders placed by Dining Services facilities. M-Stores works with a variety of suppliers, but holds several exclusive contracts with certain suppliers within specific food categories. These “prime vendor” contracts, such as Dining Services exclusive contract with Simon Lehman for produce items, are decided as part of a set of product specifications outlined by a Menu Review Committee. The Menu Review Committee also determines menu criteria and composition. Student feedback and menu input is solicited via comment cards and e-mail. Both M-Stores and Dining Services staff emphasize the fact that changes to the menus available at U-M AA dining facilities are ultimately demand-driven.
At least one vegetarian entrée is offered at every residence hall dining facility at every meal. M-Smart entrees are also offered at each meal, whenever possible. M-Smart entrees are “healthy choices” that meet specific requirements for fat, protein, vitamin, and mineral content appropriate to college-aged students. Organic food, defined by the 1990 Organic Food Production Act as food produced in a production system that is managed by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity (United States Department of Agriculture 2002), does not currently make up a significant part of the U-M AA’s overall food purchase. Three types of certified organic cereals are offered daily at East Quad. In addition to this regular purchase, over the past four years, a Sustainable Food Day held during the University’s Earth Week has helped to raise awareness about vegetarian, vegan, and organic food options. In addition to serving selections of “earth-friendly” foods, the dining halls display table tents and other literature about organic food options.
Extensive outreach is provided by Dining Services to educate students about nutrition. Nutrition labels are posted for every menu item, and healthy choices are designated with the M-Smart logo. Dining Services’ Nutrition Specialist conducts regular group presentations on a variety of topics, including “Sustainable Eating”. Students are invited to contact the Nutrition Specialist or a nutrition contact in their hall directly with individual concerns, and a website is maintained to answer questions and provide additional information (Dining Services 2002).
Currently, a number of dining halls are participating in a food waste composting program. This program collects pre-consumer kitchen prep waste for composting. The program is discussed in further detail in the Solid Waste section of this report.
81 3.4.4 Methodology
Despite the importance of impacts to social sustainability, such as obesity and eating disorders, caused by food consumption within the U-M AA system, the team was not able to include an assessment of such impacts in the current analysis. Not only is data related to such impacts not currently tracked in a coordinated way by the U-M AA, but also linking human health conditions to food consumption at the U-M AA would be very difficult. However, this exclusion from our analysis does not indicate a lack of attention to these issues on the part of U-M AA Dining Services. Dining Services offers a number of education and outreach services designed to help U-M diners eat a healthy and balanced diet.
The starting point for the team’s assessment of environmental impacts was the calculation of overall quantities of food purchased by U-M AA dining facilities through M-Stores in each of several food categories. While the list of categories chosen was not exhaustive, the team had to limit the scope of the analysis to those categories believed to comprise the bulk of food consumption in U-M AA facilities.
Data regarding the total quantities of food purchased were obtained from M-Stores. Screen prints from the U-M AA’s computer system showing three prior years of monthly and annual food purchases for each of 427 individual non-produce products were manually entered into MS Excel. Data were available in a February-to-February format. In many cases, data for February 2002 was not yet available, so total purchases from February 2001 were entered as approximations. When necessary, purchase totals were converted from weight in ounces to weight in pounds.
Data regarding produce purchases was available in MS Excel format. This data listed quantities purchased in terms of a variety of purchasing units for 1,140 separate purchasing events during a representative six-month period. Data was converted from purchasing units (which ranged from cases of specified weights to cases of specified counts to total pounds) to total weight purchased in pounds. Where no weight was specified, case counts were converted to total weight in pounds using average per-item weights obtained from The Packer’s 2001 Availability & Merchandising Guide, published annually by Vance Publishing Corporation, or when not available from the Packers guide, from weights obtained on a standard grocery store scale. Total pounds of produce purchased during the six-month period were doubled to obtain an approximate annual purchase.
Data regarding the quantity (expressed in units of weight) of organic food purchases were obtained from the produce records. As a result, any non-produce organic foods purchased by M-Stores are not included in this indicator. However, other than a number of breakfast cereals available at select dining halls, few non-produce organic foods are purchased by M- Stores, so the number reported below is largely accurate.
Non-produce and produce food purchases could not be considered on a per capita basis. While the total number of Board and Entrée Plus contract holders was available from the Entrée Plus office, no data were available regarding the population eating at the U-M AA hospital. Estimates of the number of U-M AA hospital employees could not be
82 disaggregated from the Health System’s overall employee number. Even were it available, such a number would not have included hospital patients. Finally, no Board or Entrée Plus contract holder, U-M AA hospital employee, or hospital patient eats all of his or her meals at U-M AA facilities. As a result, a per capita food consumption number would have been highly inaccurate and would have appeared significantly understated when compared to national per capita consumption figures.
In order to gain a sense of the overall environmental impact of the U-M AA’s annual food purchase, the team used the Ecological Footprint calculation model developed by Redefining Progress. Redefining Progress is a California-based nonprofit public policy and research organization that coined the concept of ecological footprints in 1996. The ecological footprint of any given population is defined as the area (in acres or hectares) of biologically productive land that is required to produce the resources consumed. Calculating an ecological footprint involves converting non-land resources (including oceans and the total amount of fossil energy required to produce the resources consumed) to an equivalent land area, and summing that area with the other amounts of land inputs required to produce the resources consumed.
For example, the formula for calculating the portion of an overall ecological footprint that is due to Fossil Fuel Use is:
[Carbon sequestration ratio (m2/GJ)] * [Energy intensity (GJ/kg)] * [Locally grown, in season, and unprocessed food consumption factor (%)] * [Waste factor] * [Quantity in metric or US standard (kg)] * [Metric conversion factor, if needed (US to Metric)]
The carbon sequestration factor estimates the amount of land (in m2) required to absorb an amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent to the amount emitted by the burning of the required amount of fossil fuel. The energy intensity (or embodied energy) factor takes in to account the differing amounts of energy (in gigajoules) used during the entire life cycle (from manufacturing to transportation to disposal) of different types of food (in kilograms). The energy intensity factors that Redefining Progress uses in its Ecological Footprint model are illustrated in graphical format in Figure 3-6 below.
83 Fish 150 Beef 130 Pork 100 Poultry 80 Cheese, butter 65 Ice cream, sour cream 37.5 Eggs 25 Bread 25 Food Group Rice, cereals, pasta 20 Sugar 16.1 Milk, yogurt 10 Beans 10 Vegetables, potatoes, fruit 10
0 50 100 150 200 Fossil Energy Intensity (GJ/kg)
Figure 3-6 Fossil energy intensity of key food groups
The energy intensity factors used in the model were identified from a variety of sources. Redefining Progress is currently working to update the EF model to reflect more up-to-date energy intensity figures (Wackernagel 2002).
The waste factor takes into account the roughly 10% difference that the USDA reports generally exists between farm weight and retail weight. The waste factor, and the Ecological Footprint as a whole, does not take into account consumption-phase food waste. This is appropriate when calculating the footprint of the U-M AA’s purchased food, as the amount being measured is retail weight, not the weight of food immediately prior to consumption (when waste would not be factored in).
While energy use related to the packaging and transportation phases of the food product lifecycle is not explicitly addressed in the Ecological Footprint model, an adjustment is made to the formula above that reflects the extent to which locally-grown, unprocessed, and in- season foods are used. If no such foods are used, the total fossil energy component is multiplied by 120%. If a quarter of one’s consumption consists of such foods, the total fossil energy component is multiplied by 100%. The use of this factor confirms that the fossil energy impact of food packaging and transportation is captured in the average energy intensity for each food type.
84 As indicated above, a number of other indicators would have provided valuable information about the sustainability along different phases of the lifecycle. For example, additional indicators used by other universities or suggested by reviewers of this report include:
S Calculation of the average distance traveled per menu ingredient in a typical meal (eg. lunch menu), using the ingredients of each menu item and the distance from each ingredient’s last distribution point to UMAA S Detailed indicators for the top 5-10 food commodities that look at packaging, tracking each to their source, and comparing purchases with domestic supplies S Meals eaten at dining hall vs. fast food or pre-packaged junk food. Amount of space on campus devoted to junk food chains and how many meals these places serve v. meals that the dining hall serves S Analysis of food waste in the dining halls
Table 3-15 Data Sources - Food Consumption Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format Contextual Ruth Blackburn Dining Services ranblack@umi Personal interview information (Nutritionist) ch.edu Non-produce and Sandy Barkman M-Stores - Food sbarkman@u Hard-copy screen shots; Excel produce purchase Stores mich.edu worksheets totals Table 3-16 Assumptions, Omissions, Limitations - Food Consumption Assumptions Omissions Limitations Food consumption - February 2002 purchases were - Food purchases made - Accurate weights were not assumed to equal February 2001 independently by facilities (ie, available for all produce items. purchases not made through M-Stores) In those cases, weights of were not considered. These average-sized products were omitted facilities include the approximated using a standard Business School Executive grocery-store scale. Education cafeteria, the Law School cafeteria, and others
- Food consumed outside of facilities purchasing through M- Stores - Food purchased through M- Stores that did not fall in to one of the categories studied
3.4.5 Results and Discussion
The U-M AA purchases over 425 varieties of non-produce products in a year. Its purchasing system tracked over 1,100 different produce orders during a six-month period. Between March 2001 and February 2002, U-M AA Dining Halls and Snack Bars served over 1.5 million meals. The composition of these food purchases is presented in Indicator 14 below.
85 Indicator 14 Total Quantity of Food Purchased through M-Stores by Key Category (Excludes all food purchased from facilities not supplied by M-Stores)
2500000
Sugar 2000000 Fish Beef
1500000 Poultry (Chicken, Turkey) Pork Cheese 1000000 Beans Rice, cereals, pasta 500000 Bread
Food Purchased by M-Stores (Lbs) M-Stores Food Purchased by Produce 0 1999 (Excl. 2000 (Excl. 2001 (Excl. Produce Produce) Produce) Produce) (2001) Year
Interpretation of the total quantity (in pounds) of key food categories purchased through M- Stores is difficult. The quantity of food purchased through M-Stores by U-M AA dining facilities is declining over time, but part of this decline is due to the fact that the Hospital system has recently begun to purchase food through vendors other than M-Stores. In addition to this documented change, a number of other factors could also have had an effect on the quantity of food purchased through M-Stores. For example, consumption of other types of food products not tracked in this analysis may have increased. During the period above, enrollment in the U-M AA’s dining program Entrée Plus increased. The declining trend witnessed above could be due to an increase in the efficiency with which meals are served (via a decrease in pre- or post-consumer waste), or a decrease in the amount of food consumed per sitting and/or per year per diner. This latter decrease could be due to an increase in off-campus dining among Entrée Plus holders.
While analysis of the human health impacts of food consumption choices was beyond the scope of this analysis, it is worth noting that the quantity of sugar procured through M-Stores is nearly equivalent to the quantity of beans consumed. Furthermore, this estimate of sugar consumption excludes all sugar contained in pre-processed foods not prepared from scratch in U-M AA facilities. Thus, it is likely that this sugar consumption estimate is far understated. The significant impacts associated with unbalanced food consumption would be an important area for future assessments to explore.
86 Indicator 15 Total Quantity of Organic Food Purchased through M-Stores Total pounds of organic produce (apples, broccoli, and carrots) ordered: 326 lbs, or 0.05% of the total produce purchased through M-Stores.
Organic food sales represented 1-2% of total food sales in the U.S. in 1997, and are expected to continue to grow at 20% per year for the coming 5-10 years (USDA Economic Research Service 2001). The proportion of the total diet made up of organic food at the U-M AA is less than half of this national rate. While an historical comparison of quantities of organic food purchased by U-M AA is not possible, the establishment of a baseline estimate of organic food in the U-M AA system gives the University a starting point from which to set future targets for organic purchases and track progress against previous years.
The total Ecological Footprint of all food purchased through M-Stores (including produce) in 2001, assuming approximately one quarter of food purchased is purchased locally and in season, was 18,861 acres, or approximately 30 square miles.
25,000 SEA
20,000 BUILT-UP LAND FOREST 15,000 PASTURE ARABLE LAND 10,000 FOSSIL ENERGY LOAD
5,000 Note: Produce data was available for 2001 only. Ecological Footprint (Acres) Footprint Ecological 0 2000 (Excl. 2001 (Excl. 2001 (With Produce) Produce) Produce) Year
Indicator 16 Ecological Footprint of Food Purchased through M-Stores
As of December 2001, there were 14,450 Entrée Plus meal plan holders at the U-M AA. The per capita Ecological Footprint of M-Stores-supplied food consumption at the U-M AA was thus 1.3 acres per person. Taking in to account the fact that this number does not include food consumed by the U-M AA community at facilities not supplied by M-Stores, and does not include any consumption during three summer months when Dining Services facilities are closed, this per capita number is in keeping with the Ecological Footprint of average
87 Americans. The average American requires approximately 30 acres to support his or her entire lifestyle (Redefining Progress 2002).
Analysis of the U-M AA’s ecological footprint over time, and the way in which the impacts represented by that footprint are divided between the fossil energy load, consumption of arable land, consumption of pasture land, and use of marine resources, can help the U-M AA to gain a better understanding of the impacts of its food choices.
3.5 Land and Vegetation
3.5.1 Indicator
S Indicator 17 Total land area S Indicator 18 Total amount of flora, separated into native and non-native species
3.5.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice
The team was interested in gaining an understanding of land use at U-M AA. The method used was to gather data on land area, and to make inferences about land use based on that information. The distinction between natural areas and developed areas is important for a number of reasons, including the impacts of developed areas on the healthy functioning of ecosystems. For Indicator 17, the team assessed the total land area of U-M AA with some detail about impervious surfaces and non-impervious surfaces.
It is important to quantify land use, including developed and non-developed areas, as a part of the sustainability assessment of U-M AA. Because this is the first effort at a sustainability report, the team researched land area on campus, specifically the amount of impervious surface and the amount of green space on campus. Impervious surfaces result in increased run-off into bodies of water such as rivers and lakes. At present, water, which runs off of impervious surfaces, flows into storm drains and directly enters surface bodies of water without having been treated in any way. It may contain a variety of pollutants, including animal waste, litter, oil or pesticides, all of which can have a detrimental impact on aquatic ecosystems. Green space, on the other hand, is often able to absorb precipitation which falls upon it. Precipitation, which is absorbed, percolates down through the soil and into the groundwater. It is typically naturally filtered as it percolates. Green space also serves other important ecosystem functions. Trees have the ability to absorb greenhouse gases, such as CO2, and thus forested areas can serve as carbon sinks. Green space serves as habitat for plants and animals, thus increasing the biodiversity of the campus. Indicator 18, the total amount of flora, separated into native and non-native species, attempts to document the overall level of available green space at U-M AA.
88 3.5.3 Context at U-M AA
Washtenaw County is experiencing rapid land use conversion, mainly regarding changes from agricultural land uses to residential land uses (Chazan and Cotter, 2001). In the case of U-M AA, run-off from land flows directly into the Huron River. The amount of impervious surface area lowers the rate that aquifers can recharge. If the ratio of impervious surface area to total surface area on campus were increasing over time, this would have negative implications in regard to the sustainability of the campus. However, only limited trend data was available for this indicator. The data presented is from 1990, 1999, 2000 and 2001.
3.5.4 Methodology
The team made contact with U-M AA’s Landscape Architect, Kenneth Rapp, who works in the Plant Landscape Architecture department. He provided information on the total land area of U-M AA, as well as information on the total impervious surfaces (not including building footprints or roads). He also provided information on green land uses (only for the academic areas and the residence halls; not including South Campus or family housing).
To round out the data on impervious surfaces, the team attempted to include information on the building footprints. The team did this by obtaining the total square foot building space from the Annual Utilities Reports. The total square foot building space was modified to reflect the system boundaries, as defined in the Introduction to this report. Then, this resulting number was added to the total area provided by Kenneth Rapp for total impervious surfaces. In this way, a partial, but still meaningful picture was created of land use at U-M AA. Table 3-17: Land and Vegetation: Assumptions, Omissions and Sources of Error Assumptions Omissions Limitations Land area - Average number of floors in - Data collected on impervious - Attempting to draw buildings at U-M AA is 5 surfaces omitted building conclusions from incomplete footprints and roads, data data collected on green land uses omitted areas other than academic or residence halls, lack of complete trend data
Flora - None - None - None
Table 3-18: Land and Vegetation: Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format U-M AA land Kenneth Rapp Plant Landscape 764-3424 E-mail message information Architecture Physical Properties Sheri Moenart Financial 647-5841 Hard copy via fax Excel Spreadsheet Operations, Plant Fund
89 3.5.5 Results
In Fiscal Year 2001, The U-M AA campus was 3129 acres and contained approximately 15,000 trees. The total paved and impervious surfaces included the following categories: sidewalks and plazas, gravel surface, parking lots, ramps and stairs, and game courts. However, as stated above, building footprints and roads were not included. The green space included the following categories: turf, planting beds, annual beds, perennial beds, and woods and meadow. The data for green space was only for academic areas and residence halls, as stated above. It did not include South Campus or family housing.
Indicator 17 Total land area
U-M AA Land Area
3500 3000 2500 2000
acres 1500 1000 500 0 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 year
Total campus land area for fiscal year 2000 is separated into pervious and impervious surfaces in Indicator 11b. Pervious surfaces on the campus are identified as green space. This category consists of Radrick Farms, Matthaei Botanical Gardens, Nichols Arboretum, Mitchell Field, and managed turf area around campus. This land made up approximately 41.7% of total U-M AA land area in 2000.
Indicator 17b Total land area, separated into impervious surfaces and non-impervious surfaces FY 2001 Area in acres Area in acres % of total Total U-M AA campus 3129 Green space - total 1306 41.7% Arboretum, Radrick Farms, Botanical Gardens, Mitchell Fields 1154 Managed turf 152 Paved and impervious - total 1,408 45.0% North Campus and Original 40 buildings and paved surfaces 623 Other Buildings 785 Athletics and scattered lots 415 13.3%
90 Impervious surfaces at U-M AA include buildings, roads, parking lots, and other paved surfaces. Within the impervious surface category, the 40 acres that the University was originally founded on as well as the entire North campus are classified as single units of land, making it difficult to determine the amount of pervious and impervious surfaces in each. For this reason, the managed turf acreage of these two units was considered green space and the rest was categorized as impervious surface. Using this classification, impervious surfaces made up about 45% of total land area in 2000. In addition, athletic facilities and certain owned lots were not included in either classification but are shown as a separate category in Indicator 17b.
For the years 1990, 1999 and 2000, the team was only able to determine the total acreage for the U-M AA campus, without any detail about impervious and non-impervious surfaces.
Over the past ten years, total campus area has increased by approximately 21.8% (see Indicator 17 and Appendix U). Much of this increase has come from the expansion of the North Campus area. The University is currently working on a Campus Master Plan to help design the physical growth of the campus in the coming years.
Indicator 18 Total amount of flora, separated into native and non-native species NO DATA AVAILABLE
The green space on campus is appreciated by students, faculty and staff, and is home to wildlife including birds, insects and rodents. Two beautiful open spaces on the U-M AA campus are Nichols Arboretum and Matthaei Botanical Gardens. Nichols Arboretum is located next to central campus, and covers 123 acres. It includes thousands of trees and plants, some native to Michigan, and others from all parts of the world. Nichols Arboretum is bordered by the Huron River, and contains many ecotones including woods, prairie and littoral zone. It has a hilly topography, and has many walking and hiking trails. “The Arb” is regularly enjoyed by U-M AA students, faculty and staff, and also by Ann Arbor community members and visitors (Nichols Arboretum 2002).
Matthaei Botanical Gardens covers 350 acres, and is located just outside the Ann Arbor city limits. Its main building is a Conservatory, which contains more than 1,200 plants from many countries. The Gardens uses Integrated Pest Management in the Conservatory to control harmful insect populations without the use of regular chemical sprays. Matthaei is made up many interesting natural features including Fleming Creek, woods, ponds, wetlands and a tall grass prairie. It has four nature trails and is used by many members of the U-M AA community (Matthaei Botanical Gardens 2002).
The approximately 15,000 trees on campus lend credence to Ann Arbor’s moniker “Tree City USA.” The most common shade tree on the Diag is the maple tree, and the most common ornamental tree is the crabapple tree. There are also many evergreens on the Diag including fir, hemlock, spruce and pine. North Campus also has a large number of pine and crabapple trees. The Office of Landscape Architecture and the Grounds and Waste Department use
91 mostly native trees in these areas (University of Michigan, Plant Operations, Grounds and Waste, Trees and Forests 2001). They practice Integrated Pest Management, and limit their use of chemical pesticides. They use cultural practices to control pests, and only move to chemicals if all other methods have proven ineffective (University of Michigan, Plant Operations, Grounds and Waste, Turf Crew 2001).
U-M AA has a beautiful and spacious campus. It is important to maintain natural areas and green space on campus. U-M AA should work to address the important issue of untreated run-off entering the Huron River during storms. It should also address the flooding of low- lying areas on campus which occurs during some storms. More areas of green space would provide more opportunity for members of the U-M AA community to spend time in the out- of-doors and to enjoy nature. Trees provide shading, which reduces heat island effects, and trees also provided habitat for many animals. In terms of sustainability, an increased amount of green space would be beneficial.
In the future, the team recommends that U-M AA collect data on impervious and non- impervious surfaces on campus and on native and non-native species of campus flora.
92 3.6 Air Emissions
3.6.1 Indicators
S Indicator 19 On-site GHG emissions (includes CO2, N2O, CH4) o o Metric 6 On-site GHG emissions per capita (includes CO2, N20, CH4) o Metric 7 On-site GHG emissions per square foot building space (includes CO2, N20, CH4) S Indicator 20 Total fuel cycle GHG emissions (includes CO2, N20, CH4) S Indicator 21 On-site emissions of criteria pollutants (electricity and heating/cooling only) S Indicator 22 Emissions of toxic and carcinogenic substances to air
3.6.2 Definition of Indicators and Rationale for Choice The sun conveys energy in the form of sunlight to the earth. The earth also radiates energy back into space. On average, the earth emits about as much energy as it absorbs from the sun. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb some of the out-going infrared light from the earth. The gases become warmer and emit some infrared radiation back to warm the earth’s surface. The net effect is to reduce the rate of energy loss into space. This “Greenhouse Effect” is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and makes the surface of the earth habitable for humans and other organisms. The greenhouse gases allow most of the sun’s light to pass through the atmosphere but absorb most of the earth’s emitted infrared radiation. The naturally occurring greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).
If the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases, the rate of absorption will increase, causing the earth to warm. Global warming may have serious consequences for life on earth. These consequences could include the flooding of coastal areas due to the melting of the polar ice caps and the resulting rise in sea level. More severe weather events such as hurricanes may become likely. There will be changes in temperature and precipitation that will lead to different agricultural production patterns and to adverse impacts on wildlife (EPA 2001b). At a local level, global warming could lead to increased evaporation of surface water, causing deterioration of the Great Lakes ecosystem and a reduction in the local supply of freshwater. Indicator 19 tracks the amount of GHG emitted on-site, allowing an organization to determine the environmental effects of energy consumption.
At the present time, increases in greenhouse gas concentrations are leading to increases in the intensity of the Greenhouse Effect. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased by 31% since 1750 (EIA 2001). The concentrations for both CO2 and methane today have not been exceeded in 420,000 years. In addition, the current rate of increase of greenhouse gas
93 concentrations is unprecedented in the past 20,000 years (EPA 1995). As a result of these changes, global surface temperatures have increased 0.5o C over the past quarter century (Barker, Ross 1999). Much of the argument related to greenhouse gas emissions focuses on growth (population or economic) and increased emissions from increased growth. Metric 6 and Metric 7 attempt to explain trend patterns over time by normalizing the data, in this case GHG emissions, by growth factors of population and building space. In addition, the effects of behavior on-site lead to consequences both upstream and at the point of combustion. Indicator 20 examines the “full” picture of emissions related to energy use using total fuel cycle emissions. This term will be explained later in the methodology section of this chapter.
The sources of increased GHG concentrations are primarily associated with anthropogenic activities. The gases emitted from these activities include CO2, CH4, N2O, halocarbons, and other gases. In particular, the increases in greenhouse gas concentrations have coincided with the widespread use of fossil fuels. Figure 1.1 identifies the primary U.S greenhouse gas emissions along with the sources of those emissions and the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the gas. The Global Warming Potential is defined as “the time integrated radiative forcing from the release of 1 kg of a trace gas expressed relative to that of 1 kg of a reference gas” (IPCC 1996). Radiative forcing occurs when changes in the net energy input into the earth and atmosphere system force a change in temperature. In other words, a particular greenhouse gas may have the ability to absorb more infrared light and may persist in the atmosphere longer than others, causing more radiative forcing, and thus more global warming. For example, methane is 56 times as powerful as CO2 over a 20- year time horizon, 21 times as powerful as CO2 for a 100 year horizon, and 7 times as powerful as CO2 at 500 years.
Table 3-19 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2000 Greenhouse Gas Global Warming % of U.S Sources Potential (100 greenhouse gas year timeframe) emissions Carbon Dioxide 1 81.20% Combustion of natural gas, coal, and oil Carbon Dioxide - Non 1 1.90% Deforestation, oceanic emissions combustion sources Methane 21 9.30% Decomposition of waste streams and fertilizers, fugitive emissions from chemical processes, fossil fuel production Nitrous Oxide 310 5.30%
Other HFC-23 = 9200 PFC 2.50% HFC - gas refrigeration = 4400 SF6 = PFC - Aluminum smelting and 16,300 semiconductor manufacture SF6 - insulator in utility scale electrical equipment Source: Energy Information Administration-United States Department of Energy “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2000” November 2001, Washington D.C..
94 During 2000, in the U.S., approximately 81% of U.S CO2 emissions were caused by the combustion of fossil fuels (EIA 2001a). Atmospheric CO2 has increased 26% since the industrial revolution, largely due to fossil fuel combustion and deforestation (EPA 2000).
3.6.2.1 Context within U-M AA In recognition of the growing problem of global warming, a majority of United Nations members created the Kyoto Protocol. Drafted in 1997, Kyoto calls for a reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases of 5% on average from 1990 or 1995 levels for developed countries. Developing countries do not have quantified targets. It includes six gases. CO2, CH4 and N2O reductions will be based on 1990 levels as a baseline. HFC’s, PFC’s and SF6 will use 1995 levels as a baseline (United Nations 1998). In 2001, the U.S. pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, which has seriously threatened its viability. Various stakeholders, including student and alumni groups, are pressuring the University of Michigan to comply with the Kyoto Protocol to demonstrate its commitment to sustainability. They feel strongly that use of fossil fuels in the United States is having too serious an environmental impact for present practices to continue. They believe that university campuses around the country are the best place to begin to reduce air emissions. This type of commitment is controversial. One argument is that the U-M is already making strides toward sustainability, and that further efforts would be too costly. Some believe that U-M must continue to grow in size, and as it does so, its greenhouse gas emissions will grow as well. This research provides U-M AA with a baseline that can be used to evaluate climate change policies such as adopting Kyoto Protocol targets. U-M AA will have a tool that will allow it to consider not only the financial aspects of its choice of fuels, but also the environmental aspects. U-M AA can establish its own goals and assess its progress over time with the tools identified in this paper.
In addition to worldwide tracking of greenhouse gases, six criteria pollutants are monitored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These include Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Ozone (O3), Particulate Matter (PM), and Lead (Pb). The team analyzed emissions of these pollutants by U-M AA. Indicator 21 provides trend information on criteria pollutant emissions over time. All can have negative effects on human health. Carbon monoxide is a colorless gas which can enter the bloodstream through the lungs and can reduce the delivery of oxygen to the body’s organs. At high levels of exposure, CO can be poisonous. Symptoms of exposure may include visual impairment, reduced manual dexterity, poor learning ability, and difficulty in performing complex tasks (EPA 2000a). Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide are emitted when fossil fuels are burned and also in other industrial processes. They cause breathing difficulties in humans. SO2 and NO2 cause acid rain, which negatively impacts aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and erodes buildings and statues (EPA 2000a). Particulate matter is the term used to describe small solid or liquid particles released into the atmosphere. Sources are dust from roads, soot from burning wood, and industrial processes including the burning of fossil fuels. PM can cause respiratory problems. (EPA 2000a). In the past, the main source of lead was leaded gasoline. However, regulations have curtailed this problem. The main source presently is metals processing. Lead can cause very serious neurological disorders and mental retardation. In addition to GHG’s and criteria pollutants, there exist other by-
95 products of human activities in the form of pollution emissions. Indicator 22 is used to identify the mass of other toxic and carcinogenic substances emitted to the air on-site.
3.6.3 Methodology As stated in the introduction, the team considered the U-M AA campus as its system boundary. Thus, it was necessary to exclude the many properties that the University of Michigan owns in other parts of Michigan, and outside the state. Emissions associated with U-M AA were placed into the same two main categories developed for the energy indicators: on-site emissions and total fuel cycle emissions. On-site emissions are comprised of direct emissions emitted from University activities. For the purposes of this report, emissions associated with University fleet vehicle use were assumed to take place on campus. Recognition was given to the fact that vehicles were driven off-campus for University related activities, but total fleet vehicle miles were used to compute on-campus emissions. In addition, GHG emissions from research and academic buildings not associated with heating and cooling were not included. The University receives exemptions for tracking specific emissions associated with research activities and as a result, data on these emissions is not available. Emissions associated with electricity production at electric utilities other than the University power plants, were included in the on-site totals. The team felt that emissions associated with purchased electricity were directly attributed to on-site consumption.
Total fuel cycle emissions were calculated in the same manner as fuel cycle energy in the energy section. When applied to an emissions fuel cycle, this includes the emissions associated with removing the feedstock material from its original location, the emissions generated when converting the feedstock to a fuel, and all of the associated transportation emissions associated with moving the fuel to the point of consumption.
The team gathered data from various departments at the University of Michigan (see Table 3-2). The Annual Utilities Report was one of the main sources of data, and the team worked closely with employees at the Utilities Department. The team used Annual Utilities Reports from Fiscal Years 1990 and 1995-2001. Information regarding emissions from the power plant and other campus sources was obtained from the Utility Departments’ Michigan Air Emissions Reporting System (MAERS) data, which is used to comply with Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) requirements. Specific information regarding CPP data was obtained from plant personnel. The team also contacted and worked extensively with the Transportation Department for University fleet vehicle information.
96 Table 3-20 Emissions Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format Electricity, natural Duane Foster Utilities & Plant duanef@umic Excel spreadsheet (Utilities gas, fuel oil, LP gas Engineering h.edu Annual Report) use in campus buildings CPP natural gas, fuel George Gooch Central heating plant gegooch@umi Excel spreadsheet oil, electricity use ch.edu
Central Power Plant Phil Keavey OSEH Hard copy emission factors Brandi Campbell Vehicle emission EPA website factors GREET v1.5 Fuel Michael Wang Argonne National [email protected] www. Cycle Model Lab transportation.anl.gov/ttrdc/gre et/
Table 3-21 - Assumptions, Sources of Omission, and Limitations Assumptions Omissions Limitations Energy - Heating/cooling category - Electricity and heating/cooling - Consumption figures taken consumption includes heat, hot water, and of non-University owned or from billing information chillers on-campus operated buildings on campus
- Fuel usage for mechanical equipment (lawnmowers, tractors, landscape equipment)
Transportation - Fleet mileage assumed to be - Private vehicle use of students, all on-campus faculty, staff - Vehicle fuel economies taken - Rental car use as city/highway average
- Air and train travel for students, faculty, staff - Bus transportation provided by commercial organizations
3.6.3.1 Electricity & Heating/Cooling Emissions associated with on-site electricity and heating/cooling include all of the emissions from CPP and Hoover Power Plants, the emissions associated with individual building boilers and furnaces, and emissions from the various incinerators on campus (the hospital incinerator was retired in 2000). As stated previously, on-site emissions also includes emissions associated with off-site power plant electricity generation.
For each of the on-site sources, an emission factor for each pollutant type tracked is assigned. The emission factor represents a mass of pollutant emitted per unit of fuel burned (e.g. - 10.4 g of CO per million cubic feet of natural gas burned). Emissions factors from the same
97 source can vary based on such factors as operating temperature, ambient temperature, and humidity. In addition, variations in age and type of equipment can lead to very different emission factors even when the same type of fuel is burned in both pieces of equipment. In order to comply with MDEQ requirements, the University must report emission factors from all primary point sources using MAERS. The University is permitted to report data from actual smokestack tests or use the federal government’s AP-42 emission factor standards (EPA 2001). Appendix S identifies emission factors for each U-M AA source and whether it came from a stack test or AP-42. Emission factors were multiplied by the amount of fuel burned at each source to determine the total mass for each pollutant emitted.
Emissions associated with electricity generated by off-site plants were calculated by first determining the fuel mix of feedstsock materials typically used by Midwest utilities. This information is given in Table 1-3 of the Energy section. For each fuel type, the GREET v1.5 model can determine emission factors associated with electricity generation. These emission factors are typically expressed in mass per unit of fuel. Based on the average fuel mix, GREET can provide a single emission factor for each pollutant per unit of electricity. These factors were multiplied by the electricity consumption at U-M AA not generated by CPP. The result is a mass of emitted pollutant. The sum of on-site source emissions and electric utility generated emissions provided the total for on-site electricity and heating/cooling emissions.
The total fuel cycle emissions were determined by multiplying consumption of each fuel by a fuel cycle emission factor derived from the GREET v1.5 Software Model from Argonne National Labs. Developed primarily to analyze fuel cycle energy and emissions of various short term and long-term automobile fuels, the software allows for the derivation of fuel cycle energy factors for most modern fuels.
The fuel cycle emission factors for each fuel source are detailed in Appendix E. On-site emissions were added to the results of these calculations to provide total fuel cycle emission data.
98 On-site fuel consumption (ex. MMCF of natural gas) Consumption x fuel cycle emission factor =
1,000 MMCF of natural gas Total fuel cycle emissions consumed
1,000 MMCF of natural gas consumed x 1.4 g of CO per MMCF of natural gas
GREET v1.5 Modeling Program: 1400 g of CO emitted Fuel cycle emission factor (ex. g of CO per MMCF of natural gas consumed)
1.4 g of CO per MMCF of natural gas consumed
Figure 3-7 Calculation of emissions
3.6.3.2 Transportation On-site transportation-related emissions were calculated from the multiplication of vehicle specific emission factors and the vehicle annual mileage. The assessment of specific emission factors for automobiles is quite complex. The emissions of a particular vehicle can vary depending on the type of driving done (stop and go, highway, etc…), the vehicle speed, the age of the vehicle, and even the outdoor ambient temperature. Exhaust emission control mechanisms deteriorate over time and as a result deterioration factors are used to adjust emission factors as the vehicle ages. Deterioration factors were used if the fleet vehicle surpassed 25,000 miles. In some cases, emission factors from different model years or other comparable vehicle models were substituted when data was not available.
For this study, car and light truck emission factors were taken from new vehicle testing done by the EPA (OTAQ, EPA 2001). This testing uses specific drive cycles of combined city and highway driving to determine vehicle specific emissions. The emissions should be considered approximations of those experienced during every day vehicle use. The heavy diesel truck and bus emission factors were derived from one of two sources. The first was EPA testing of specific engine types, rather than vehicle types. The other method utilizes results of on-road vehicle testing of similar vehicles. Emission data on biodiesel-based vehicles was also taken from specific vehicle testing of similar model vehicles. For a complete list of U-M AA fleet vehicle types and emission factors see Appendix C.
The GREET v1.5 software model allows for the calculation of fuel cycle emission factors. By inputting the vehicle specific emission factors, and the associated vehicle fuel economy, one can calculate fuel cycle emissions factors based on assumptions regarding the forms of fuel production (see Appendix G for documentation on the assumption used in the GREET
99 v1.5 model). The fuel cycle emission factors can then be multiplied by annual mileage to determine annual fuel cycle emissions.
The output from the GREET v1.5 model includes information on specific greenhouse gases as well as some criteria pollutants. The team analyzed numerous emissions from both energy sources (specifically electricity production and consumption, and heat generation) and transportation sources. The team examined total on-site greenhouse gas emissions, separated by greenhouse gas (in tons of CO2 equivalent). These included carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).
3.6.4 Results and Discussion: The reporting of results includes data of all available on-site emission information. Transportation related emissions were only computed for the years 1990, 2000, and 2001. As a result, total on-site emissions, which include transportation, electricity, and heating/cooling, are only available for these years. For all years, on-site GHG emissions associated with electricity and heating/cooling are reported.
Indicator 19 On-site GHG emissions (includes CO2, N2O, CH4)
6.00E+05
5.00E+05
4.00E+05
3.00E+05
m etric to n s 2.00E+05 of CO2 of Equivalent 1.00E+05
0.00E+00 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Total Electricity & Heating/Cooling
5 In 1990, total on-site GHG emissions were 3.94 x 10 metric tons of CO2 equivalent; this 5 figure increased 23% in 2001 to 4.86 x 10 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (see Indicator 19). 5 For electricity and heating/cooling only, year 2001 emissions were 5.28 x 10 tons of CO2 equivalent. This figure represents the first time that on-site GHG emissions have exceeded the 1997 total of 4.79 x 105 metric tons. As one might expect, the trend data for on-site emissions follow a pattern similar to the energy consumption. For comparison, overall GHG emissions in the U.S have increased by about 14% from 1990 to 2000. Both U-M AA and U.S. totals can be contrasted with the target of a 7% U.S. reduction in GHG emissions from
100 1990 levels identified in the Kyoto Protocol. The strong correlation between energy consumption and emissions is indicative of a heavy dependence on fossil fuel-based energy.
Dividing the on-site emission results by the campus population provides information for the metric detailed in Metric 6. Although population information for 2001 was not fully available, the graph shows a 10-year increase of 9.1% (6.83 metric tons of CO2 equiv/person vs. 7.46 metric tons of CO2 equiv./person) for the years 1990 to 2000. As mentioned previously the population increase during this period was 6.8%. Emissions per person for on-site electricity and heating/cooling only, which again represent 99% of the total, have decreased by 9.5% from a high of 8.15 metric tons/person since 1997. As a point of reference, average emissions per capita in the U.S. are about 20.1 metric tons of CO2 equiv/person.
Metric 6 On-site GHG emissions per capita (includes CO2, N20, CH4)
9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 metric tons CO2 Equivalent per capita per Equivalent CO2 tons metric 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Total Electricity & Heating/Cooling
Normalizing on-site emissions by square foot building space at U-M AA provides the information detailed in Metric 7. From 1990 to 2001, available building space increased 22% (area totals available in introduction). During the same time period, total on-site GHG emissions per square foot increased 1.1% from 17.7-kilograms/square foot to 17.8- kilograms/square foot. For electricity and heating/cooling only, on-site GHG have increased slightly from 17.13 kilograms/square foot to 17.57-kilograms/square foot. The data indicates that the carbon intensity of the campus, in terms of building area, has remained nearly the same for the time period studied. In this case intensity can be defined as the amount of carbon emitted for each square foot of building space. Drawing conclusions from this result is difficult as there are many interactions that affect the energy intensity as defined here.
101 Metric 7 On-site GHG emissions per square foot building space (includes CO2, N20, CH4)
20.0 18.0
16.0 14.0
12.0 10.0 8.0
6.0 4.0
kg CO2 equivalentper square foot 2.0 0.0 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year
Total Electricity & Heating/Cooling
Indicator 20 Total fuel cycle GHG emissions (includes CO2, N20, CH4)
6.00E+05
5.00E+05
4.00E+05
3.00E+05
2.00E+05
1.00E+05 metric tons of CO2 of tons equivalent metric 0.00E+00 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Total Electricity & Heating/Cooling
Year over year trend analysis of total fuel cycle GHG emissions (electricity and heating/cooling only) demonstrates a trend similar to the on-site emissions (Indicator 20). 5 After peaking in 1997 at 5.49 x 10 metric tons of CO2 equivalent, total fuel cycle GHG emissions (electricity and heating/cooling) have remained below this level, although increases in the last several years have brought the total near this peak. For 2001, total fuel
102 5 cycle emissions for electricity and heating/cooling were 5.48 x 10 metric tons of CO2 equivalent, nearly identical to 1997 levels. Including transportation, total fuel cycle 5 emissions in 2001 were 5.58 x 10 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. This represents an increase of 23% from 1990 levels (4.53 x 105 metric tons) and is also 14.7% more than the 2001 GHG totals for on-site emissions only.
Criteria pollutant emissions measured include carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide emissions make up the largest portion of on-site criteria pollutant emissions (78.6% in 2001). The majority of NO2 emissions result from the burning of fuel oil and natural gas. Both NO2 and CO, the two largest contributors to criteria emissions by mass emitted, were lower in 2001 than in 1990. NO2 emissions have decreased from 637 metric tons to 591 metric tons, while CO emission levels have gone from 106 metric tons to 98 metric tons. Much of this can be traced to back to increased reliance on the newer turbines at CPP, which have lower emission factors per unit of fuel consumed then their older counterparts. The spike in sulfur dioxide emission in 1997 is attributed to the increased use of fuel oil at the power plants for that year. Natural gas price fluctuation made it more economically sensible to utilize fuel oil over natural gas during that time period.
Indicator 21 On-site emissions of criteria pollutants (electricity and heating/cooling only)
7.00E+02
6.00E+02
5.00E+02 Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Lead (Pb) 4.00E+02 Nitrogen dioxide (NOx)
tons 3.00E+02 metric Particulate Matter (PM) 2.00E+02 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
1.00E+02
0.00E+00 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year
Information for emissions of toxic and carcinogenic substances, Indicator 22, was not available for this report. There are many difficulties associated with collecting data for this indicator. Technologies associated with emission measuring devices dictate that identification of the substances to be measured must be made before installation. Laboratory research that involves the use of some of these substances is extremely varied and involves numerous types of chemicals. As a result, it is difficult to assess in any given year which
103 substances, if any, should be measured and reported. The importance of the research producing these emissions cannot be discounted and make it difficult to call for the abolition of these types of emissions in quantities deemed acceptable by government authorities.
Indicator 22 Emissions of toxic and carcinogenic substances to air Data not currently tracked (recommended for inclusion in future assessments)
U-M AA’s leadership position in research invokes decisions about trade-offs between reducing emissions and furthering research. Decisions about the benefits of particular research and the associated costs of increased emissions require consideration.
104 3.7 Effluents
3.7.1 Indicator
S Indicator 23 Available effluent data for fiscal year 2001
3.7.2 Description of Indicator and Rationale for Choice
The team attempted to gather data on the total effluents directly discharged to receiving water by U-M AA, which is Indicator 23. Receiving water is the body of water into which the wastewater is released. Effluent refers to wastewater of any type. Effluents may contain pollutants such as mercury, phosphates or nitrates. The receiving water in this case is the Huron River. The Huron River is approximately 125 miles long and flows into Lake Erie. The Huron River watershed, which is the area of land from which water drains into the river, is 908 square miles (581,120 acres). (Huron River Watershed Council 2002a)
Effluent guidelines are national standards for wastewater discharges to surface waters and to municipal sewage treatment plants. Effluent guidelines are derived from Title III of the Clean Water Act of 1972. For example, discharges of greater than 0.2 mg/L of cadmium may not be allowed. (USEPA 2002a) There are also effluent guidelines in the City of Ann Arbor ordinances; however, because U-M AA is a state organization, it is not subject to City Ordinances. The standards are technology-based, which means that they are based on the performance of treatment and control technologies, and also on risk to or impacts upon receiving waters (USEPA 2002b) (Adrounie, 2002).
It is vital to consider the fate of water used by U-M AA in assessing the sustainability of the campus. Water is essential to life, and yet it is not evenly distributed around the globe. All users of water in the United States must comply with the Clean Water Act, which forbids the emission of toxics into bodies of water. Most bodies of water have the potential to be used as a water source. Thus, communities must not pollute these resources, which may be needed by others. Ecosystems have the ability to filter out biodegradable contaminants; however, this ability must not be overtaxed. Many pollutants are not biodegradable and, unless treated, will not be broken down in nature. Realization regarding the importance of the issue of wastewater has grown in the United States since the early 1970’s, when the Cuyahoga River caught fire because of the flammable materials on its surface. Surface water quality throughout the country has improved in the intervening thirty years as wastewater treatment plants have modernized and adopted more effective methods of treatment. If effluents in the United States were to increase sharply, it would perhaps be necessary to construct many new wastewater treatment plants using taxpayer dollars. Non-point pollution in storm water is now being addressed with new regulations including Phase I Storm water Permitting through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). (Chock 2002)
105 3.7.3 Context at U-M AA
Water at U-M AA may be channeled to sanitary sewers after use; it may be channeled to storm sewers; and it may be used to water lawns and playing fields (irrigation). Any water that leaves the U-M AA campus in sanitary sewers flows to the City of Ann Arbor Wastewater Treatment Plant. There, it is treated before being released into the Huron River. The plant is located on the east side of the city, and has a maximum capacity of 29.5 million gallons per day. It averages 19 million gallons per day. The wastewater treatment plant treats the wastewater using primary, secondary and tertiary treatment methods. In primary treatment, solids and suspended sediment are removed. Solids and grit are sent to a landfill. Sludge is either sent to a landfill or, in the spring and summer, given to farmers in the surrounding area who use it for fertilizer. Approximately 150,000 gallons of stabilized sludge are hauled out of the City of Ann Arbor Wastewater Treatment Plant per day (Vogel 2002).
In secondary treatment, biological degradation of organic compounds occurs. Soluble organics and biological oxygen demand (B.O.D.) are removed. Bacteria break down organic compounds in the water in an aerobic (oxygen-rich) environment. In tertiary treatment, inorganic nutrients and suspended solids, such as nitrates, phosphates and FLOC, are removed under infrared light. This type of treatment, which includes all three methods, is the most effective way to treat water (Cunningham and Saigo 1999). The plant works with the Huron River Watershed Council (HRWC) to limit its Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of phosphorous to 50 pounds per day. HRWC considers phosphorous to be the biggest problem currently faced by the Huron River. Fertilizers which contain no phosphorous are now on the market. Their use may begin to address this problem being faced by surface waters in many areas of the United States. HWRC is also working on storm water pollution in the Huron River, and is beginning to sample for E. coli.
Water used in cooling towers at the Central Power Plant is considered non-contact water. After use, it enters storm sewers and flows directly into the Huron River without being treated. Irrigation water, which is used to water lawns, mostly infiltrates into the soil and is not considered by the team in this indicator. For watering lawns and plants, the U-M AA Grounds and Waste Department prefers rainwater to the City of Ann Arbor water, because the city’s water is kept at a pH of approximately 9, which is more basic than neutral, to prevent corrosion in distribution pipes. However, water at this high a pH is less effective for irrigation purposes.
3.7.4 Methodology
The team worked with Malama Chock, Coordinator of Environmental Management, and Joe Lapka, Technician, at the Occupational Safety and Environmental Health Department to obtain the data. The data was stored in a Microsoft Access database and was only available for Fiscal Year 2001. The target information was total effluents discharged to receiving water. This is equivalent to sanitary water (which goes to the wastewater treatment plant and then into the Huron River) and cooling water, which goes into storm drains and then into the
106 Huron River. However, the data needed did not match the data available. U-M AA keeps water data records in two categories. The first category is sanitary, and the second category is cooling water and irrigation water.19 The team determined the total of all of the buildings in the first category (sending sanitary wastewater to the wastewater treatment plant) and the total of all of the buildings in the second category (storm and irrigation). Annual report data is available, but it is not separated into the different categories that the team had targeted. Most of the cooling water and irrigation water either evaporates into the atmosphere or infiltrates into the soil. Thus, because of data gathering practices, it is not possible presently to report total effluents directly discharged to receiving waters.
Table 3-22: Effluents: Assumptions, Omissions and Sources of Error Assumptions Omissions Limitations Effluents - Percentage of the water - Some locations have entering the wastewater treatment groundwater wells, such as the plant which comes from U-M golf courses AA was determined to be approximately 15%, although it was not possible to confirm this with water bills
Table 3-23: Effluents: Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format U-M AA Water Malama Chock OSEH 763-9175; Microsoft Access Spreadsheet Usage Microsoft [email protected] Access Document ch.edu Joe Lapka
3.7.5 Results
Indicator 23 Available effluent data for fiscal year 2001 in ccu (100 cubic in gallons in gallons/ day in gallons/ feet) capita/day20 Total for sanitary 1,398,511 1,046,226,079 2,866,373 46 Total for cooling 234,957 175,771,332 481,565 8 and irrigation
Approximately 2.8 million gallons per day enters the wastewater treatment plant from the U- M AA campus. This represents about 15% of the effluent entering the plant. Without trend data, it is impossible to determine whether this indicator is changing over time. In an effort to operate more sustainably, U-M AA has taken steps to reduce the amount of effluent it generates. It regularly monitors water leaving its buildings. Because U-M AA is a state organization, it does not fall under city ordinances. Therefore, U-M AA does not have a
19 On the spreadsheet in the Effluent Appendix, Sanitary is indicated by “False” in the “Water Only” column. Storm and irrigation are indicated by “True” in the “Water Only” column. See Effluent Appendix. 20 Used per capita numbers for 2000, because per capita numbers for 2001 were unavailable.
107 formal industrial pretreatment agreement with the City of Ann Arbor. However, U-M AA began working with the City of Ann Arbor in 1995 on a voluntary program whereby U-M AA monitors its effluents. OSEH tests the whole campus for oil and grease, metals, phosphorous, B.O.D., and chemicals specific to each building. If chemicals are found in discharge, OSEH takes steps to address the problem. Once the problem is addressed, annual sampling schedules are put in place. Targets for pollutant concentrations are set by City Ordinance, and U-M AA voluntarily attempts to comply with them. U-M AA has three NPDES permits for storm water. These include Municipal,21 Industrial22 (for the Central Power Plant), and Cooling water23 (for the Central Power Plant). In regard to sanitary water, U-M AA has an Industrial User Permit24 for the Central Power Plant, and completes a voluntary survey.
The City of Ann Arbor has been granted a municipal storm water permit by the state to regulate storm water flows in order to minimize pollution. The University of Michigan and the Michigan Department of Transportation are the only non-cities which have been granted municipal storm water permits by the state. (University of Michigan, Occupational Safety and Environmental Health, 2002)
U-M AA could reduce the amount of effluent it produces by reusing some of its “gray water,” or water that is used in non-contact applications. Non-contact, once-through cooling water in labs may be reused for irrigation or re-circulated. For example, the C.C. Little Building uses approximately 11,000 gallons per day of once-through cooling water for rock cutting. At present, none of this water is reused. U-M AA has constructed a storm water retention basin under the new Life Sciences Building as an effort to slow the volume of storm water entering the Huron River during large storm events, and to reduce flooding. Beginning in October of 2001, all new construction of more than one acre has retention or infiltration basins. A vacuum truck is used to clean these basins and drains twice per year. There is also a program to monitor illicit connections between storm water pipes and sanitary water pipes. A significant cost outlay would be necessary to put the infrastructure in place to reuse or re- circulate water. However, such as program would measurably improve the sustainability of the U-M AA campus.
21 MI0053902 22 MIS410000 23 MIG259000 24 063004D
108 3.8 Solid Waste
3.8.1 Indicator
S Indicator 24 Total Solid Waste Generated (Disposed Of and Recycled) – Hospital data not available prior to 1999 o Metric 8 Per Capita Solid Waste Generated (Disposed Of and Recycled)
3.8.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice
The generation and disposal of solid waste, as defined by the U.S. EPA under the term municipal solid waste (U.S. EPA 2002) poses two types of challenges to sustainability. First, waste generation is often accompanied by the consumption of new resources that are used to replace those disposed of. Second, the disposal of waste in landfills consumes land area. Both of these environmental impacts also have economic counterparts – the consumption of new materials designed to replace those discarded, and the shipment of wastes to landfill, require outlays of financial capital.
Worldwide generation of solid waste has been increasing. In 1960, Americans produced an average of 2.7 pounds of municipal solid waste (MSW) per capita per day. By 1996, that number had increased to 4.3 pounds per capita per day, or over three-fourths (0.78) of a ton of MSW per capita per year (Center for Sustainable Systems 2001).
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality estimates that the state of Michigan has 15-17 years of landfill disposal capacity available at current rates of solid waste disposal to landfills. However, imports of waste from NY and metro Toronto are increasing, causing concern among Michigan representatives. (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 2000).
Indicator 24 and Metric 8 report total and per capita amounts of solid waste generated, showing the proportion of generated waste that is recycled and the proportion that is disposed of in a landfill. Another way of expressing the relationship between quantities of waste recycled and quantities of waste generated is in terms of a recycling rate (see Figure 3-8).
Total Solid Waste Recycled in Fiscal Year Annual Recycling Rate = Total Solid Waste Generated in Fiscal Year*
* Total SW Generated = Total SW Recycled + Total SW Disposed Of
Figure 3-8 Recycling Rate
109 The recycling rate gives indications of the extent to which materials are being diverted from landfills and resources recovered for reuse. Decreasing the amount of solid waste disposed of means that less landfill space must be consumed, thus reducing both the environmental impacts associated with landfill disposal and the financial costs associated with disposal.
In addition to the indicators presented in this report, ton-miles of solid waste disposed of in landfills could also be considered for future reports. An increase in this indicator would indicate an increase in the distance that solid waste is transported for disposal. Thus, as local landfills become full and more distant disposal sites must be found, thus increasing the amount of land area converted to landfill and the energy and other impacts associated with increased waste transportation, this indicator would increase.
3.8.3 Context within the U-M AA System
U-M Grounds & Waste Management Services (hereafter WMS) manages recycling and non- hazardous waste collection services for all academic and residence hall buildings on the U-M AA campus. U-M Health System (UMHS) Waste Management and Recycling manages recycling and non-hazardous waste collection for the three hospitals at U-M AA.
Most of the non-recycled waste (Solid Waste Disposed Of) collected by WMS is taken to the City of Ann Arbor’s Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), which acts as a transfer facility. From there, the disposed waste is taken to Arbor Hills Landfill (operated by Onyx North America and here after referred to as Onyx) in Northville, Michigan. WMS also operates a roll-off trash service that handles larger waste pick-ups. Roll-off trash is taken directly to Onyx.
The Arbor Hills Landfill is one of the largest landfills in the Midwest. In 1997, it was the subject of a controversy over its proposal to accept waste from the City of Toronto. As a byproduct of its landfill material, the Arbor Hills Landfill produces methane gas for conversion into electricity. This electricity is then sold to Detroit Edison (DTE Energy) and is used to power approximately 15,000 to 20,000 homes. It is anticipated that the landfill will produce methane gas for the next 30 years at a minimum (Department of Environment and Infrastructure Services 2002).
In addition to Onyx, some U-M AA hospital waste is taken to Salt Trails landfill (no information could be located about this site). Hospital non-recycled solid waste falls into one of three categories: non-regulated medical waste (sent directly to landfill); regulated medical waste (once autoclaved, this waste becomes non-regulated medical waste and is sent directly to landfill); and hazardous waste. Prior to November 2000, the U-M AA hospital system maintained an on-site incinerator. Regulated and non-regulated wastes were burned prior to landfilling to reduce landfilled volumes. The hospital still maintains a crematorium for the cremation of pathological materials.
U-M AA’s recycled solid waste is handled jointly by the Recycling Program (non-hospital recycled waste) and by UMHS Waste Management and Recycling (hospital recycled waste). Launched in 1989 with the hiring of a Recycling Coordinator, U-M AA’s Recycling Program
110 includes both the provision of recycling services and the coordination of education and outreach measures designed to improve the effectiveness of recycling initiatives. Since its inception, U-M AA’s recycling program has expanded from the collection of paper and corrugated cardboard to include a wide and growing variety of items:
C Mixed paper (newspaper, magazines, catalogs, office paper, envelopes, blueprints, manila folders, phone books, soft cover books) C Mixed containers (glass, aluminum and steel cans, #1 PET or #2 HDPE plastic bottles, milk and juice cartons, drink boxes, ceramics) C Scrap metal C Scrap wood and pallets C Food waste
Most recyclables are picked up by WMS and delivered to the MRF. Other items, such as scrap wood and pallets, are delivered to Onyx for recycling, and food waste is taken to the City of Ann Arbor's compost facility for use as mulch or an additive in the composting process. Finally, a growing number of reusable items are collected by WMS and donated to local agencies. The range of items that WMS can collect for recycling depends upon the range of items that the MRF will accept. At times, a decision by the MRF to discontinue recycling of certain materials is passed on to the U-M AA system, as with the recent discontinuation of textile recycling.
Some of the non-traditional WMS recycling initiatives include:
C Food Waste Composting Program The Food Waste Composting Program is a joint U-M AA and City of Ann Arbor project begun in July 1997 at 3 residence halls. It has since expanded to the following facilities: Mary Markley, East Quad, South Quad, West Quad, Betsy Barbour, and University Catering. The program involves the collection of vegetative, pre-consumer “prep” waste from facility kitchens. Washtenaw County estimates that food waste accounts for as much as 18.3% of the area’s total solid waste stream (OSEH 2002b).
C Packaging materials recycling U-M AA WMS coordinates the recycling of many types of packaging materials, including bubble wrap, polystyrene blocks, and peanuts. On occasion, WMS is able to identify a facility willing to accept a one-time delivery of materials that are not normally recycled. For example, WMS was recently able to locate a one-time recipient for spongy foam.
C Fluorescent light tubes U-M AA has contracted with a recycling vendor to pick up and recycle spent traditional fluorescent tubes.
C Toner and ink jet cartridges Printer toner cartridges can be recycled through an exchange program offered by University M-Stores. M-Stores has contracts with several local vendors who take back cartridges for re- manufacturing. They are disassembled, cleaned and re-filled with new toner or ink. Re-
111 manufactured cartridges can be purchased from M-Stores for almost half the cost of an OEM (original) cartridge. Ink jet cartridges are collected by WMS’s Recycling Program and then are sent to a remanufacturing company.
C Property Disposition Property Disposition handles the resale of retired office furniture and equipment (including computers) and medical equipment.
C Overhead transparencies Overhead transparencies can be recycled through a mail-back program offered by the 3M Corporation. Their “Solution for Transparency Film Waste” involves shipping the used transparency film to a regional recycling facility.
C Alcohol reconstitution The U-M AA hospital system has instituted a program of xylene and formalin recycling. These solutions are being put through stills to reconstitute chemicals for reuse, thus removing them from the hazardous waste stream and reducing the amount of new material consumed.
3.8.4 Methodology
Data for the calculation of all indicators came from WMS (for all U-M AA buildings except the hospital facilities) and UMHS Waste Management and Recycling (for the three U-M AA hospital facilities). Several U-M AA departments, such as Printing Services, contract independently for recycling services, and others, including the Chemistry Building, contract for waste removal. In those cases, data regarding quantities of recycled and land filled material were obtained from WMS, who tracks this data.
In calculating quantities of Solid Waste Generated by the U-M AA, the U.S. EPA’s definition of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) was used (U.S. EPA 2002). It was not possible to include in the calculation waste defined by the EPA as Other Solid Waste (including construction and demolition (C&D) debris, sludge, and other materials), as the U-M AA does not currently collect data regarding Other Solid Wastes.
In addition, the team followed EPA guidelines and reported quantities of solid waste in terms of weight (tons) rather than volume (cubic yards). While the volume of solid waste disposed by the U-M AA would be necessary in order to determine total landfill area consumed, following national convention and reporting data in terms of weight has two benefits. One, most data collected by U-M AA is collected in units of weight already, and two, the U-M AA can more easily benchmark its performance against other institutions in order to identify best practices and continue to improve performance.
Calculation of all solid waste indicators for the U-M AA was complicated by two facts. First, due to hospital personnel changes and the loss of several years of historical records, data were only available for the hospitals for two years, 1999 and 2000. Second, data
112 regarding waste from the hospital system are reported in calendar years, as the state reporting guidelines with which the hospital must comply require that information be reported by calendar year. Data from WMS for the rest of the U-M AA, by contrast, were available in Fiscal Year format. WMS tabulates data according to fiscal year in order to conform to the U-M’s standard reporting timeline. While monthly totals may have been obtainable, significant time would have been required both by WMS and by this team in order to recalculate totals based on calendar years. As a result of these challenges, the team decided to approximate fiscal year totals for the two years in which hospital data were available by adding calendar year data for the hospitals to fiscal year data from WMS in the fiscal year that corresponded to the calendar year in question. For example, calendar year 1999 data from the hospital were added to Fiscal Year 1999 data from WMS. Totals for hospital data are reported separately from totals for WMS data in the indicator graphs below.
In order to more accurately calculate Per Capita Solid Waste quantities in the two years for which combined WMS and hospital data were available (FY 1999 and FY 2000), the team normalized combined WMS and hospital total Solid Waste quantities by a per capita number that included both the Total Campus Community figure used to calculate per capita rates in previous years plus the average daily patient load at each of the hospitals. Average daily patient loads were calculated by dividing annual total patient days (as reported by UMHS Financial Services) by 365 days.
Table 3-24 Data Sources - Solid Waste Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format All U-M AA Sarah Archer Waste Management smarcher@um Personal interview buildings except Services (WMS) ich.edu hospital All U-M AA Brianne Haven Waste Management havenb@umic Most data transmitted in body buildings except Services (WMS) h.edu of e-mail; some data in Excel hospital spreadsheet form Hospital David Tyler UMHS Waste Pager: 936- Word documents and/or via Management and 6266 phone conversations Recycling
Table 3-25 Assumptions, Limitations, and Omissions - Solid Waste Assumptions Omissions Limitations Solid waste - Calendar year hospital waste - Data tracked by calendar year was added to fiscal year WMS (hospital) and fiscal year (WMS) waste - Expression of quantity in terms of weight gives more emphasis to changes in management of heavier wastes
113 3.8.5 Results and Discussion
The total amount of Solid Waste generated by the U-M AA system (excluding the hospital) has remained relatively constant at approximately 10,000 tons per year over the past ten years.
Indicator 24 Total Solid Waste Generated (Disposed Of and Recycled) – Hospital data not available prior to 1999
16,000 Solid Waste Recycled - 14,000 Hospital 12,000 Solid W aste Disposed Of 10,000 (Landfilled) - Hospital 8,000 Solid Waste Recycled - 6,000 WMS 4,000 Solid W aste Disposed Of Total Quantity (Tons) 2,000 (Landfilled) - WMS - Note: Fiscal years 1990 - 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1998 do not include solid Fiscal Year waste from the hospital
While data was not available for the hospital system prior to 1999, the quantity of solid waste generated by the hospital remained relatively constant from 1999 to 2000. This appears to be true despite the fact that the hospital maintained an incinerator on-site through November 1999 that was used to incinerate waste prior to landfill disposal. The absence of this incinerator, however, does not appear to have had a significant effect on the total quantity (in units of weight) of solid weight disposed of (the incinerator’s effect on the volume of the waste disposed of was not discernable from this study, but may have been more significant).
The total quantity of solid waste that is recycled has generally been increasing over the past ten years, with the only exception being a very slight (approximately 2%) decrease from a ten-year high of 3,609 tons in fiscal year 1999 to 3,531 tons in fiscal year 2000. Similarly, the proportion of total solid waste generated that is recycled by the U-M AA has increased over the past ten years (indicated above and as expressed in the U-M AA’s recycling rate below) from 7.4% in FY 1990 to approximately 23% in FY 2000.
114 Recycling Rate
35.0%
30.0% Recycling Rate 25.0% (including hospital)
20.0% Recycling Rate (not including hospital) 15.0%
Recycling RateRecycling (%) 10.0%
5.0% Note: Fiscal years 1990 - 1998 do not include solid waste from the hospital 0.0% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Fiscal Year
Definitive conclusions about U-M AA recycling are difficult to draw based on the recycling rate data. Specifically, the drop in the recycling rate in fiscal year 2000 appears to be the result of both a slight drop in the total quantity (expressed in weight) of solid waste recycled and an increase in the total quantity (expressed in weight) of solid waste disposed of. However, it is not possible to identify whether the drop in solid waste recycled was the result of an increase in the disposal (rather than recycling) of recyclable materials (which would cause a corresponding increase in the quantity of solid waste disposed of) or a decrease in the use of materials that could be recycled.
Per capita solid waste generated shows similar trends to total solid waste generated during the period analyzed (see Metric 8).
115 Metric 8 Per Capita Solid Waste Generated (Disposed Of and Recycled)
0.300
0.250 Per Capita Solid Waste 0.200 Recycled - not including hospital 0.150 except where indicated 0.100 Per Capita Solid Waste 0.050 Disposed Of - not including hospital 0.000 Quantity Per (tons) Capita Quantity except where indicated
0 5 6 7 8 9 l 0 l 9 9 9 9 9 9 ta 0 ta 9 pi 0 pi 19 19 19 19 19 1 s 2 s . Ho l. Ho cl c - in - in 9 0 99 00 1 2 Fiscal Year
In 1996, the average American generated 4.3 pounds of MSW per day (Center for Sustainable Systems 2001). Annualized, this equates to over 1,500 pounds, or 0.78 tons per year. While the per capita amount of solid waste generated within the U-M AA system falls below this national statistic, the numbers are not precisely comparable because an unidentifiable quantity of MSW associated with the U-M AA system could not be captured in this report. This includes any MSW generated by U-M AA students, faculty, and/or staff and disposed of in an off-campus (city or home) garbage receptacle. In addition, many students leave campus for the summer, meaning that the amount of MSW they generated during the summer months is not included within the U-M AA total for those months. However, MSW during the summer months is still normalized by the overall campus population number. A more precise measure of per capita MSW generated could be obtained by normalizing summer and academic year MSW totals by adjusted population numbers.
116 Total Quantity Recycled for Key Materials (tons)
4,000.00
3,500.00 Pallets and wood - 3,000.00 WMS Mixed containers - 2,500.00 hospital 2,000.00 Mixed containers - WMS
1,500.00 Paper (includes cardboard) - hospital 1,000.00 Paper (includes cardboard) - WMS
Total Quantity Recycled (tons) 500.00
- 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Fiscal Year
Of the total quantity of materials recycled, the categories of paper and cardboard, mixed containers, and pallets and wood together represent over 97%. Paper and cardboard recycling alone has made up over 88% of the total quantity of materials recycled every year since 1995. As reported in the Paper Consumption section of this report, a total quantity of 1,399 tons of office paper were purchased in FY 2000, and an estimated 2,320 tons of mixed paper were used within the complete U-M AA system. As the total quantity of paper and cardboard recycled, 3,128 tons in FY 2000, exceeds both of these paper usage figures, it seems likely that cardboard recycling makes up a significant percentage of the total “paper and cardboard” recycling by weight.
In general, interpretation of solid waste and recycling data can be complicated by the fact that decreases in the total or per capita quantities recycled can sometimes be caused by efforts to eliminate or reduce the initial use of a traditionally recycled material. For example, if the U- M AA’s efforts to encourage reductions in paper consumption are successful, a decrease in the total amount of paper available to recycle will also result.
117 3.9 Hazardous Waste
3.9.1 Indicator
S Indicator 25 Hazardous waste generation, 1999 o Metric 9 Normalized Hazardous Waste Generated by U-M AA in 1999
3.9.2 Description of Indicator and Rationale for Choice For the hazardous waste category, the team decided to examine total hazardous waste generated, which is Indicator 25. The data, which is gathered by the Occupational Safety and Environmental Health Department of U-M AA, is separated into United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Zones (EPA ID zones). The EPA ID zone is the number assigned by the EPA to each generator, transporter, and treatment, storage or disposal facility. U-M AA is divided into thirteen EPA ID zones.
The EPA has defined hazardous waste in two different ways under authority granted by the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA 1984), first adopted in 1976. First, a hazardous waste is a chemical that exhibits certain characteristics: ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity or toxicity (40 CFR 261.23). Second, EPA has listed a number of hazardous wastes by name. Hazardous waste can enter the environment as a result of improper storage; dumping on land; burning; unauthorized disposal into a municipal sewage system; pouring into storm drains or surface waters; disposal into on-site septic systems and improper disposal in sanitary landfills (MDEQ 1995). It is important to examine this indicator because the generation of hazardous wastes and the use of hazardous materials have environmental and human health implications.
Good hazardous waste management includes using and reusing materials as much as possible, pollution prevention and source reduction. It also includes not mixing hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. The EPA has a mixture rule, which establishes that once a solid waste is mixed with a hazardous waste, the entire mixture becomes regulated as a hazardous waste (40 CFR 26). It is intended to prevent generators from diluting waste by mixing to the point where it is not hazardous (US Department of the Interior 1994). Hazardous waste minimization is one of the best methods of reducing the burden of managing hazardous waste. Both the U.S. EPA and MDEQ encourage hazardous waste minimization through pollution prevention programs and hazardous waste recycling regulations.
3.9.3 Context at U-M AA Hazardous waste generated at U-M is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Some activities that are part of U-M AA’s regular operation, and can potentially generate hazardous wastes, are paint and solvent use, hospital and laboratory operation, vehicle maintenance, pesticide use, printing, and construction, among others. Wastes generated in each activity may be
118 regulated as hazardous wastes or not. U-M AA, as a generator25, is responsible for managing the waste it generates. This includes the evaluation, transportation, recycling and reclamation, treatment and landfilling processes. In other words, the responsibility extends from “cradle to grave” (EPA 1998). The EPA is the primary agency vested with the authority to implement RCRA (Knudsen and Keoleian 2001). However, some states can have their own hazardous waste management programs under the federal RCRA program if they receive proper approval from the EPA (42 U.S.C. §11138). For a state program to be approved, it must be at least as stringent as the federal program. U-M AA is liable to the government for lack of compliance with the applicable federal and state regulations on hazardous wastes and for costs arising from environmental enforcement by the regulatory agencies. In Michigan, besides the federal regulation, generators must comply with the Michigan liquid industrial waste regulations and must hold air quality permits. It is also liable to its employees who are directly involved in the generation and management of these substances, and to individuals for damages resulting from the waste.26
Regulated Disposal
Hazardous Hazardous Materials Waste Emissions to Air Used
Emissions to Water Benign Products
Reuse
Figure 3-9: Flow of Hazardous Wastes at U-M AA
Generators are subject to specific reporting, storage, treatment, disposal, and shipping requirements. The requirements depend on whether the generator is classified as (1) a conditionally exempt small quantity generator, (2) a small quantity generator (40 CFR 262), or (3) large quantity generator for purposes of the regulatory requirements (40 CFR 265). Such classification is determined by the quantity of hazardous waste generated. Generators that produce less than 100 kilograms per month are not subject to EPA’s regulatory provisions (40 CFR 261.5). A conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) must not generate in a calendar month (1) more than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste, (2) more than 1 kilogram of a listed acutely hazardous waste, and (3) more than 100 kilograms of any residue or contaminated soil, or other debris resulting from the cleanup of a spill of any listed acute hazardous waste. EPA regulations for Small Quantity Generators (SQGs) are applicable to generators who produce between 100 kilograms and 1,000 kilograms of
25 Generator means any person, by site, whose act or process produces hazardous waste identified or listed in part 261 of 40 C.F.R or whose act first causes a hazardous waste to become subject to regulation. 40 C.F.R. §262. 26 Requirements for conditionally exempt small quantity generators are listed at 40 C.F.R. §261.5.
119 hazardous waste per calendar month, unless the state has more stringent regulations. SQGs are permitted to accumulate hazardous wastes on site for up to 180 days without a permit so long as the amount of stored waste does not exceed 6,000 kilograms. If the generator retains the waste for more than 180 days, or stores more than 6,000 kilograms, the generator must notify the EPA and comply with additional regulations for treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities. Large quantity generators produce more than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month and are subject to the full set of regulations governing hazardous waste generators. They must also dispose of wastes within 90 days (40 CFR 261.5).
The 1999 Biennial Report deals with the regulated disposal as shown on the figure above. The disposal is for Fiscal Year 1999 data.
3.9.4 Methodology The team gathered information on this indicator from the University of Michigan’s 1999 Hazardous Waste Biennial Report, which tracks hazardous wastes leaving the campus in a solid or liquid form. This report had been submitted to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)27 on February 29, 2000.
The hazardous waste data is only available in hard copy and, therefore, it had to be manually entered by the team into a spreadsheet in order to be analyzed. The team determined that, due to time constraints, trend analysis using data from earlier years would not be possible. For the purposes of the report, the U-M AA is divided into the following EPA ID zones: Medical Campus, Central Campus, North Campus, South/ Athletic Campus, North Ingalls Building, Kellogg Eye Center, University Stores, Botanical Gardens, Wolverine Tower, Oxford Housing, Sheep Research Farm, Beck Road Facility and Radrick Farms.
The EPA categorizes hazardous wastes into different codes, according to their chemical characteristics.28 The report contained data sheets, with information on the amount, the chemical nature and the origin of the hazardous waste generated on campus. Each sheet provided the amount of generated hazardous waste, the EPA ID zone, and from 1 to 10 correspondent EPA hazardous waste codes. Some of the data sheets gave information on the amount generated for one particular code, while others reported the amount of waste generated for a combination of codes. Hazardous wastes quantities reported for one particular code could be totaled. In contrast, those for a combination of codes could not be totaled, because the hazardous waste content of the mixture per individual code could not be determined. The breakdown of hazardous waste generated by EPA ID zone is shown in the Hazardous Waste Appendix R. The grand total of hazardous wastes, including all EPA codes and ID zones was determined, and the metrics were calculated based on this number.
27 It was submitted to: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Department of Environmental Quality, Waste Management Division, Biennial Reporting P.O. Box 30241 Lansing, MI 48909-7741. 28 See Hazardous Waste Appendix.
120 Table 3-26: Hazardous Waste: Assumptions, Omissions and Sources of Error Assumptions Omissions Limitations Hazardous waste - The hazardous waste data are - Small quantities of hazardous - Conversion from volumes to compiled accurately. wastes not required to be mass using approximate reported in the data source and densities. was only available in old manifests, therefore it was not available.
Table 3-27: Hazardous Waste: Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format 1999 Hazardous Andy Berki Occupational Safety Hard copy Waste Biennial and Environmental Report Health
3.9.5 Results and Discussion The total amount of hazardous waste per EPA ID Zone was quantified. The predominant origin of hazardous waste at U-M AA was research and teaching laboratories. Table 5.5.1 illustrates these results. Results reported as ~0 are for those zones which were exempted from reporting because of the small mass of wastes produced.
Indicator 25 Hazardous waste generation, 1999 EPA ID Zone Number EPA ID Zone Name Hazardous Waste in pounds MIR000001735 Central Campus 140,680 MIR000001792 North Campus 72,460 MIR000001784 Medical Campus 108,570 MIR000001776 South/ Athletic Campus 11,521 MIR000001834 Beck Road Facility 7,374 MIR00001834 WR Beck Road, Belleville Storage 3,791 Facility MIR000001800 North Ingalls Building ~ 0 MIR000001768 Kellogg Eye Center ~ 0 MIR000001826 University Stores ~ 0 MIR000001750 Botanical Gardens ~ 0 MIR000007708 Wolverine Tower ~ 0 MIR000001743 Oxford Housing ~ 0 MIR000007690 Radrick Farms ~ 0
The total U-M AA campus community in 1999 was 62,190, and the total number of students was 37,846. The total amount of hazardous waste generated was 344,396 lbs. Thus, there
121 were 5.5 lbs. of hazardous waste generated per capita and 9.1 lbs. of hazardous waste generated per student. The total building square footage at U-M AA in 1999 was 26,274,115. Thus, there were 0.01 lbs. of hazardous waste generated per square foot building space. The total research dollars at U-M AA in 1999 were 499,673,610, and thus there were 0.0007 lbs. of hazardous waste generated per research dollar.
Metric 9 Normalized Hazardous Waste Generated by U-M AA in 1999 Hazardous waste generated in: Lbs. per capita Lbs. per student Lbs. per research Lbs. per sq. ft. dollar bldg. space 5.54 9.10 0.0007 0.001
The total amount of hazardous waste that U-M AA generated in 1999 was 344,396 lbs. (172.2 tons). However, this may also be expressed as 0.0007 lbs. per research dollar, keeping in mind that not all of the research that takes place on the U-M AA campus generates hazardous waste. Hazardous waste may be expressed as 0.001 lbs. per square foot building space as well. However, when looked at as per capita or per student metrics, the amount of hazardous waste generated is considerably larger. This is an area of concern, considering that hazardous wastes are a small fraction of the solid waste that U-M AA activities produce each year.
Hazardous waste generation results from research activity occurring at the U-M AA. U-M AA must consider the trade-off between potential benefits from this research and the environmental impact of the hazardous waste it generates. The different types of hazardous waste generated may have different characteristics, and different environmental and human health impacts. As mentioned above, the vast majority of this waste originates in research and teaching laboratories, such as solvent used in Chemistry labs. Other departments that generate hazardous wastes include Chemical Engineering and the School of Public Health. However, the team cannot develop trend analysis to confirm that hazardous waste has been generated in laboratories over time, because of the lack of historical data. A trend analysis could illustrate how the hazardous waste generation at U-M AA has changed in relation to the growth in general and student population, building square footage and research expenditures throughout the last decade. The format in which the data was stored made it unwieldy to tabulate. To facilitate hazardous waste assessment and reporting efforts in the future, U-M AA could consider adopting a standard policy of keeping electronic copies of all reports submitted to MDEQ. In this way, the data could be more easily accessed and analyzed, and stakeholders could be kept better informed.
The team was unable to track air emissions from laboratories on campus. U-M AA does not monitor these air emissions because as an educational institution, it is not mandated to do so. The team also was not able to track data on the specific sources which generate hazardous wastes on campus, because of time constraints.
Although only limited conclusions may be drawn from the results reported above, due to the lack of trend data, an improved understanding of hazardous waste generation at U-M AA is possible. The team postulates that if universities would like to move towards more
122 sustainable research, teaching, and general operation, they would need to take action to lower the amount of hazardous waste generated. Minimal hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation during U-M AA’s operation would indicate reduced environmental impact and, hence, improved sustainability.
U-M AA has numerous efforts underway to address the issue of hazardous waste. The Occupational Safety and Environmental Health Department coordinates these efforts. They include the use of microscale chemistry in undergraduate teaching laboratories, where a much smaller amount of a chemical is used in an experiment without impinging upon the ability of the students to determine results. Other initiatives are a Chemical Tracking Program, which involves the sharing of chemicals and inventory control, and Mixed Waste Segregation, where radioactive and non-radioactive wastes are kept separate (U-M p2000).
123 4 SOCIAL INDICATORS
4.1 Quality of Management
4.1.1 Indicators
S Indicator 26 Employee retention rates S Indicator 27 Evidence of student/employee orientation to organizational vision S Indicator 28 Evidence of student/employee engagement in shaping management decision making S Indicator 29 Ranking of the organization as an employer in internal and external surveys S Indicator 30 Job satisfaction levels
4.1.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice The role of quality of management indicators is critical for enhancing the reputation of an organization, increasing trust between employees and employer, and creating opportunities by being a place that individuals want to work or attend school. Indicator 26 highlights one method of identifying the status of an organization as a preferred place to work by tracking yearly the retention of employees. Although some aspects of social performance measurement are agreed upon, there exists a wide range of inconsistency in reporting these types of indicators across different organizations. Indicators should be chosen based on input from affected stakeholders. Indicator 27 and Indicator 28 demonstrate the commitment to stakeholder input by providing information about efforts to include affected parties in vision and decision-making. The information should capture the nature of goals and objectives specific to the entity and should accurately reflect performance to those goals. Indicator 29 and Indicator 30 are measurements of the success of quality management initiatives. These indicators should act as a reference for evaluating the effectiveness of organizational efforts.
4.1.3 Context within U-M AA U-M AA occupies a unique position along with other universities in its role as both an educator and an employer. The two areas are strongly interconnected; the performance of the University as an academic institution is invariably influenced by who the University employs and how satisfied these employees (faculty and staff) are in their jobs. Conversely, the attractiveness of the University as an employer is influenced by the schools academic reputation. University performance in both teaching and employment is invariably measured through the use of surveys and polls. Each year, hundreds of results are published from varying sources. The variation in results makes it difficult to assess actual performance. The immediate task for U-M AA should be to gather input on which indicators (including which survey and polls) should be used to measure management performance. Periodic reviews and
124 feedback from stakeholders should be incorporated on a regular basis to ensure that the indicators continue to represent the perceived performance of the University.
4.1.4 Methodology The indicators for quality of management are taken primarily from the Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines for the workplace. These have been modified to include consideration of students for each relevant area., The dual role of U-M AA as an employer and academic institution make it important to track management performance according to each of these roles. The University tracks the data for the identified indicators; however, limitations on time and resources prevented its collection for presentation. It is hoped that future versions of this assessment include the presentation of this data.
4.1.5 Results and Discussion The University should reach consensus on which polls best characterize management performance and synthesize the results of these surveys for clear communication to the greater community. In addition, present data on retention rates and employee satisfaction, which are currently available, should be included with the communication to provide additional information.
Indicator 26 Employee retention rates
Data to be determined
Indicator 27 Evidence of student/employee orientation to organizational vision
Data to be determined
Indicator 28 Evidence of student/employee engagement in shaping management decision making
Data to be determined
Indicator 29 Ranking of the organization as an employer in internal and external surveys
Data to be determined
Indicator 30 Job satisfaction levels
Data to be determined
125 4.2 Wages and Benefits Category
4.2.1 Indicator
S Indicator 31 Wage Distribution at U-M AA, in 2001$ S Indicator 32 Local cost of living in Ann Arbor
4.2.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice The team examined wage distribution at U-M AA, Indicator 31, in an effort to understand the allocation of financial resources to faculty and staff. It is important to assess salaries in order to understand compensation at U-M AA. Among the most important stakeholders groups for U-M AA are its employees. To maintain U-M AA’s reputation as one of the most respected institutions of higher education in the country, it must hire talented, qualified and committed faculty and staff. It must determine wage rates that attract and retain employees, but still allow the U-M AA to meet operating budgets. In order to fully understand the purchasing power of different salaries, the team researched the local cost of living in Ann Arbor as compared to the national average for Indicator 32. If the difference between the most highly paid employees and the least highly paid employees is significant, or the distribution of wage categories is very unbalanced, it may be a sign of inequity. Equity is one part of social and economic sustainability. U-M AA must pay fair wages to attract and retain qualified employees. Different schools or departments within U-M AA may pay very different wages. The nonprofit organization Redefining Progress develops policies which value nature more than economic growth. It created the Genuine Progress Indicator, as an alternative to the Gross Domestic Product for measuring economic growth. Its measurements show that growth of the GDP may not always be positive, since it includes all expenses including prison construction, divorces and cigarette sales (Redefining Progress 2002). The Gini Index is used to measure disparity in income. The higher the Gini coefficient is, on a scale from 0 to 1, the more unequal the incomes are. The U.S. has a Gini coefficient of 0.46, which is comparable to many developing countries, while most European countries have a coefficient of 0.25-0.35 (United Nations Development Programme 2002).
4.2.3 Context at U-M AA Some stakeholders believe that U-M AA salaries are not adequate, because the local cost of living in Ann Arbor is higher than the national average. Some U-M AA staff members feel that they cannot afford to live in Ann Arbor on their salaries. Salary is a dynamic which affects where people choose to live. Some U-M AA employees choose to live outside of Ann Arbor, and one reason may be that housing costs are lower in some surrounding areas than in the City of Ann Arbor. In some cases, staff members live up to fifty miles from Ann Arbor. This leads to long commuting times, heavy energy use, and significant environmental burdens including roads and emissions. It may contribute to the suburban sprawl presently plaguing Southeast Michigan. According to Yahoo Real Estate, which sets the national average Cost of Living Index at 100, the Ann Arbor Cost of Living is 125. The national
126 average median household income is $36,169. The median household income in Ann Arbor is $47,182. (US Census Bureau 2002)
The information presented is salary information for faculty and staff at U-M AA. Information on salaries of unionized employees is not included in this analysis. Unionized employees include Graduate Student Instructors, trades people, and unskilled workers. All union compensation is negotiated through a collective bargaining process between each of the unions and U-M AA.
4.2.4 Methodology
The team converted the information provided into constant 2001 dollars, using information from the Consumer Price Index (US Department of Labor CPI 2002). In this way, salary changes over time without the effect of inflation could be observed.
Table 4-1: Assumptions, Omissions and Sources of Error Assumptions Omissions Limitations Wage distribution - 1996 data for Office salaries
Local cost of living - Yahoo Real Estate provides - Adjunct, clinical or visiting correct, unbiased information faculty salaries about cost of living
Table 4-2: Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format U-M AA Faculty Susannah Livingood Office of Budget & 998-7654/ Excel spreadsheet Salary Rates Planning (Research smbl@umich. Associate II) edu
U-M AA Salary Gary Maki Human Resources & 615-6929/ Hard copy Schedules Affirmative Action garymaki@um Office ich.edu (Compensation Administrator)
4.2.5 Results
Indicator 31 displays the salary schedules for the three main staff categories at U-M AA. The professional/ administrative category is defined as employees who have at least a bachelor’s degree. The office category is defined as secretarial or clerical while the technical category is defined as employees who have acquired two years of education after high school. This could include attending a Junior College or a technical school. Examples of
127 these positions include graphic artists and X-ray technologists. All data are presented in 2001 $. These figures display the minimum and maximum salaries paid in that year. That is, the lowest salary in the bottom salary grade is shown as the minimum, and the highest figure in the top salary grade is shown as the maximum. These data were chosen to show the range of salaries paid by U-M AA. However, most employees are paid 20% to 25% above the minimum in the pay scale. Approximately 95% of employees are paid between 20% and 95% of the range.
Indicator 31 Wage Distribution at U-M AA, in 2001$
180000
160000
140000
120000 Professional /Administrative (Min.) 100000 Professional 2001 $'s /Administrative (Max.) 80000 Office (Min.)
Ann Arbor Office (Max.) 60000 median household Technical (Min.) income: 40000 $47,182 Technical (Max.) 20000
0 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Office info unavailable for 1996
Overall, salaries at U-M AA are remaining fairly steady over time. The Professional/ Administrative salaries appear to have fallen slightly in real dollars, however. The Office salaries and Technical salaries appear to have increased since 1990.
The team did not compare U-M AA salaries to those of other universities in Michigan, or to those in the private sector in Michigan. Based on the data gathered and analyzed in the three figures above, it appears that the maximum salaries being paid by U-M AA are competitive, while the minimum salaries may influence employees to choose to live outside of Ann Arbor. Future analysis should include benchmarking of the public and private sector salaries in Michigan in order to present a more complete picture of salaries at U-M AA. Indicator 31- A shows faculty average fulltime salary rates (in 2001 $; for faculty paid by fiscal year).
128 Indicator 31-A Faculty Average Fulltime Salary Rates (in 2001 $; for Faculty paid by Fiscal Year) Note: These data do not include adjunct, clinical or visiting faculty.
160,000 140,000 Professors 120,000 Assoc. Professors 100,000 Asst. Professors 80,000 Instructors Ann Arbor median 2001 $ 60,000 Lecturers household income: 40,000 Average of all $47,182 20,000 categories 0 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 90 95 96 97 98 99 00 Year
Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor salaries appear to have increased since 1997. Instructor salaries have decreased in real dollars since 1997. Lecturer salaries are remaining rather constant over time. The average of all categories is increasing over time.
Median salaries are presented in the following figure. The graph indicates that faculty is being paid competitively as compared to median household income. It is important to present both the mean and median faculty salaries, because the mean salaries may be skewed too high due to extremely high salaries being paid at the business school and the medical school.
129 Faculty Median Fulltime Salary Rates (in 2001 $; for Faculty paid by Fiscal Year) Note: These data do not include adjunct, clinical or visiting faculty.
160000
140000 Professors
120000 Assoc. Professors
100000 Asst. Professors
80000 Instructors Ann Arbor 2001 $ 60000 Lecturers median household income: 40000 Average of all $47,182 categories 20000
0 FY90 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 Year
Indicator 32 Local cost of living in Ann Arbor
According to Yahoo Real Estate, which sets the national average Cost of Living Index at 100, the Ann Arbor Cost of Living is 125. According to the latest U.S. Census, the median household income in District 13, which Ann Arbor is a part of , is $47,182.
130 4.3 Health and Safety Category
4.3.1 Indicator
S Indicator 33 Number of injuries to U-M AA employees while working reported per year S Indicator 34 Number of crimes reported to U-M AA Department of Public Safety (DPS) by violation type o Metric 10 Crimes Normalized Per Capita
4.3.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice It is important to know the number of injuries that occur at U-M AA each year to evaluate U- M AA’s employee safety record. The information available included number of reported fatal injuries to employees per fiscal year, number of days lost by employees due to injury per fiscal year, number of days of restricted activity by employees due to injury per fiscal year. These data are presented below as a means of examining and assessing Indicator 33. The prevention of injuries also saves U-M AA money because it thereby need not pay lost wages, medical bills, or lawsuits.
By analyzing the amount of crime on campus, it is possible to determine the safety and comfort level of students, faculty and staff on campus. The number of crimes reported to the U-M AA Department of Public Safety (DPS) is presented as Indicator 34. This number refers to any crime on campus, perpetrated on a student, faculty, staff member or visitor to the campus. Both violent crimes per capita and non-violent crimes per capita are also examined in Metric 10. Violent crimes are defined to include murder and non-negligent manslaughter, negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, forcible fondling, incest, statutory rape, robbery, aggravated assault and arson. Non- violent crimes are defined as burglary, motor vehicle theft, larceny, liquor law arrests, drug law arrests, and weapon law arrests.29
4.3.3 Context at U-M AA Ann Arbor is a small city of approximately 114, 000 inhabitants (see Profile, Section 2.2 for further information). It is considered a safe place to live, work and attend U-M AA. Violent crimes in general are considered to be less of a problem than theft.
4.3.4 Methodology The data gathered is for the U-M AA campus, as defined in this report’s introductory sections. The team analyzed the data and normalized violent and non-violent crimes per capita.
29 There were some changes in the definitions regarding liquor law, drug law and weapon law violations during the years studied. Please see Health and Safety Appendix X for complete definitions.
131 Table 4-3: Assumptions, Omissions and Sources of Error Assumptions Omissions Limitations Injuries - All injuries are reported to Risk Management Office. Crimes - All on-campus crimes are reported to DPS
Table 4-4: Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format Michigan Maureen Ybarra Risk Management, 615-0643 Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet Occupational Safety Work Connections and Microsoft Word and Health (Disability Document Administration Management Summary of Program Manager) Recordable Cases
University of Diane Brown Office of Associate 936-2323 Some is available on the U-M Michigan Personal V-P Facilities & AA website and some was Crime Statistics Operation (Senior hard copy Information Coordinator)
4.3.5 Results and Discussion
The first table displays the number of reported fatal injuries to employees per fiscal year. The first graph is a representation of the number of days lost by employees due to injury per fiscal year. The second graph shows the number of days of restricted activity by employees due to injury per fiscal year.
132 Indicator 33 Number of injuries to U-M AA employees while working reported per year
20000
18000 Number of days lost by 16000 Employees due to 14000 injury per fiscal year
12000
10000
8000 number ofnumber days 6000
4000
2000
0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 year
Number of Reported Fatal Injuries to Employees While Working Per Fiscal Year
Year Number of Reported Fatal Injuries 1995 0 1996 0 1997 1 1998 0 1999 1
Number of days of restricted activity by employees due to injury per fiscal year
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000 number ofnumber days 4000
2000
0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 year
133 The number of fatal injuries was zero in 1995, 1996 and 1998. There was one fatal injury at U-M AA in 1997 and one in 1999.
Restricted activity may be defined as “employee was at work, but was accommodated due to injury or illness”(Ybarra 2002). The number of days lost due to injury fell significantly in the period from 1995 to 1999, while the days of restricted activity due to injury rose markedly.
The number of violent crimes reported per calendar year is indicated in Indicator 34a, while the number of non-violent crimes reported per calendar year is shown in Indicator 34b. The metrics for these indicators are also reported here. Metric 10a shows the number of violent crimes reported per calendar year normalized per capita, and Metric 10b displays number of non-violent crimes reported per calendar year, normalized per capita.
Indicator 34 Number of crimes reported to U-M AA Department of Public Safety (DPS) by violation type
90 Indicator 34a 80 Number of Violent Crimes Reported per 70 Calendar Year
60
50
40
30
20 number of violent crimes violent of number 10
0 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 year
134 Indicator 34bNumber of Non-Violent Crimes Reported per Calendar Year
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500 number of non-violent crimes non-violent of number
0 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 year
Metric 10 Crimes Normalized Per Capita
0.0016
0.0014 Metric 10a Number of Violent 0.0012 Crimes Reported per Calendar Year Normalized Per Capita 0.001
0.0008
0.0006
0.0004 number of violent crimes violent of number 0.0002
0 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 year
135 Metric 10b Number of Non-Violent Crimes Reported per Calendar Year Normalized Per Capita
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01 number of non-violent crimes non-violent of number
0 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 year
Year Number of Crimes 1995 1 1996 0 1997 1 1998 1 1999 1 2000 1 Indicator 34c Number of Crimes That Manifest Evidence of Prejudice Based on Race, Religion, Sexual Orientation or Ethnicity per Calendar Year
The number of violent crimes on campus fell between 1995 and 1996. Then it rose through 1998, and has been falling since. The number of non-violent crimes has fallen during the period analyzed, particularly sharply between 1998 and 1999. The number of violent crimes per capita is 0.0005 and 0.0015 in all the years analyzed. The number of non-violent crimes per capita has fallen from approximately 0.04 in 1990 to approximately 0.01 in 2000.
The number of crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity was 1 in most of the years analyzed.
136 U-M AA has taken steps to reduce worker injuries. The Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH) at U-M AA coordinate many of these efforts. The Mission of OSEH is the following: “The Department of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH) supports the University’s Mission through partnership, guidance, and education to promote health, safety, protection of the environment, and regulatory compliance.”(U-M OSEH 2002)
OSEH provides education and training to the U-M AA community as one aspect of implementing its mission. The Operational Safety and Community Health Department within OSEH is responsible for a variety of programs including the Personal Protective Equipment Program, Fork truck Safety, and Ergonomics. U-M AA has its own Department of Public Safety, which helps prevent crime on campus.
137 4.4 Training for Faculty and Staff
4.4.1 Indicator
S Indicator 35 Ratio of budget assigned for training to annual operational costs
4.4.2 Indicator Description and Rationale for Choice
The university employs and trains a diverse set of faculty, administrative and supporting staff, and students. It is in the university’s interest to provide the necessary training that these employees need to perform well in their jobs. The ratio of budget assigned to training to operational costs gives an idea on how important it is for the university to maintain its employees well trained and how it allocates resources to provide the necessary training.
4.4.3 Methodology E-mail communications, phone calls and letters were used to collect data from the Human Resources offices of UM-AA. A great portion of the data was collected through Internet searches.
Table 4-5 Assumptions, Omissions and Limitations for Training of Faculty and Staff Indicator Assumptions Omissions Limitations Training - The data posted on the - Indicator was not reported as - Insufficient data or data not different web pages are accurate designed. Data on budget for kept in adequate format. and up to date. training specific for U-M AA does not exist.
Table 4-6 Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format Human Resources Thomas Palmer Office of Budgeting 647 1912 Excel spreadsheets Demographic Data and Planning
Budgeting Robert Holmes Human Resources rbholmes@ E-mail Development umich.edu
4.4.4 Results and Discussion
Indicator 35 Ratio of budget assigned for training to annual operational costs DATA NOT AVAILABLE
138 Information about budgeting and training expenditures for U-M AA was not available. U-M establishes a budget of approximately $800,000 a year for all of the Human Resources and Affirmative Action Offices that is distributed among its three campuses. Those funds come from external and internal sources. Most of the training is directed toward staff and not faculty or student workers (Robert Holmes 2002).
However, there are several programs that illustrate the relevance that employee training has for this institution. A possible way of approximating this number would be to assume proportion allocation of training funds between all three campuses, in relation to their population size. The Office of Human Resources and Affirmative Action is the major training provider at U-M AA. It provides numerous services directed towards creating a better working environment for U-M AA’s employees. These include the well being of individuals as well as healthy group interactions. Their service areas are:30
Consulting Services Consulting Services provides to the University comprehensive organizational assessment services and assistance in managing change and transitions.
Employment and Executive Services Employment Services administers the Promotional Openings Program (job postings), assists units in recruitment, including at the executive level, conducts career counseling for staff and administers the job placement for staff affected by reductions in force (RIF).
Employee Relations and Compensation Office ERC provides advice and assistance to employees, supervisors and administrators on a wide- range of university policy and union contract issues and processes, conducts supervisory training programs and administers staff salary and job classification programs.
Office of Equity and Diversity Services (OEDS) Formerly known as Affirmative Action, the OEDS provides conflict resolution training and consultation services to Faculty, staff and administrators related to issues of discrimination or harassment on the basis of protected categories (e.g. race, gender, etc.). This Office also provides data analysis and reports related to affirmative action to the campus community and governmental agencies.
Faculty and Staff Assistance Program (FASAP) FASAP counselors will help employees explore problem areas which affect your well-being such as crisis resolution, emotional concerns (depression, anxiety) family/marital/partner concerns, financial matters, alcohol and drug abuse, child/adolescent development, interpersonal conflicts within the workplace, traumatic loss and other situations that can be difficult to manage.
30 For more information about each of the training providers, visit the web page cited for each.
139 Human Resource Development (HRD) HRD provides a comprehensive array of professional development programs, courses, and services to help meet the educational and training needs of University employees.
Medical Campus Human Resources (MCHRD) Medical Campus Human Resources offers full service support in the areas of training, consultation with employees and administrators about University policy as well as organizational/workplace situations, benefits, compensation and union contract administration.
Sexual Harassment Policy Office (SHPO) SHPO provides consultation to employees, supervisors and others regarding issues related to sexual harassment in the workplace, provides in-depth training to designated complaint handlers and coordinates the investigation and response to formal and informal complaints of sexual harassment.
Other U-M AA dependencies that provide training are:
UM Research UM Research Resources is an ongoing project of the Division of Research Development and Administration. It provides information on research administration, finding funds, writing proposals, research responsibility, networks, professional development opportunities, and about external training opportunities. IT Education Services IT Education Services provides education and training programs for the UM community and those beyond the UM who would like to learn with them. They provide both For-Fee and Free Workshops. The for-fee services can be schedule for a workgroup or as part of a for credit course for students to assist professors in teaching students. The no-cost services are available for faculty, staff, and students at the University of Michigan online. The library of over 700 courses is available free of charge to all UM faculty, staff, and students. CRLT The Center for Research on Learning and Teaching (CRLT) is dedicated to the support and advancement of learning and teaching at the University of Michigan. Staff at the Center work collaboratively with faculty, Graduate Student Instructors (GSI’s), and the academic administration to develop a University culture that values and rewards teaching, respects and supports individual differences among learners, and encourages the creation of learning environments in which diverse students can learn and excel.
In order to assess whether the University of Michigan is moving towards sustainability as an employer, there should be a survey about the effectiveness of the training U-M AA is providing. The participation rates in voluntary training opportunities should be examined. Employees should be directly asked whether the training they have received has provided the necessary skills they need to perform in their jobs. Such a survey would fall beyond the scope of this study. However, from all the training sources that the university has available, it could be inferred that the employees training needs are addressed and that employee training is indeed a priority at U-M AA. There needs to be centralized system assessment of
140 training services provided by the university, specially because many of those programs operate independently. The evaluation system used for courses would be a good model to follow.
141 4.5 Freedom of Association
4.5.1 Indicator
S Indicator 36 Number by type of legal actions related to antiunion practices
4.5.2 Definition and Rationale for Choice Freedom of Association is a constitutional right that emanates from the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and the Freedom of Speech. The selection of Indicator 2 is supported by Prof. Thomas N. Gladwin’s definition of social sustainability. He has defined it as: “that relating to civil society, social cohesion, trust, reciprocity norms, equity, empowerment, freedom of association, orderliness and so forth that facilitate co- ordination and co-operation for mutual benefit” (Gladwin 2001). Therefore, a “truly sustainable society is one that organizes its economy to ensure the maintenance of its stocks of ecological, material, human and social capital, thus adhering to that prudent ancient wisdom of "not eating thy seed corn"”(Gladwin 2001).
4.5.3 Context within U-M AA Although the Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines do not provide a clear definition of this initiative and is intended mainly for corporations and not educational institutions, it can be adapted to a university. At U-M AA the main groups that could associate to advocate for their interests within the systems are students and employees. Among the employees, the sector that would most likely associate would be those who have limited decisional power over the processes that occur within U-M AA and not those that hold administrative positions.
Association within an educational institution may happen for several reasons such as collective bargaining (among supporting staff), and common interests or beliefs, common history or descent, among all staff, faculty and students. Observance of the right of freedom of association would be reflected upon the attitude of the university’s administration on facilitating the formation of unions when it is legal, facilitating meeting locations and flexibility in time, fair and equal respect to the organizational leaders, and recognition of the organizations’ collective identity, separate from its members. This definition can be extended as far as the university relates to external entities that service the university and whose activities may have a high damage or benefit potential on the university’s reputation.
4.5.4 Methodology The team contacted the Human Resources and Affirmative Action Administration to request information about annual occurrences of grievances, complaints and /or lawsuits against U-M related to violations to freedom of association or antiunion practices. Specifically, we requested the data for the years covered by our report. We were referred to the Employment Relations and Compensation Office. This office provided a spreadsheet containing a list of potential types of grievances for us to decide whether that could constitute a violation to the
142 right to freedom of association or could be considered antiunion practices. From the chosen types, we received the count for each year between 1994-2000.
Table 4-7 Assumptions, Omissions and Limitations for the Freedom of Association Indicator Assumptions Omissions Limitations Legal actions - All legal actions or grievances - The results of the action are - Information on legal actions related to have merit and the promoter is unknown. Vicious grievances or against the university was not antiunion practices prevailed. actions are not subtracted from readily available. the totals.
Table 4-8 Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format Grievance, Bruce Pringle Employment 763-2387 Excel spreadsheet Complaints Relations and Compensation Office Tamara Neely
4.5.5 Results and Discussion
For grievances filed by employees represented by a union, the grievance is written regarding the specific article number and/or paragraph number within the contract that, according to them, has been violated. Individuals filing grievances do not have a list of the grievance types; the list is used centrally within Human Resources for purposes of collecting the data. After review of the grievance, the Office of Employee Relations and Compensation determines the grievance type is when the grievance is recorded (Neely 2002). The statistics on grievance, complaints and lawsuits related to violation of freedom of association and antiunion practices available for this report are shown below. Indicator 36 Number by type of legal actions related to antiunion practices
Grievances against U-M AA related to antiunion or anti freedom of association practices filed between 1994-2001
Type 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total Sick time 1 9 27 18 21 12 8 8 104 Abusive Language and Gestures 11 20 12 4 4 3 5 3 63 Failure to Provide Medical Evaluation 1 4 6 Misconduct During a Strike 0 Harassment-Other 14 5 10 24 33 18 18 10 136 Abuse of Authority 0 Abuse Rights of Union Steward 2 1 1 1 5 Performance Evaluation 2 1 1 5 Union Dues/Service Fees 2 2 Overlap 1 1 2
There is a considerable level of subjectivity associated with the method used in this estimation. Moreover, from the information we came across during our research, we can
143 infer that there might be more insightful indicators than statistics about rates of grievance occurrence. The targeted information should be how many of those grievances ended successfully for the petitioner and the specific issues that the complaints addressed. Moreover, descriptive and anecdotal data might as well draw a better picture of U-M AA’s practices. Even though the team could not obtain more specific data about U-M AA’s performance on these matters, during the research process we found information about the code of conduct that U-M (the bigger system) imposes on its licensees.31
In 1999, the University of Michigan was the nation's leading college or university in the sale of licensed apparel and other goods. Between 1997-1999, the University served on a task force of colleges and universities affiliated with the Collegiate Licensing Company. The University also engaged in discussions with the U.S. Labor Department, the Apparel Industry Partnership and the Fair Labor Association, non-governmental entities and private and public sector parties. As a result of those efforts they completed a code of conduct for licensees that will help guarantee safe, healthy and fair conditions for workers who produce the licensed goods. Specifically on the matter of freedom of association and collective bargaining, the code reads:
“Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining. Licensees shall recognize and respect the right of employees to freedom of association and collective bargaining. No employee shall be subject to harassment, intimidation or retaliation for her/his efforts to freely associate or bargain collectively. Licensees shall allow union organizers access to employees. Licensees shall recognize the union of the employee's choice”
(University of Michigan News and Information Services). This reflects the holistic view that the university has in terms of acquisition policies and the consciousness about the freedom of association issues32. However, we do not have enough evidence to assure that freedom of association is properly observed internally at U-M AA.
Another service, provided by the Employee Relations and Compensation Office (ERC), at the university is the advice and assistance to employees, supervisors and administrators on various university policies and union contract issues and processes (ERC 2002). In theory, the availability of this office guarantees knowledge and adequate observation of the right of freedom of association (ERC 2002).
31 Licensees are those corporations entitled to use the logo and symbols of the university of Michigan to produce souvenirs and memorabilia such as hats, t-shirts, mugs, pins, among many others. 32 For further information on this issue and specifically on the U-M contract with Nike refer to [Internet]
144 4.6 Non-discrimination
4.6.1 Indicators
S Indicator 37 Percentage of women and ethnicities in senior executive, administrative and tenure-track positions S Indicator 38 Enrollment in undergraduate and graduate programs by gender, ethnicities and income level S Indicator 39 Graduation rate by gender, ethnicity and income level from graduate and undergraduate programs S Indicator 40 Undergraduate and graduate tuition costs vs. equality of access to financial aid
4.6.2 Definition of Indicator and Rationale for Choice The University of Michigan has declared in various arenas its non-discrimination policy and the value its sees in diversity as a higher-level educational institution (Bollinger and Cantor 1998). Diversity, for a university, could be defined as differential experiences represented in all sectors comprised in its population (O’Neill ad Scardamalia 2000). Non-discrimination would then be the consideration towards diversity when making decisions or taking actions. In order to move toward social sustainability in these areas, the university “must work diligently to create a welcoming community, encouraging respect for diversity in all of the characteristics that can be used to describe humans: age, race, gender, disability, ethnicity, nationality, religious belief, sexual orientation, political beliefs, economic background, and geographical background” (U-M Office of the President).
In order to properly address these social issues, not only does the university need to look at its non-discriminatory policies and/or affirmative action policies, when hiring employees or admitting students, but also needs to examine the daily working and learning environments and the support that it provides to all sectors of its population. Often this is also reflected on retention rates. Indicator 37 focuses mainly on gender and ethnicities of employees at the senior administrative and executive positions at U-M AA. Indicator 37 also examines the gender and ethnicity distribution of tenured and tenure track faculty members. These results are compared to the same data for supporting staff. Indicator 38 focuses on gender, ethnicity and nationality categories within the student population at the undergraduate, graduate33 and first professional degree34 levels. Indicator 40 focuses on undergraduate and graduate tuition costs vs. equality of access to financial aid. It is intended to evaluate the issue of economic status as a potential source of discrimination.
33 Graduate students in this report are refered to as those enrolled in a school or department of U-M AA through the Horace Rackham School of Graduate Studies. 34 First professional degree includes to Medicine (M.D.), Dentistry (D.D.S.), Law (J.D.), and Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) degrees. (Report 875 Office of the Registrar).
145 4.6.3 Context at U-M AA
In the early-nineteenth century, higher education was primarily a religion-related issue (U-M Bentley 2000). The U-M became the first university in the United States to successfully resist sectarian control. In 1843 the first foreign students (from Canada) were enrolled in the University. By 1860, forty-six percent of the students came from other states and foreign countries. Although today more than one hundred nations are represented at U-M, the less Native Americans than inhabited the land a couple of centuries ago. The first African American students arrived to U-M in 1868. In the years after Reconstruction, however, discrimination increased. Black students joined together to support each other early in the 20th century and staged restaurant sit-ins in the 1920s. During the 1960s that racial unrest motivated campus-wide concerted action. Both black and white students organized into the first Black Action Movement (BAM) in 1970. Two more student uprisings (BAM II and III) occurred in the 1980s, before the University realized the need to act upon the problems of race on campus.
Michigan was the first large university in the United States to admit women. The first women, who arrived in 1869, faced discrimination. Women were active participants of campus life during the 1960’s. They struggled for equality on campus, as well as in the women's movement and anti-war movement. Unfortunately, women continued to face severe obstacles in their pursuit of equality and peace. While women were members of many anti- war movements, they were relegated to traditionally "feminine" tasks such as secretarial and support positions, rather than administrators and organizers (U-M 2000). All along, U-M has made efforts to increase women’s presence in all sectors of the population but this has proven to be a difficult task. Still there is some degree to which the types of discriminations that exist in the United States that are present on campus (U-M 2000). There is at least one study on faculty work life that supports this statement (U-M 1999).
The university has expressed the following (U-M Office of the President 1995): “(1) the University to achieve excellence in teaching and scholarship it needs to benefit from the varied intellectual perspectives and experiences of America and the world in every aspect of our community; (2) in lieu of current demographic trends (U-M Office of the President 1995), the University of Michigan must provide the educated people and ideas needed by our society both to understand and to build unity out of diversity; and (3) it is the morally right thing to do (U-M Office of the President1995). The university is aware of the need to have multiplicity of ideas and point of views in all areas of study, from the arts and social sciences to the hard sciences, without discrimination. The course of the Affirmative Action, also known as the Admissions Lawsuit and the testimony the University has presented show this. Former President James J. Duderstadt of U-M said (U-M 1995):
As one of our colleagues perceptively explains: But diversity alone is not enough. While we must celebrate differences between people, we also must make every effort to find common grounds around which to unite. The multicolored skin that is Michigan must be woven together, becoming a tapestry, with each thread retaining its unique character. We must work diligently to create a welcoming community, encouraging respect for diversity in all of the
146 characteristics that can be used to describe humans: age, race, gender, disability, ethnicity, nationality, religious belief, sexual orientation, political beliefs, economic background, geographical background. Difference between and within groups must be acknowledged and respected. Ideally, those differences will be taken into consideration during decision-making processes at the university.
4.6.4 Methodology Most of the information collected was available at UM-AA’s Office of Budgeting and Planning Electronic Fact web page (U-M Budgeting and Planning 2001). Other information was received from the Office of Human Resources and Affirmative Action (HRAA) and the Registrar’s Office. Specifically, the Registrar’s Office provided us with the Ethnicity Reports. Information about the History of Diversity at UM-AA was found at the Historical Library’s web page and from the Office of Budgeting and Planning Electronic Facts Pages: Student Information, Faculty and Staff, Institutional Information and Common Data Set. Table 4-9 Assumptions, Omissions and Limitations for Non-Discrimination Indicators Assumptions Omissions Limitations Women and - The data for the Fall term is - The data for specific ethnicities in the most representative components of the indicator are faculty positions kept separately.
Enrollment in undergrad and grad programs by gender and ethnicity Graduation rates by gender and ethnicity Access to financial aid
Table 4-10 Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format Students Patricia McIntosh Registrar’s Office 936 9183 Hard Copies Demographic Data, Minority Reports, Graduation Rates
Human Resources Thomas Palmer Human Resources 647 1912 Electronic: Excel spreadsheets spreadsheets and Affirmative Action Historical Data on Bentley Historical http://www.umich.edu/~bhl/bhl Diversity Library’s Web Page /refhome/diversity.htm and http://141.211.188.44/diversity /FMPro
Financial aid Pamela Fowler Office of Financial Financial.aid Verbal information/interview Aid (Director) @umich.edu
147 4.6.5 Results and Discussion The demographic data that was readily available included data for students, faculty and staff but did not make a distinction between different ranks of staff. Therefore, the historical data on women and ethnicities in senior administrative and executive positions were not reported. The University Office of Human Resources and Affirmative Action does not keep special record of this information. The data herein reported is limited to current data (for year 2001- 2002) regarding number of women in senior administrative positions as available in the different web pages of U-M AA.
4.6.5.1 Diversity initiatives The University’s Nondiscrimination Policy Statement is included in all official publications:
The University of Michigan, as an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer, complies with all applicable federal and state laws regarding nondiscrimination and affirmative action, including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The University of Michigan is committed to a policy of nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for all persons regardless of race, sex, color, religion, creed, national origin or ancestry, age, marital status, sexual orientation, disability, or Vietnam-era veteran status in employment, educational programs and activities, and admission (U-M Office of the Provost 2000).
There are several offices at the university that address the issues of diversity and non- discrimination and, within them the following: Americans with Disability Act (ADA), veterans, height and weight, gender, marital status, and age, equity, and diversity, sexual orientation and religion, non-discrimination and employment. In particular, the Office of Equity and Diversity Services (OEDS) addresses issues of harassment and discrimination based on race, gender, religion, age, marital status, sexual orientation, disability, and Vietnam-era veteran status, as well as height and weight. The Office of Human Resources and Affirmative Action is another one of them. Other available resources are Rackham’s Dialogues on Diversity, as well as the Program on Intergroup Relations, Conflict and Community. Besides the issues of diversity and non-discrimination that U-M currently addresses, there are other potential types of discrimination for which the university has not established formal or specific programs, such as: political beliefs, economic background, and geographical background.
4.6.5.1.1 Ethnicity Other offices, such as the Office of Multi Ethnic Student Affairs (MESA) provide different services such as: Multi-Ethnic Student Development, Community Development, Cultural Enrichment and administrative services such as outreach, advocacy and Administrative resource provision. They also administer the William Monroe Trotter House, a multicultural student center.
148 4.6.5.1.2 The University of Michigan Health System's (UMHS) Department of Family Medicine has developed for the use of health care professionals, the necessary information to provide quality culturally sensitive health care. It also provides information to facilitate access to information on cultural competent health care from other sources. As an effort to promote culture competency in providing health care, they envision providing a forum for discussing clinically relevant cultural issues (UMHS 2000).
4.6.5.1.3 Gender The Women of Color Task Force is a constituency organization for employees at the University of Michigan and complies with applicable federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination. The Task Force develops innovative programs and activities like the Career Conference, Awards Program and Mentorship Program. Some of the main objectives of the organization are to create “a University environment where the needs and aspirations of UM employees may be fulfilled”, and to achieve full and equal participation of all in the life of this institution and support the efforts of employees to excel and succeed.35
The Center for the Education of Women The Center for the Education of Women, a unit of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has a unique history. CEW was established over three decades ago, in 1964, through the joint efforts of U-M alumnae and the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Originally called the Center for Continuing Education of Women, it was the nation's first comprehensive, university-based women's center of its kind, and from the beginning had a commitment to helping women further their educational and employment goals, as well as focusing on research and advocacy for women (U-M CEW 2002). The comprehensive counseling program supports exploration of educational and career interests within the context of relationships and life circumstances. Professionally trained counselors work within a developmental framework to help women and men consider their options, make informed choices, and both define and resolve problems, while focusing on issues of achieving balance between work and family responsibilities.
The Women’s Studies Program’s endeavor is to examine and explain the gendered worlds, challenge socially constructed expectations, and address inequities. Its scholars are dedicated to feminist teaching, learning, and activism. Its students, both undergraduate and graduate, are an instrumental part of new programs of research and community outreach (U-M LSA 2002).
The Task Force on Violence Against Women, comprised of faculty, staff, students and administrators, was appointed through the President's office to address the problem of violence against women. Through ongoing communication with other groups on campus and in the community, it is working on various aspects of this problem: 1) assessing the nature and scope of the problem of violence against women on campus; 2) developing and proposing actions that can be taken, both immediately and over the long term, to successfully
35 For more information see University of Michigan Office of Equity and Diversity Women of Color Task Force [Internet] Available from
149 address the problem; and 3) implementing those actions that are approved by U-M administration, and monitoring progress of the actions implemented. 36
4.6.5.1.4 Disability The Council for Disability Concerns was formed in 1983 at the conclusion of the University of Michigan's observance of the International Year of Disabled Persons (IYTD), which was celebrated in 1982. The Council was appointed by then President Harold Shapiro to carry on the work initiated during the IYDP and to act in an advisory capacity regarding University programs and policies that affect people with disabilities. It promotes the development of a physical and social environment that provides full access of programs, services, and facilities to every person in the University community (students, faculty, staff and guests). It is part of its mission to “advance the University's commitment to the quality of experience for all persons, including those with disabilities; to act in an advisory capacity to recommend University programs and policies that assure full opportunity and access to qualified individuals with disabilities; to advocate for the concerns of members of the University community who have disabilities, and to educate the University community by increasing our awareness of and sensitivity to all issues related to individuals who have disabilities”(U-M Council for Disability Concern 2002).
4.6.5.1.5 Nationality The International Center (IC) provides a wide variety of service for the University of Michigan community, including international and U.S. students, scholars and University administrators. For international students, the IC provides information on university admissions, academics, life in Ann Arbor, employment, taxes, and more. For students, alumni, faculty and staff of all nationalities interested in going abroad, the IC provides information of overseas studies, work and travel opportunities. It also provides information for administrators coordinating the stays of visiting international faculty and staff (U-M International Center).
4.6.5.1.6 Religious Beliefs Although the University of Michigan, as an institution, does not observe religious holidays, it is the University's policy that every reasonable effort should be made to help students avoid negative academic consequences when their religious obligations conflict with academic requirements. When such conflicts occur, the students and the professors must find alternative arrangements when students request them with anticipation (U-M Office of the Provost 2002). An agreement would constitute an opportunity to make up the work, without penalty, unless the arrangement would constitute an unreasonable burden on the faculty. Should disagreement arise over what constitutes an unreasonable burden or any aspect of this policy, the parties involved should contact the department chair, the dean of the school, or the Ombudsperson (U-M Registrar’s Office 2002).
4.6.5.1.7 Sexual orientation
36 University of Michigan task Force on Violence Against Women [Internet] Available from
150 The Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Affairs provides “UM resources for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community”(U-M LBGT 2002). In particular, this office sponsors events and provides resources and services for this sector of the U-M AA community.
4.6.5.1.8 Prevention/Education/Training The university also trains those in its staff that might be in a position from which they could exert discrimination, especially potential interviewers in the hiring process, providing them with orientation about the law, non-discrimination, in general, and towards applicants with disabilities (U-M Employment and Executive Services 2002).
4.6.5.2 Quantitative Indicators
4.6.5.2.1.1 Faculty and Staff In relation to Indicator 37, the following table contains data about gender distribution of senior administrative and executive positions at U-M AA during year 2001-2002 and the percentage of the total those numbers represent. Indicator 37 Percentage of women and ethnicities in senior executive, administrative and tenure-track positions
Gender Distribution of Senior Administrative and Executive Positions in 2001-02
Administrative/Executive Male Female Positions Total % Total % Regents 4 50 4 50 Regents Emeriti 8 66.67 4 33.33 Vice Presidents 4 50 4 50 Executive Officers 9 75 3 25 Office of the Provost 10 55.6 8 44.4 Deans37 11 55 9 45
The university does not track the data about women in senior executive and administrative positions. It was collected directly from the different web pages related to each school or administrative dependency of the university. There is not a particular pattern that can be observed from the results; nevertheless there are clear differences between the categories the team established. It would be ideal to conduct a trend analysis to evaluate the changes that have occurred during the past decade. It will also be interesting to examine how U-M AA’s results compare to those of the private industrial sector, and the state and federal governments. Another sector that Indicator 37 valuates is the tenured and tenured track faculty by gender and ethnicities. The following figure focuses on the trend in gender distribution among these groups.
37 All academic units, as listed by the university were considered in this survey. This includes the Officer Education Programs. Available from
151 Indicator 37 cont. - Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Gender Demographics
100.00%
75.00%
50.00%
25.00% % Female % Male
Percentage 0.00% 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year
The faculty tenure and tenure-track faculty gender population at U-M AA is predominantly male. The figures shows a net increase of 7.2 % in females and the corresponding decrease in males over the period of time under study, the female component remains a third of the total. A more specific study could focus on which particular schools of department have seen a bigger part of this change reflected into their faculty gender composition. The following shows the ethnicity demographics among the tenure tracked and tenured faculty members. This information includes both males and females. Statistics showing the combined gender and ethnicity categories were not available. Indicator 37 cont. – Faculty Ethnicity Demographics
100% 90% 80% Black 70% Asian 60% 50% Native American 40% Hispanic-Latino/a 30% Percentage 20% Non-Minority 10% Minor ity 0% 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year
152 The ethnic composition of the tenured and tenure-track faculty population is clearly predominantly Caucasian or Non-minority. Between 1990 and 2000, there was a net increase on minority professors of 6.9%. However, this increase is not equally distributed among the categories defined by the university. The distribution within the minority group percentages is predominantly Asian and Black with a smaller representation of Hispanic-Latino/a professors. Between 1990 and 2000, the Asian professor population shows an increasing trend, having changed from 5.6% to 9.1 % of the total population, for a net increase of 3.5%. On the other hand, the net increases of the Black and Hispanic/Latino professors were 1.7% and 1.5%, respectively. The population of Native American professors in the same period grew by a 0.1%. During this period, the total tenured and tenure-track faculty at the university decreased by 1.4%. Although not part of the indicator per se, a close examination of the gender and ethnicities composition of U-M AA’s staff population was also conducted mainly for comparison purposes. The three following graphs present data related to Indicator 37.
Indicator 37 cont. – Faculty Ethnicity Demographics
100.00%
80.00%
60.00% %Female 40.00% %Male
20.00% Percentage 0.00% 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
In contrast with the gender distribution of the faculty population previously discussed, there is a clear female predominance in the staff population. During the 1990-2000 decade the net change in distribution was 1.9% of male increase and female decrease. In this area, where there is historical female predominance, the change over time was much lower than in areas traditionally outnumbered my men. This could be a result of changing statistics about levels of education attained by women. The following figure shows the ethnic composition of the supporting staff employees.
153 Indicator 37 cont. – Staff ethnicity demographics
80% 70% Black 60% 50% Asian 40% Native A merican 30% Percentage 20% Hispanic-Latino 10% 0% Non-Minority 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year
The ethnic composition of U-M AA’s staff has changed even less dramatically than the gender composition over time. Non-minority people compose it predominantly, with less than the 20% comprised by minorities. The non-minority population has decreased by a net 1.3% during the 1990-2000 decade, which implies such an increase in the minority population. Among the minority groups, the Black sector is the largest, oscillating between 13.5% and 11.9%. It has decreased by a net 1.6%. The Asian population, however, has increased by a net 1.7 % during that period. The Hispanic-Latino/a population, in contrast, has increased by 0.71 %, while the Native American increased by 0.18%.
4.6.5.2.1.2 Students Indicator 38 focuses on the student population distribution in terms of gender, ethnic and nationality of students at the different educational levels of U-M AA. In particular the indicator looks at undergraduate, graduate and first professional degree students. The following figure illustrates the undergraduate students gender distribution.
154 Indicator 38 Enrollment in undergraduate and graduate programs by gender, ethnicities and income level
Undergraduate Students Gender Demographics
100%
75% %Female 50% %Male 25%
Percentage 0% 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year
During the 1990-2001 period, the undergraduate student gender composition has changed by 3.6%. The male representation has decreased by a 3.5% from 53.1% to 49.5% and, therefore the female percentage of the total undergraduate population has increased in the same proportion from 46.9% to 50.5%. This change has changed the historical balance of the gender composition at U-M AA. While in 1990, males were the majority by 6.9%, in 2001 female undergraduate students outnumbered males by 0.9 %. Between 1990 and 2001, the same changing trend has persisted.
The next figure presents graphically the undergraduate student ethnicity/nationality demographics. It is interesting to examine the percentage of the student population represented by international students. As well as diversity among national students can be valued, the presence of international students could also be considered of great benefit to the understanding of global problems from different perspectives. The capacity of a university to attract students from different countries could be part of its social sustainability.
Indicator 38 cont. - Undergraduate Students Ethnicity/Nationality Demographics
100%
75% African American Asian American 50% Native American 25% Percentage His panic American 0% Non-Minority
Foreign 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year
155 The ethnic composition of the undergraduate student population of U-M AA between 1990 and 2001 has been predominantly non-minority or Caucasian. Among the other minority ethnic groups in which the students are classified, the predominant has been the Asian American. While the total undergraduate student population increased by 3.8% during this period of time, the minority groups have increased by 0.2 %. Thus, the largest portion of this increase corresponds toy non-minority and international students. The non-minority students have decreased by a net 9.81%, the minority groups have increased by 7%, and foreign (international) students have increased by 3.0%. Among the minority groups, Asians have increased by a net 4.4%, African Americans and Hispanics have increased by 1.1% and 1.0%, respectively, and Native Americans have increased by 0.2%. The same criteria for students at the graduate level as for the undergraduate are examined. In particular, next focuses on gender demographics.
Indicator 38 cont. - Graduate Students Gender Demographics
100%
75%
50% %Female %Male 25% Percentage
0% 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year
In the graduate student population, men have outnumbered women by a difference oscillating between 17.9 and 13.8 percent between years1990 and 2001. There has not been a steady increasing or decreasing pattern during these years but the net difference in gender composition in the graduate student population is an increase of females of a net 1.9%. The next figure illustrates changes in ethnicity and nationality composition of the graduate student population between 1990 and from 2001.
156 Indicator 38 cont. - Graduate Students Ethnicity/Nationality Category Demographics
75% African American
50% Asian American
Native American
25% Hispanic American
Percentage Non-Minority 0% Foreign 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year
The ethnic/nationality composition of the graduate student population at U-M AA between years 1990 and 2001 has been predominantly composed of non-minority American students. This group has experienced a net decrease of 12.8 % during that period. The second largest group is the foreign or international, with more than twice the number of students of all minority groups. Between 1990 and 2001, the international graduate student population at U-M AA had a net increase of 8.9%. This group accounts for the largest part of the decrease in the non-minority American student percentages. Among the minority groups, the Asian Americans and African Americans predominate. However, the percentage of African American graduate students at U-M AA has decreased by a net 0.8%, while Asian Americans have increased by a net 3.8% between 1990 and 2001. The percentage of Hispanic-Latino/a graduate students experienced a net increase of a net 1% from 2.5% to 3.5 % during these years. During this period of time the population of Native American graduate students has increased by 0.8%. In general, the percentages of all minority student groups are lower at the graduate level than at the undergraduate level, while the international student percentage is much higher in the graduate level than minority students.
The next figure shows the gender demographics profile corresponding to the first professional degree students to allow for trend analysis.
157 Indicator 38 cont. - First Professional Degree Students Gender Demographics
100%
75% %Female 50% %Male
25% Percentage 0% 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year
The gender composition of the first professional degree student population has experienced a noticeable trend of increase of the females and decrease of the males. The difference between these groups has decreased by a net 6.8% between 1990 and 2001. Within the period of years examined, the largest change of 5.3% occurred between 1990 and 1995.
The following figure shows the trend in ethnic/nationality demographics in the first professional degree students.
Indicator 38 cont. - First Professional Degree Students Ethnicity/Nationality Demographics
75%
African American
50% Asian American
Native American 25% His panic
Percentage American Foreign 0% Non-Minority 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year
Non-minority students mainly comprise the first professional degree population. Between 1990 and 2001, the percentage of the total population that this sector represents has decreased and increased. However, the net change has been a decrease of 4% but has remained higher than 70% during this period. The African American and Hispanic populations have also decreased during this period by a 2.5% and 0.3%, respectively. Conversely, Asian Americans have increase by 5%, and Native Americans and foreign students have increased by 0.2% and 0.5%, respectively. The following figure offers a
158 profile of the gender distribution of the total U-M AA student population and its changing trend.
Indicator 38 cont. - Total U-M AA Student Population Gender Demographics
100%
75% %Female 50% %Male
Percentage 25%
0% 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year
The gender distribution of the total U-M AA student population has changed between years 1990 and 2001 from males outnumbering females by 11.3% to a smaller difference of 4.5%. The net change in percentage is 3.4 % over a period of twelve years. This number resembles much more the trend observed in the undergraduate student composition. The following figures offer a profile of the whole student population regarding ethnicity and nationality categories for purposes of comparison.
Indicator 38 cont. - Total U-M AA Student Population Ethnicity/Nationality Demographics
80% 70% African American 60% Asian American 50% Native A merican 40% Hispanic American 30% Non-Minority 20% 10% Minor ity
Percentage 0% Foreign 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year In the total student population ethnicity/nationality statistics, the same trend as in the sub- groups can be observed. The non-minority population has been declining during the past 12 years. While the non-minority population decreased by 10.2 %, the total minority population rose by a net 5.8% and the foreign student population increased by 4.4%. Among the minority groups, Asian Americans had the largest net growth of 4.3%, followed by Latino/ Hispanics with 1.0%, African Americans with 0.4%, and Native Americans with 0.2%.
159 The following figure presents the percentages of undergraduate students, by ethnicity that graduated by their sixth year, grouped by their freshman cohort or the year when they first enrolled in U-M AA. Indicator 39 Graduation rate by gender, ethnicity and income level from graduate and undergraduate programs Graduation Rates of Freshman Cohorts 1990-1994 by Ethnicity
Caucasian 75% Asian American 50% African American
25% Hispanic American
Native American Percentage 0% Total 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Year
In the cohorts of students that began their undergraduate degrees between 1990 and 1994, graduation rates of Caucasian and Asian American students have been between 85-87%, which is higher and closer to the graduation rate for the total population (which has been either 82% or 83% during this period) than the other ethnic groups. In general, when comparing the graduation rates of these cohorts for Asian and Caucasian Americans that have risen by 0.2% and 0.6%, respectively, the other groups have experienced net decreases. Graduation rates for African Americans had a 5.9% decrease, while those of Hispanics and Native Americans had a 9.8% and 13.5% decline, respectively.
Indicator 40 Undergraduate and graduate tuition costs vs. equality of access to financial aid
DATA UNAVAILABLE
Indicator 40, entitled “Undergraduate and graduate tuition costs vs. equality of access to financial aid” cannot be reported on because of lack of information about financial aid awards (Fowler 2002). During the past four years, there have been two changes in the software used by U-M AA to keep their financial aid records. In the process, data have been converted and sent to archives. It is therefore not readily available or in formats which could facilitate their use. Also, the university receives more financial aid applications and approve more financial aid than is actually disbursed. This is a result of the applicants having to request financial aid simultaneously with their application for admission. In addition, financial aid awards are based on two possible criteria: need or merit and there are different sources of aid for each of the two. Some students receive both types. The same happens with the type of aid they receive. Part of it is grants or scholarships but another part is loans. This is a hard classification to make and a judgment on the issue based on sustainability theory would also be hard.
160 U-M has been a pioneer in many of its efforts to overcome discrimination and become more inclusive and diverse. This is evident in all the initiatives that are currently in progress and the variety of resources available. In the gender statistics, there is clearly a predominance of males in the faculty, graduate student body and first professional degree body. On the other hand, females outnumber males in the staff and in the undergraduate student body. At some degree in all categories, the number of women is rising. We cannot reach conclusions in relation to the proportion of women in the senior executive and administrative positions at U- M AA because the available information was only for one year. When compared to national and Michigan State’s population gender composition for 2000, the university of Michigan falls short in many of the sub-indicators examined.
In the United States, females comprise 50.9% of the population and men 49.1%, while in Michigan; males comprise 49% and females 51%. Within the categories examined, the one that most closely resembles the national and state averages are the undergraduate student population. The staff one is the only one in which females outnumber males substantially. This is probably caused by an increasing number of women attaining post secondary education and entering the workforce than in the past. Faculty and administrative positions are usually obtained during a person’s mid career and require higher education. They could be the reflection of the tendencies of the past generation in terms of higher education attainment and working force composition, as well as they could reflect power distribution in the American society. It would be interesting to look at public versus private universities and universities located in different regions of the U.S and compare these results. Ideally, the ethnicity factor could also be related to gender.
Nationally, males holding PhD’s in the United States are 70.5% and women are 29.5% of the total holders. Of all Master’s degree holders, 49.4% are males and 50.6% females. Approximately 67.4% of first professional degree holders are males, while 32.6 % are women. Although the 2000 Population Census collected data on degrees or level of educational attainment by gender and ethnicities, this was the first year in which data is collected this way. In previous occasions, data was collected for highest level reached and did not specify whether at the graduate level it was Master’s, Professional or Doctorate degrees. Hence a historical trend analysis of the population census data cannot be conduct on this issue (U.S Census 2000).
In all of the categories examined there is predominance of Caucasian students attending UM- AA over the rest of the ethnic and nationality classifications. This has been true for students at all levels in the period of time that this project looks at. The number of minority and foreign students at all level has increasing at different rates, with a correlated decrease in non-minority students. This change might be a result of more access to better education for these groups but it may also be a result of the affirmative action policy adopted by U-M in the past years. The average national ethnic composition of the total population is38: 75.1%
38 These numbers reflect people who reported to belong to only one race. The percentages of people that reported having races in combination are higher and the total adds up to more than 100%.
161 White, 12.3% African American, 12.5% Hispanic39, 0.9 Asian40 and American Indian or Alaskan Native 0.9%. The Michigan averages are: 80.2%, 14.2%, 3.3%, 1.8% and 0.6% (US Census Bureau 2001). In terms of PhD’s 81.65 are held by Whites, while 3.54%, 10.2% and 4.1% are held by African Americans, Asian and Hispanics, respectively.41 These numbers do not resemble closely the national or the Michigan ethnic or racial composition. It does not resemble either the tenured and tenure track faculty at U-M AA. It is probably the result of an earlier generation that is changing as profile of the students that are currently in school change as well. When making this inference, one needs to be careful as well because declining White student enrollment does not correlate directly with higher minority student enrollment. An increase in international students is also associated to the issue.
The graduation rate is higher and rather similar for Caucasians and Asian Americans and lower for African American, Hispanics and Native Americans. This report did not examine how many of those students who did not graduate within a six- year period from their initial enrollment left U-M AA and how many completed their degrees even later. There are many factors that could potentially affect each individual’s experience at U-M AA. There is a space for rigorous research on the identification of factors which make some groups have higher graduation rates, whether the apparent a correlation with ethnicity exists or other factors such as economic status, and the social situation that exists at U-M AA weigh more.
The data on financial aid awarded vs. costs could not be reported in this occasion. The major limitation was data availability, both in terms of format or accessibility. Further development of Indicator 40 might benefit from conducting a detail oriented pilot study.
39 There is much debate about Hispanic as a race. There is a recent trend recognizing it as an ethnicity, due to a court decision and it is very likely that this category will be eliminated from the next population census. 40 The same argument presented for Hispanics could be made in favor of Asians. They are a group of several races. 41 The US 2000 census does not have enough data on Native Americans to report this.
162 4.7 Community Development
4.7.1 Indicators
S Indicator 41 Student Contributions to Community Development S Indicator 42 Faculty and Staff Contributions to the Community Development
4.7.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice
Like businesses and other organizations, universities depend upon the social and economic health of, and services provided by, the local, regional, and national communities in which they operate. Universities help to ensure the continued availability of these community resources over time by contributing positively to their development. The Global Reporting Initiative uses the phrase “community development” to capture those impacts that an organization has on the social and economic health of the communities in which it operates. Within this category, the GRI recommends analyzing local job creation and charitable donations on the part of the organization. As employment by the U-M AA is addressed in Category 4.2, Wages and Benefits, this Community Development section will focus on the second component of community development as defined by the GRI, charitable donations.
In the context of a university system, charitable donations can be defined as the donation of time, services, and/or funds to local communities or not-for-profit organizations. Indicator 41 examines such donations on the part of students, while Indicator 42 looks at contributions by faculty and staff. While not a sure indication that initiatives are having the desired effect, an increase in the level of donations over time nonetheless indicates an increase in the community development capacity, and hence overall sustainability, of the U- M AA.
4.7.3 Context within U-M AA System
In his 1960 campaign for President, John Kennedy introduced the idea of the Peace Corps on the steps of the Michigan Union. His idea was embraced by the U-M AA students in the crowd, who wrote a letter to President Kennedy in Washington asking him to create the organization he had described in his speech. Four decades after Kennedy’s pivotal visit, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) held the first meeting of their national tour at the U-M AA to promote community and national service among American youth. The spirit of activism that was rallied by Kennedy’s call and commitment to community service that drew Senators McCain and Bayh to this receptive crowd remain important parts of life at U-M AA.
Community development activities take place in a wide variety of areas across the U-M AA system. These activities can range from large-scale, single-day service events that draw thousands of participants, to ongoing volunteer activities that involve fewer volunteers over more extended durations, and from once-a-year food and clothing drives to monthly payroll
163 deduction programs and services made available by the U-M AA to the broader community. No single entity within the U-M oversees all of these diverse community development activities, but there are a number of departments and offices that coordinate various pieces of U-M AA’s overall effort:
- The Office of the Vice President of Government Relations houses two offices related to community development: the State Outreach Office and the Community Relations Office. The State Outreach Office maintains the Community Assistance Directory, a directory of faculty and staff community development projects and services, and the Community Relations Office coordinates the U-M AA’s annual United Way Payroll Deduction Campaign. This payroll deduction program offers faculty and staff the opportunity to donate money to local non-profit agencies through the United Way. Participants may direct all or a portion of their contribution to the United Way, who then distributes monies to its member non-profit organizations, or may designate non-United Way affiliated non-profits they would like their funds to assist. The United Way actively manages its list of member non-profits, adding and occasionally removing organizations.42 - The Edward Ginsberg Center for Community Service and Learning is the largest umbrella organization coordinating student volunteer opportunities. - The Office of Student Activities & Leadership maintains the online directory of student organizations registered with the Michigan Student Assembly, called the Maize Pages. - The Community Service Commission (CSC) is one of two funding bodies within the Michigan Student Assembly, created by students and administrators to fund student groups for projects for which the primary focus is direct service, community development, and/or community organizing. The CSC’s funding comes from a $1 per student surcharge on annual tuition. U-M AA students passed a ballot initiative that added this $1 to tuition to be used to fund community service projects by U-M students (Community Service Commission – MSA 2002).
4.7.4 Methodology
The U-M AA does not maintain comprehensive data regarding participation in community service activities on the part of students or of faculty and staff. While some entities at U-M AA do help to coordinate a broad number of such activities, they indicated that maintaining detailed records was neither feasible, given the vast number and disparate nature of such activities, nor advisable, given that maintenance of such records would require time that could otherwise be invested in further community development activities.
42 The Washtenaw United Way Board of Directors voted recently to remove the Boy Scouts of America from its list of “designate agencies”, or organizations eligible to receive a share of the community funds raised during the United Way’s fall fundraising campaign. The decision was made based on the concern expressed by many United Way supporters over the Boy Scouts’ policy against admitting homosexuals into the organization. For further information, see “United Way ends funding of Boy Scouts”, The Michigan Daily, March 5, 2002, p. 1.
164 As a result, rather than calculating precise measures and metrics, the team attempted to establish a sense of scale for both student-led and faculty/staff-led community development activities by compiling what information was available. In the case of student efforts, this information includes the results of a keyword search of all Maize Pages listings for the term “service” to establish an estimate for the overall number of community service student organizations present at U-M AA, web-based research about specific large-scale community service events that were identified as important vehicles for community service either through conversations with the Community Outreach Office or because of the team’s familiarity with their large membership or high profile on campus, telephone interviews with the Ginsberg Center’s staff, and information available on the Ginsberg Center’s website.
One activity not formally included in this analysis was the Waste Management Services- coordinated Student Move In – Move Out recycling effort. According to the Waste Management Services website, this effort resulted in the annual donation of approximately 5 tons of clothing to local charitable agencies over the past years. As indicated in the Solid Waste section of this report, there is some indication that this program may have been discontinued recently. It was suggested during a Steering Committee review of the Prototype Sustainability Report that future iterations of this report include the results of Student Move In – Move Out efforts within the community development category.
Data regarding faculty and staff community development programs is compiled by the State Outreach Office and maintained in an online, searchable directory called the “Community Assistance Directory”. The Community Assistance Directory lists all of the community outreach programs involving professors or departments of which it is aware. However, due to the administrative difficulty of maintaining such a directory, the listings in it are incomplete.
The Community Relations Office tracks data regarding faculty and staff contributions to the U-M AA’s annual United Way Campaign on an ongoing basis. Participation rates are calculated by the Community Relations Office and represent the number of employees who participate in the program divided by the total number of employees who receive information about the campaign.
Finally, the U-M AA’s annual Financial Report specifies a group of expenditures collectively called “Public Service”. This line item includes those activities funded by single or multiple sponsors that allow public access to various resources that exist within the U-M AA. This includes conferences, patient care activities, professional theater programs, the Exhibit Museum, and broadcasting services not related to student instruction. It excludes all activities that can be classified under a different line item (namely Instruction or Organized Research) within the Financial Report.
It was suggested that future iterations of this sustainability assessment include the analysis of past (if any exist) or newly-developed surveys of public community perceptions of the U-M AA. Such surveys would allow the U-M AA to assess the effectiveness of its community development programs. Similarly, it was suggested that future sustainability reports describe
165 the recommendations of community advisory panels, should any exist between the U-M AA and surrounding communities.
Table 4-11 Community Development: Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format # of student Maize Pages Sponsored by http://www.u On-line listing and total community Directory Michigan Student mich.edu/~mai development Assembly (MSA) zepgs/ organizations Student volunteer Aubrey Macfarlane Edward Ginsberg aubreym@umi Approximate total hours for hours Baranowski Center (Program ch.edu assorted programs sent by e- Director, Project mail SERVE) Alternative Spring Project www.umich.e Numbers reported in text Break participation SERVE du/~mserve document. website Faculty and staff Elaine Courter State Outreach ecourter@umi Total number transmitted via community Office ch.edu telephone development organizations Faculty and staff Community State Outreach http://www.sta Online database community Assistance Office te.outreach.um development Directory ich.edu/cgi- bin/urel/viewc at?alpha
United Way Jim Kosteva Office of jkosteva@umi Hard copy data table contributions Government ch.edu Relations (Director of Community Relations) Public Service Daniel Mesquiti Financial Operations djmesq@umic Data transmitted via e-mail Expenditures (Accounting h.edu Supervisor)
166 Table 4-12 Community Development: Assumptions, Omissions, Limitations Assumptions Omissions Limitations Student community - That most student volunteer - Student volunteer efforts development organizations are listed in Maize coordinated by organizations that Pages are not primarily engaged in service (and who are thus not listed by the keyword “service”)
Faculty / staff - That most faculty/staff - The “Public Service” - Some faculty/staff do not community programs are listed in the expenditures line item excludes prioritize updating information in development Community Assistance Directory activities that might qualify as the CAD, making this listing community development under-representative. activities but are classified under other line items in the Financial Report. As a result, this number underestimates the total expenditures related to community development.
- There are many factors that influence decisions to participate in the campaign, meaning that a drop in participation does not directly signal an equal drop in faculty/staff community development activities.
4.7.5 Results and Discussion
There were a total of 183 student community service organizations listed in the Maize Pages directory in January 2002. These organizations ranged from small to large and from issue- oriented groups to groups focused on a single or few key events during the academic year. Some of the largest (in terms of membership and/or participation) are listed in Indicator 41 below.
167 Indicator 41 Student Contributions to Community Development
Indicator 41a Sampling of Student-Led Community Development Organizations
Membership / Organization Key Activities Participation Hours of Service $ Raised Dance Marathon Raises funds for pediatric rehabilitation programs 300 unknown unknown Circle K Members volunteer service at approximately 150 different projects each year 150 5,000 unknown Detroit Project, The Sponsors ongoing projects and large-scale day of service each spring 1,300 unknown unknown K-Grams Mentoring and learning program that pairs college and elementary students 1,500 unknown unknown Alternative Spring Break Begun in 1990, ASB is a week-long immersive living and working experience offering opportunities for students to volunteer for community service related to social issues during their spring break 325 53,300 unknown Alternative Weekends AW volunteers visit sites once a month to perform community service and build relationships with sites 100 13,000 unknown Volunteers Involved Every Links small groups of students with an area Week agency for weekly service throughout a semester 140 12,600 unknown Service Promoting Awareness One-day service events designed to spark Reflection and Knowledge interest in longer commitments (SPARK) 1,300 7,800 unknown Galens Medical Society Sponsors Galens Tag Days to raise money for projects aiding sick and needy children unknown unknown $ 50,000 Totals at least 5,115 at least 91,700 at least $ 50,000
In 2001, the CSC (described above) allocated approximately $75,000 in total to approximately 70-80 groups per semester. No historical data were available for past donation rates.
Indicator 41b Student Participation and # of Sites, Alternative Spring Break Program 1990 - 1999
500 45
450 40
400 35 350 30 300 25 Participants 250 20 # sites 200 # Sites 15 # Participants# 150 100 10 50 5 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 1991 1 1993 1 1995 1 1997 1 1999
Both overall participation in Alternative Spring Break projects and the number of projects available have been increasing since the program’s inception. (Note: Data was not available for participation in 1997 and 1998, nor for # of sites in 1998.)
168 Historical analysis of comprehensive student community development contributions was not possible for this report. While the above data provide some insight into student community development activities, an alternate way of estimating community service activities on the part of students might be to administer a survey to a representative sample of undergraduate and graduate students designed to estimate the amount and nature of student volunteer efforts.
Community development efforts undertaken by faculty and staff provide the remainder of the U-M AA’s total community development contribution. As of January 2002, the Community Assistance Directory listed 354 U-M AA faculty and/or staff-sponsored community assistance projects. At present, the U-M AA does not collect information regarding the combined magnitude of all of these projects (in terms of people served, dollar value of services donated, numbers of faculty and staff involved, or another measure). However, a expenditures associated with a portion of them are captured in the “Public Service” expenditures line item in the U-M AA’s Financial Reports.
U-M AA faculty and staff participation in and donations to the United Way payroll deduction campaign, together with U-M AA “Public Service” expenditures, are presented in Indicator 42 below.
Indicator 42 Faculty and Staff Contributions to the Community Development
$80,000 0.25
$70,000 0.2 $60,000 Public Service $50,000 (in thousands) 0.15
$40,000 United Way 0.1 $30,000 Campaign Contributions $20,000 0.05 United Way $10,000 Campaign Participation Participation in United Way Campaign United in Participation Monetary Contributions (in $ thousands) $ (in Monetary Contributions $- 0 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fiscal Year
While difficult to discern in Indicator 42, faculty and staff contributions to the United Way Campaign have generally been rising over the past five years, but participation rates in the program have been falling. This is a trend that has been steady over the longer-term past – in 1990, participation rates were 47.6% for the United Way payroll deduction campaign.
169 Jim Kosteva of the Community Relations Office believes that the continued drop in participation rates is not a signal of program ineffectiveness but rather of the proliferation of options for community service now available to faculty and staff. Several years ago, the United Way campaign represented one of a more limited number of community service opportunities. Today, however, faculty and staff have a wider variety of community service options from which to choose. As a result, fewer are electing to participate in the United Way campaign (Kosteva 2002).
With the exception of fiscal years 1997 and 1998, expenditures related to “public service” have been increasing over the past ten years. However, without knowing more about how expenditures within this category have varied, it is impossible to define the reasons for these changes.
Rather than estimating the amount of community development initiated by the U-M AA, future sustainability reports might consider measuring the results of U-M AA community development efforts. As discussed above, a survey could be administered to members of the local community designed to assess their perceptions of the U-M AA.
170 4.8 Sustainability in Education
4.8.1 Indicators
S Indicator 43 Enrollment in Key Undergraduate Sustainability Courses S Indicator 44 Percent of Undergraduate and Graduate Classes That Address Sustainability Issues S Indicator 45 Sustainability Research Awards as Portion of Total Research Awards, Per Fiscal Year
4.8.2 Description of Indicator and Rationale for Choice
The degree to which sustainability issues are addressed in the educational curriculum and research portfolio is an important component of the overall sustainability of the U-M AA. The educational curriculum and research portfolio represent two of the key “services” that the U-M AA provides. Full commitment to sustainability requires that the U-M AA ensure not only that its operations are carried out in a sustainable way, but also that the services that those operations support have a positive impact on global sustainability. Through its educational curriculum and its research, the U-M AA has a tremendous impact on the knowledge available to the world’s future leaders, and thus a tremendous opportunity to ensure that those leaders are equipped with the most accurate understanding of critical sustainability issues and solutions possible.
Assessing the degree to which sustainability issues are addressed in the educational curriculum and research portfolio of the U-M AA, however, is a complicated task. The U-M AA’s formal educational curriculum consists of the courses offered to students each semester and the degree requirements set forth by the U-M AA. However, education also occurs through many forums outside the classroom, including clubs, service organizations, lecture series, conferences, and other extracurricular activities, as well as through campaigns and programs organized by the Housing, Dining Services, the Residential College, and other entities on campus. In addition, universities educate students via a “latent curriculum”, or the examples they set in their own internal operations. The U-M AA’s extracurricular and latent curricula are a fundamental part of students’ education. The Michigan Student Assembly recently passed a resolution urging the U-M AA to establish and implement sustainability goals and initiatives, providing one indication that the topic of sustainability is considered within the extracurricular curriculum. However, time constraints forced this analysis to be limited to the U-M AA’s formal curriculum, in addition to its research portfolio.
Ultimately, the indicator that would best measure the degree to which sustainability concepts were being integrated into the curriculum would be a measure of the “sustainability literacy” of graduating undergraduate and graduate students, irrespective of their major field of study. Such a measure was beyond the scope of this project, but could be designed for a future edition. This measure could be obtained through the administration of a brief sustainability quiz to a representative sample of undergraduate and graduate students. This quiz could
171 address both knowledge of sustainability issues and personal behavior in relevant areas such as energy use, transportation habits, material consumption, and others. Trends in students’ performance over time would indicate the degree to which efforts to integrate sustainability into the curriculum are successful.
As a next-best indicator, Indicator 43 focuses on enrollment in undergraduate courses that address the concept of sustainability. While this indicator does not capture all undergraduate exposure to sustainability issues, and excludes graduate education in sustainability, it does allow for a baseline estimation of the number of undergraduate students who have been exposed to sustainability concepts during the course of their education. Similarly, Indicator 44 reports the number of classes that incorporate sustainability topics, allowing the U-M AA to assess the degree to which these concepts are being integrated into the curriculum. Without also looking at enrollment in these classes, a simple proliferation of courses that address sustainability issues is itself not a sure sign that an increasing number of students are being exposed to these issues.
Indicator 45 tracks the total portion of research funds devoted to environmental and/or social sustainability issues. These indicators allow an assessment of the degree to which such issues are being addressed by faculty in their research activities.
In addition to these quantitative indicators, a number of qualitative indicators are reported. These indicators provide additional context about the extent to which sustainability is being integrated into educational and research agendas.
4.8.3 Context within U-M AA System
Educational and research activities at the U-M AA are spread across a total of 19 Academic Units, or colleges and schools. U-M AA offers over 600 undergraduate and graduate degree programs, and approximately 6,100 classes per term (University of Michigan News and Information Services 2001). Several schools focus on issues related to the environmental and social spheres of sustainability as their core discipline (the School of Natural Resources & Environment, the School of Social Work), while other schools maintain departments within their schools that focus on sustainability issues (for example, the School of Public Health’s Environmental Health Sciences). Enrollment in these schools and programs during Fall 2001 was as follows:
- SPH EHS program enrollment: 180 students - SNRE total (undergraduate and graduate) enrollment: 540 students - School of Social Work total enrollment: 574 students
A wide variety of research activities are also conducted in each of the U-M AA’s 19 Academic Units, as well as in an independent facility, the Institute for Social Research. Some of these activities are related to sustainability while others are not. Overall, research activities are supported by funds from a variety of sources. Most research support comes from external sources, while some comes from U-M AA funds. In FY 2000 and FY 2001,
172 the U-M obtained $687 million and $640 million, respectively, in new research awards. The sources of these awards differed slightly from one year to the next, but the majority of U-M AA’s research funding continued to come from government sources, as shown in Figure 4-1 below (Ulaby 2002).
Research Awards By Sponsor Group (FY 2000) Research Awards By Sponsor Group (FY 2001)
Total Federal Government Foreign Governments Total Federal Government For eign Governments Foundations Industry Foundations Industry International Organizations Other Non-Prof it Organizations International Organizations Other Non-Prof it Organizations Public Charities State and Local Governments Public Chariti es State and Local Governments Trade/Prof essional Organizations Trade/Prof essional Organizations
Figure 4-1 Research Awards By Sponsor, FY 2000 and FY 2001
4.8.4 Methodology
The selection of “key undergraduate sustainability courses” was made with the assistance of Catherine Badgley, head of the LS&A Environmental Studies Program. As discussed above, only undergraduate introductory-level courses were included in this analysis. While many graduate-level courses address concepts of sustainability, they often do so in more focused ways related to the graduate program in which they are taught. As a result, there are fewer graduate-level sustainability courses that span all disciplines within the U-M AA. The analysis was further restricted to introductory-level courses and excluded upper-level courses based on the assumption that enrollment in introductory courses would provide the most accurate estimate of general undergraduate exposure to sustainability issues. This avoids double-counting those students who take both introductory-level and upper-level courses, but does exclude those students who place out of the introductory-level classes and proceed straight to upper-level coursework.
The six undergraduate “key sustainability courses” identified for this analysis include:
S Env. Studies 240 "Big Questions for a Small Planet" S Env. Studies 270/NRE 270 "Our Common Future: Ecology, Economics, and S Ethics of Sustainable Development" S NRE 100 "Introduction to Natural Resource Problems" S NRE 301 "Ecological Issues" S AOSS 171/Biol. 110/GEOSCI 171/NRE 110/ UC 110 "Global Change I – Physical Processes" S AOSS 172/NRE 111/SOC 111/UC 111 "Introduction to Global Change II"
173 Data regarding enrollment in key undergraduate sustainability courses was obtained from the Registrar’s Office. Course enrollment numbers were then lowered by an adjustment factor (estimated at 10%) in order to account for those students who take more than one introductory sustainability course. Total U-M AA undergraduate enrollment data were obtained from the Registrar’s website and were only available for FY2000, 2001, and 2002.
Data for the number of undergraduate and graduate courses integrating sustainability concepts was obtained from an analysis completed by a researcher at the U-M AA’s Center for Sustainable Systems (CSS), Peter Reppe, and an undergraduate student, Seth Bernard. Reppe and Bernard (2001) began with a list of undergraduate and graduate courses related to the environment that had been compiled by an interdisciplinary committee assembled by LS&A Dean Shirley Neuman to propose an undergraduate environmental concentration (Environmental Sciences/Studies (ES/S) Curriculum Development Committee 2000). Reppe and Bernard then classified courses according to their coverage of one or more of the following environmental or sustainability subject areas:
S Basic functions of earth’s natural systems S Correlation between human activity and environmental sustainability S Practices that support a sustainable lifestyle S Policy strategies that support a sustainable lifestyle
These categories were selected as classification criteria because they were the categories used by the National Wildlife Federation’s Campus Ecology group in their 2001 State of the Campus Environment survey of higher education institutions. While additional criteria could have been added to the list above to provide a more comprehensive listing of sustainability- related classes, comprehensive searches of all courses offered by the U-M AA are time consuming as no centralized database exists for all classes. Instead, course listings can only be accessed independently through the home pages of each school. (Some examples include the online guide to LS&A classes, available at http://www.lsa.umich.edu/saa/publications/courseguide/cg.html and the online guide to SNRE courses, available at http://www.snre.umich.edu/students/course_descriptions.html).
Classes from the Fall and Winter semesters were included in the Reppe-Bernard analysis. The total number of classes offered per Fall and Winter semesters was obtained from the Registrar’s Office.
Data related to research activity was obtained from the U-M AA’s Programmed Research Information System at Michigan (PRISM) online database. The PRISM database contains information about all awards (grants and contracts) made to the U-M AA for sponsored projects. No centralized database exists to track research supported by U-M funds. However, Annual Research Reports indicate that, on average, over 80% of all research conducted on campus is related to sponsored projects, meaning that analysis of PRISM data covers the majority of research conducted on campus.
Online keyword searches of the PRISM database search all terms in the titles of funded research projects. While the full database also contains abstracts for each project, abstract
174 keyword searches can only be conducted by authorized individuals in the Office of the Vice President for Research. Because an abstract keyword search would have been time-intensive, the analysis was limited to a title keyword search only. Keywords searched for were:
S Sustainability S Environmental S Social S Justice S Equity S Rights S Diversity
Once the keyword search was completed, the resulting list was reviewed to ensure that identified projects related to sustainability. Projects were classified by the authors according to whether they appeared to address sustainability issues or not (please see Appendix AI for a list of included projects). Projects that were very narrowly focused on a specific issue were generally not included, while projects with broader applicability were included. While this classification process was subjective by necessity, it nonetheless provides a baseline upon which future analyses can be based.
Table 4-13 Sustainability in Education: Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format Identification of key Catherine Badgley Director, cbadgley@um Personal communication sustainability courses Environmental ich.edu Studies Program Enrollment data Pat McIntosh Office of the patmc@umic Soft copy of excel tables upon Registrar h.edu request via e-mail Number of Peter Reppe Center for css.info@umic Soft copy of excel table sustainability courses Sustainable Systems h.edu
Sustainability research PRISM Division of Research http://www.res Online search results Online Development and earch.umich.e Database Administration du/research/pr oposals/prism/ prism.html
Endowed Catherine Spickard Office of Gift spickard@umi Hard copy list of professorships (not a Administration ch.edu professorships formal indicator)
175 Table 4-14 Sustainability in Education: Assumptions, Omissions, Limitations Assumptions Omissions Limitations Enrollment in key - That 10% of the total - Enrollment in graduate - Course numbers for some sustainability enrollment in all 6 key undergrad sustainability classes courses changed during the time classes sustainability classes take more period being analyzed. This than one of the 6 change can cause fluctuations in enrollment because it affects how the class can be counted towards degree requirements.
- Enrollment in upper-level undergraduate sustainability classes (thus, the total excludes students who place out of introductory-level classes and proceed straight to upper-level coursework)
Sustainability - The Reppe Bernard study was - Study authors were not able to classes not expanded to include courses review every class offered by the related only to social U-M AA sustainability Sustainability - PRISM online keyword research searches can only search the title of a research project, not the text of the project summary. Thus research related to sustainability whose title did not contain one of the search terms was not included.
- Indicator only measures new awards, not the total amount of research dollars being expended on sustainability research, in a year (expenditures for ongoing projects are not counted).
- The process of classifying research projects according to whether or not they related to sustainability was necessarily subjective.
4.8.5 Results and Discussion
Undergraduate enrollment has fluctuated around 24,500 since FY200043, registering at 24,475 in FY2000, 24,412 in FY2001, and 24,547 in FY2002 (Office of the Registrar 2002). At the same time, enrollment in the key undergraduate sustainability classes at the U-M AA nearly doubled between FY2000 and FY2002 (see Indicator 43 below).
43 The U-M AA’s fiscal year is the same as its academic year.
176 Indicator 43 Enrollment in Key Undergraduate Sustainability Courses
1200 4.5% 4.0% 1000 Enrollment in key 3.5% sustainability 800 3.0% classes 2.5% 600 2.0% Percentage of 400 1.5% undergraduates Total Enrollment Total
1.0% PercentageTotal of enrolled in 200 Undergrad Enrollment sustainability 0.5% classes 0 0.0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Fiscal Year
Enrollment in specific courses can be affected by a variety of exogenous factors. As discussed in the Methodology section above, changes in the course number under which a class is listed can impact enrollment by changing the way in which that class may be counted towards degree requirements. For example, when the class number for Env. Studies "Big Questions for a Small Planet" changed from 320 in FY1997 to 240 in FY1998, enrollment in the course dropped from 90 to 66 because the course could no longer be used to satisfy as many degree requirements.
While it was not possible to analyze trends in the total number of courses addressing sustainability issues, Indicator 44 below gives a snapshot of the extent to which sustainability issues were being integrated into the U-M AA curriculum in FY2001. Of the 6,541 courses offered in Fall 2000 and Winter 2001, approximately 4.6% (or 300 courses) address sustainability issues.
177 Indicator 44 Percent of Undergraduate and Graduate Classes That Address Sustainability Issues
Class does not address sustainability issues Addresses the basic functions of the earth's natural systems. Addresses the correlation between human activity and environmental sustainability Addresses practices that support a sustainable lifestyle Addresses policy strategies that support environmental sustainability
As indicated in the Methodology section above, this summation represents only a first estimate of the number of courses that address sustainability issues, and it is likely that some courses were omitted from this measure.
The results above speak to the interest and ability of faculty to integrate sustainability issues in to their teaching. Analysis of these results in conjunction with the Faculty and Staff Training results would help to clarify whether or not faculty are equipped with the resources to educate about sustainability. If they are, increased integration of sustainability issues depends upon realigning faculty interest in this area.
During the last three fiscal years, the proportion of new research awards obtained for projects related directly to sustainability remained small but did increase, from 2.2% in FY1999 to 2.9% in FY2001 (see Indicator 45 below). In raw numbers, research dollars awarded to sustainability projects increased in all three years, from $9.5 million in FY1999 to $12.7 million in FY2000 to $18.7 million in FY2001.
178 Indicator 45 Sustainability Research Awards as Portion of Total Research Awards, Per Fiscal Year
$700,000,000
$600,000,000 d $500,000,000 Sustainability Research warde $400,000,000
$300,000,000 Non-Sustainability Research
esearch $ A $ esearch $200,000,000 R
$100,000,000
$0 FY FY FY 1999 2000 2001 Fiscal Year
In addition to the quantitative indicators presented above, additional qualitative data provide other insights about the integration of sustainability issues into the educational curriculum:
S Undergraduate major/minor offered U-M AA recently created the Program in the Environment concentration offering a joint undergraduate BS or BA degree from LS&A and SNRE. Prior to the creation of this concentration, LS&A offered only minors in the area of environmental studies, specifically offering minors in Environmental Studies (through the Residential College program) or in Global Change. The only option for students wishing to major in environmental studies areas was a BS degree from SNRE with a concentration in either Resource Policy and Behavior, or in Resource Ecology and Management. Prior to the creation of the new joint SNRE-LS&A concentration, the majority of U-M AA undergraduates (those who are enrolled as LS&A students) were limited in the amount of exposure they could gain to environmental coursework (which was generally offered through SNRE) by a rule limiting non-LS&A coursework to no more than 12 of the 120 hours required for a degree. Thus, the creation of the Program in the Environment concentration represents a significant increase in exposure for environmental issues within the mainstream U-M AA undergraduate curriculum.
S Number of endowed professorships and/or chairs in the fields of environmental and social sustainability Endowed professorships, or chairs, provide ongoing support for faculty positions in specific areas designated by the chair’s donor. Approximately 13 of a total of 250 endowed professorships are focused on fields related to sustainability. These appointments exist in a variety of schools and colleges within the U-M AA system. The sustainability-related chairs include the: C Max McGraw Professorship of Corporate Environmental Management (Business Administration)
179 C Walter J. Weber, Jr. Professorship in Environmental and Ecosystem Engineering (Engineering) C Chauncey Stillman Professor for Ethics, Morality, and the Practice of Law (Law) C Amy and Alan Lowenstein Professorship in Democracy (LS&A) C J. Ira and Nicki Harris Professor of Social Science (LS&A) C Theodore Roosevelt Professorship in Ecosystem Management (SNRE) C Peter M. Wege Chair of Sustainable Systems (SNRE) C Samuel Trask Dana Chair of Environment and Behavior (SNRE) C Dow Chemical Company Professor of Sustainable Science, Technology and Commerce (SNRE) C Holcim Professor of Sustainable Industrial Ecology (SNRE) C Dow Professorship in Public Health (SPH) C Marion Elizabeth Blue Endowed Chair – Children and Families (SWK) C Harold R. Johnson Professorship in Social Work (SWK)
S Dual degree programs Various schools within the U-M AA system offer joint degree programs. While not all address sustainability concepts directly, several do, and all attest to the significant linkages and interdependencies between various disciplines. Examples of sustainability-related dual degree programs include the Masters of Science (MS) / Masters of Public Policy (MPP) dual degree program between SNRE and the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, and the MS / Masters of Business Administration (MBA) dual degree program, the Corporate Environmental Management Program (CEMP) between SNRE and the Business School.
S Research centers A number of research centers housed at the U-M AA conduct research focused on sustainability issues. These centers include (but are not limited to): the Center for Sustainable Systems (CSS), the Center for the Study of Complex Systems (CSCS), the Erb Environmental Management Institute, the Center for Population Planning, and others.
Given the error inherent in the quantitative indicators presented above, future iterations of a sustainability assessment and report for the U-M AA might consider the following as alternative indicators:
S The “sustainability literacy” of graduating students and/or faculty, as measured by a sustainability issues quiz administered randomly S The sustainability of student, faculty, and staff behavior S The number of undergraduate and graduate students graduating with degrees in sustainability-related fields S The number of research publications addressing issues of sustainability
180 5 ECONOMIC INDICATORS
5.1 Investments
5.1.1 Indicators
S Indicator 46 Presence or absence of investment policies related to sustainability
5.1.2 Description of Indicator and Rationale for Choice
The U-M Endowment is a unitized investment pool for the U-M’s 3,000 separately administered endowment and quasi-endowment funds. Endowment funds are funds given to the U-M by donors who stipulate that the principal of their gift be maintained in perpetuity. The returns made from investing the principal are released in the form of quarterly “distributions” that are used to support U-M activities in accordance with the terms of the gifts.
Management of the U-M Endowment Fund impacts all dimensions of the U-M AA’s triple bottom line. Endowment Fund Distributions contribute approximately 7% of the U-M’s overall operating revenues, making management of the Fund and its investment returns an important component of the U-M’s economic sustainability. While the team recognized the fundamental importance of financial indicators that can be used to track the sustainability of Fund management from an economic perspective, we felt that such indicators were already well developed and reported in other U-M publications. (For information about the financial performance of the Endowment Fund, please see the U-M’s annual Endowment Reports. The 2001 Endowment Report can be downloaded at http://www.giving.umich.edu/news/23endow.htm).
The way in which the U-M Endowment Fund is managed can also have an impact on the U- M AA’s environmental and social sustainability. The financial instruments in which Endowment Funds are invested will themselves have impacts on these dimensions of sustainability. By investing in these instruments, the U-M indirectly supports the activities and companies that those instruments are used to fund. The inflow of financial resources from investors like the U-M AA affects and enables companies in different ways depending upon the type of investment made. Investments can range from the purchase of stock or bonds to venture capital. Indicator 46 reports the presence or absence of internal policies and/or procedures that allow the U-M AA to analyze the impact that its investments have on global environmental and social sustainability thus represents an important indicator of the U-M AA’s sustainability.
5.1.3 Context at U-M AA
The net assets of the U-M Endowment Fund were valued at $3.5 billion on Dec. 31, 2000, up from $1.1 billion in December 1994 and $400 million in December 1989. As of June 30,
181 2000, the endowment was 13th in size among U.S. higher education endowments and 4th among public universities behind three university systems – University of Texas System, University of California System, and Texas A&M University System & Foundations (University of Michigan News and Information Services 2001).
Policies governing management of the Endowment Fund are set by the U-M’s Board of Regents. Broadly, the Board of Regents’ policies stipulate that the endowment be managed with a long-term investment horizon that allows for investment in a diversified, equity- oriented portfolio that includes bonds, cash equivalents, and alternative assets, including venture capital, private equity, real estate, and energy (oil and gas) investments. The investment portfolio includes investments in the U.S. and other developed markets, and also investments in emerging economies. The current and target asset allocations are shown in Figure 5-1 below (University of Michigan 2000, 2001).
40% 35% 30% 25% Actual - FY2000 20% Actual - FY2001 15% Target est. in FY2000 Allocation 10% 5% 0%
s e ies it om ash sset C A Inc e Equ Equities iv ic ixed est onal F ernat Absolute Return Alt Dom ernati Int Asset
Figure 5-1 Actual and Target Asset Allocation, U-M Endowment Fund
The endowment is invested both in pooled funds and in directly held equities. As of June 30, 2001, the U-M AA held equity positions in over 950 different public companies (Hokada 2001).
In addition to the policies set by the Board of Regents, the U-M maintains an Investment Office that implements the policy decisions made by the Regents and monitors the performance of managers from external investment organizations that undertake individual security selection. Finally, the U-M maintains an Investment Advisory Committee composed of alumni members with expertise in various aspects of capital markets (University of Michigan News and Information Services 2000).
182 5.1.4 Methodology
Information for this section was obtained online from the U-M website, from the 2000 report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Tobacco Investments, and via telephone interview with Elizabeth Hokada, Director of Investments at the U-M AA’s Investment Office.
Table 5-1 Investments: Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format Investment policies Elizabeth Hokada Investment Office ehokada@umi Telephone conversation (Director of ch.edu Investments)
Table 5-2 Investments - Assumptions, Omissions, Limitations Assumptions Omissions Limitations Investment policy - None - None - None
5.1.5 Results and Discussion According to the Investment Office and the findings of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Tobacco Investments, endowment investment decisions are generally based solely on financial factors such as risk and return, and no consideration is given to whether or not the activities of a given corporation in which the U-M Endowment funds are invested are inconsistent with the values of the U-M (University of Michigan 2000).
Indicator 46 Presence or absence of investment policies related to sustainability The U-M does not have any formal policies regarding the environmental and/or social sustainability of its Endowment Fund investments.
However, the U-M AA has made two exceptions to this policy over the course of its history. In the late 1970’s, the Chief Financial Officer requested that the Senate Assembly Advisory Committee on Financial Affairs review the issue of U-M AA endowment holdings of companies doing business in South Africa. At the time, global condemnation of the South African policy of apartheid was prompting many public and private institutions to divest their holdings of companies doing business in South Africa. The Committee’s report upheld the policy of investment to maximize return, but noted that in certain “compelling” cases, exceptions should be made. In March 1978, the Board of Regents agreed with the Committee that the South African case constituted one such exception, and passed a Resolution divesting the Endowment portfolio of South Africa-related holdings. The Resolution also created a procedure for addressing future cases where moral or ethical concerns about the investment of the U-M endowment existed. This procedure, which was invoked by the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Tobacco Investments, consists of the following three steps:
183 1) Determination by the Board of Regents that an issue involves serious moral and ethical issues of concern to many members of the U-M community (this determination could be triggered by a vote on a resolution by the Faculty Senate Assembly or the Student Assembly), 2) Convening of an advisory committee of diverse stakeholders appointed to gather information and make recommendations, and 3) Vote by Regents to accept or decline committee recommendations.
Using this procedure, the Board of Regents determined last year that the continued holding of tobacco industry securities constituted an activity “antithetical” to the core missions of the U- M, and voted to divest all tobacco-related holdings.
184 5.2 University Revenues and Expenses
5.2.1 Indicators
S Indicator 47 Total Revenues by Source (includes Flint, Dearborn, healthcare subsidiaries, wholly owned subsidiaries) S Indicator 48 Percentage of total revenue by source S Indicator 49 Total expenditures by destination (includes Flint, Dearborn, healthcare subsidiaries, wholly owned subsidiaries) S Indicator 50 Percentage of total expenditures by destination
5.2.2 Description of Indicators and Rationale for Choice
It is difficult to define the sources of income and the allocation of financial resources that are appropriate for describing a direction that leads to sustainability. A stable source of revenue today may not hold the same stability in the future. Likewise, the level of need in areas requiring allocation of resources may change over time. For this reason, the team committed to developing financial indicators that provided information useful for identifying overall trends in revenue receipts and allocation of resources. Rather than making a specific statement about sustainability, these indicators provide a tool for communicating the alignment of goals with the revenues and resource allocations. Indicator 47 identifies the sources of revenue used to fund operations. To provide further information, the percentage of total revenue that each source provides is shown in Indicator 48. This indicator masks the effects of real dollar increases to show the relative support of each revenue source. Indicator 49 and Indicator 50 provide similar information for the expenditure side of financial operations. The task for U-M AA is to successfully develop and communicate to its community the direction in which it believes these trends should be headed. It is hoped that development takes place through the use of stakeholder involvement. If there is disagreement between the described goals and the actual direction of the indicators, further discussion and engagement should occur to ensure that the University is serving to the best of its ability the majority of interests.
U-M AA currently shares a wide range of financial information with the public. The goal of economic indicators within the context of this assessment is to allow the University to ensure that it is maintaining a level of transparency with stakeholders. The indicators are designed to be presented in a manner that allows readers unfamiliar with accounting methodology to easily identify where money is coming from and where it is going. It is hoped that the University can use these indicators to share progress over stated goals in a manner that reaches more of the community than a typical release of financial information might.
5.2.3 Methodology
All of the financial information was obtained from the Financial Operations department. The data is presented in the annual Financial Reports published by the University. The University financial statements include the individual schools (Ann Arbor, Dearborn, Flint),
185 the University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Centers, the Michigan Health Corporation (wholly-owned corporation created to pursue joint venture and managed care initiatives), Veritas Insurance Corporation (a wholly-owned captive insurance company), and M-CARE (a wholly-owned HMO), and certain affiliated operations determined to be part of U-M’s financial reporting body. Because data was not available separately for U-M AA, the data in this report includes all of the abovementioned entities. The financial reports provide revenue information according to the following categories: hospitals, tuition and fees, state appropriations, federal appropriations, external sources, other auxiliary, and other internal. Most of the categories are self-explanatory. External sources include donations, gifts, and endowments while auxiliary sources include revenues from athletic and university events.
Expenditure information was also taken from the financial reports. The financial report utilizes several more categories on the expenditure side, reflecting the wide variety of services supported. The categories include: instruction, research, public service, academic support, student services, institutional support, operation and maintenance of plants, scholarships and fellowships, operations, and hospital and dental health.
The revenues and expenditures information are presented as totals as well in percentage of total format to identify overall trends. For clarity, the expenditure categories were combined in the percentage graph. “Student and Academic Related” considers all activities associated with serving students and the academic mission of the university. This category includes instruction, research, academic support, institutional support, and scholarship and fellowship categories. Plant operations and maintenance and university operations were also combined into one category identified as “Total Operations/Maintenance”.
Table 5-3 Revenue and Expenses Data Sources Tel / E-mail / DataContact Office Website Data Format Revenues University of http://www.u Website Michigan Budget mich.edu/~oap Detail ainfo/TABLE S/Bud_All.ht ml Expenditures Financial Reporting (734) 647- U-M Annual Financial 3804 Statements (hardcopy)
Table 5-4 Revenue and Expenses - Assumptions, Sources of Omission, and Error Assumptions Omissions Limitations Revenues and - Student and academic related - Includes information from Expenses expenses include: instruction, healthcare system, wholly owned research, academic support, subsidiaries, Dearborn and Flint institutional support, scholarship, campuses and fellowship
186 5.2.4 Results and Discussion
The financial growth of the University is demonstrated by the advancing total revenue curve depicted in Indicator 47. For FY2001, total University revenue was $3.403 billion. The graph demonstrates the influence of the University hospital and healthcare system on overall University revenues. With 2001 revenue of $1.567 billion, the hospital and healthcare system represents 46% of total revenues (Indicator 48). The hospital system is nationally recognized as a premier organization, and as mentioned in the rationale section, the University should ensure that its stakeholders are aware of the importance of this part of U-M AA and confirm that the current trend fits with community perception of the overall objectives.
Indicator 47 Total Revenues by Source (includes Flint, Dearborn, healthcare subsidiaries, wholly owned subsidiaries)
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000 Hospitals Tuition and Fees 2,500,000 State Appropri- ations Federal 2,000,000 Other External $ (000's) 1,500,000 Other Auxiliary Other Internal 1,000,000 Total UMAA Budget 500,000
0
0 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y F F F F F F F F Year
Indicator 48 also identifies the declining contribution of state appropriations to U-M AA revenues. In 1990, state appropriations represented 16.1% of total revenues; as of 2001, this figure has declined to 10.5%. If the present trend continues, U-M AA will need to continually seek to increase other sources of income in order to maintain the same pace of financial growth as past few years.
187 Indicator 48 Percentage of total revenue by source
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0% Hospitals Tuition and Fees 30.0% State Appropri- ations 25.0% Federal Other External 20.0% Other Auxiliary 15.0% Other Internal
Percent of Total Revenues10.0%
5.0%
0.0% FY1990 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 Year
As expected, University expenditures have grown along with revenue. Indicator 49 indicates that the marked increase in University expenditures over the past three years, to the current year 2000 total of $3.03 billion, is primarily associated with hospital expenditures and increases in instruction.
Indicator 49 Total expenditures by destination (includes Flint, Dearborn, healthcare subsidiaries, wholly owned subsidiaries)
3,500,000
3,000,000 Total Operations/ Maintenance 2,500,000 Support/Student services Instruction 2,000,000 Research Public service
$ (000's) 1,500,000 Scholarships and fellowships 1,000,000 Hospital Health Total 500,000 Note last year of available data for expenditures is 2000. 0
0 6 7 9 0 99 99 00 1995 199 1998 199 Y Y FY1 F FY FY1 F FY FY2 Year
188 For clarity, Indicator 50 combines several of the expenditure areas into main categories associated with: student and academic related activities, hospital and healthcare, operations, and public service activities. The recent increase in hospital expenditures can be contrasted with decreases in spending in other areas in this indicator. As one of the world's largest and most respected medical institutions, the hospitals serve as a giant incubator for new ideas. For future assessments, a breakdown of revenues and expenditures for each campus (Ann Arbor, Dearborn, Flint) would be helpful for identifying unique characteristics of each location.
Indicator 50 Percentage of total expenditures by destination
60.0%
50.0%
Total Student and Academic 40.0% related Operations 30.0% Hospital
20.0% Public Service
Percent of Total Expenditures Total of Percent 10.0% Note last year of available data for expenditures is 2000. 0.0% FY1990 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 Year
189 6 RECOMMENDATIONS
The Sustainability Assessment and Reporting Master’s Project team recommends that U-M AA continue to pursue the ambitious but essential goal of triple bottom line sustainability. The U-M AA has made important efforts toward this end in many areas. However, the team believes that more systematic management of the sustainability agenda would increase the effectiveness of these and future measures. Specifically, centralized coordination, evaluation, and communication of sustainability actions would drive continuous improvement. We believe that the implementation of an annual sustainability assessment and reporting process is a critical next step on the path toward sustainability.
Recommendations regarding operational improvements that the U-M AA should pursue fall outside of the scope of this report. However, a number of recommendations for improving the assessment and reporting process emerged from this first iteration of the cycle. These recommendations are captured below. In turn, this report and future versions of it provide the baseline information that is a critical ingredient of informed decision-making. As such, it helps to improve the sustainability of the U-M AA, and recommendations regarding the reporting process are, indirectly, recommendations for improving the overall sustainability of the U-M AA.
The Sustainability Assessment and Reporting Master’s Project team has identified three major categories of recommendations. Each category is part a progression that allows U-M AA to proceed from the point of publication of this report to a more integrated and organized effort at improving sustainability if it chooses to do so. These steps are identified as:
1) Things that U-M AA can do now 2) Getting ready for tomorrow 3) Keeping the process alive
6.1 Things that U-M AA can do now Beginning with the completion of this Masters Project report, U-M AA has the opportunity to establish a greater commitment to a broad sustainability initiative. The Master’s team believes that, even if no further work is done to establish indicators or collect data, opportunities exist for the U-M AA to demonstrate its responsiveness to internal and external interest in issues of sustainability. The following three actions are items that can be addressed immediately at U-M AA:
6.1.1 Ensure leadership participation In order for the process of sustainability assessment and reporting to continue and grow in value in the future, the active participation and concrete support of the University of Michigan’s senior leadership (including the President, the Board of Regents, the Provost, and others in senior administrative offices) must be ensured. Public and private organizations that have been successful in their efforts to become more sustainable cite vision, conviction, and support from leadership as critical enablers of the transformation. Without such vision,
190 change initiatives often lose momentum as the result of competing priorities or a lack of dedicated resources.
Senior leadership have the ability not only to communicate clear sustainability objectives in a way that motivates the organization, but also to ensure that incentives are aligned with those objectives and that employees possess the resources (both physical and financial) to pursue them.
6.1.2 Set short-term and long-term goals The University of Michigan has been an academic institution for nearly two centuries. Over that time, there have been immense changes in education, technology, and social structure both internal and external to the U-M AA system. These changes evolved through incremental steps of goal setting and achievement. The institutionalization of sustainability assessment and reporting will require the University to aspire to the long-term goal of sustainability while addressing the daily needs that influence the University’s impact on environmental, economic, and social systems. For this reason, it is necessary for U-M AA to identify both short-term and long-term goals. In reviewing many of the sustainability reports being produced both at academic institutions and in the business sector, there were identifiable characteristics of goal setting that distinguished successful reporting processes. Goals should be set with the following characteristics in mind:
6.1.2.1 Goals should be challenging In setting goals, U-M AA should recognize that the concept of sustainability should not be considered an endpoint, but rather an ongoing journey toward a more balanced existence. As a result, the goals should provide a challenge for stakeholders to achieve, while at the same time remaining realistic for the short and optimistic for the long term. Setting the proverbial bar too low does little to reduce the negative impacts associated with activities.
At the same time, goals that are unrealistic serve only to promote apathy and a feeling of helplessness within the community. Much of the literature on human behavior indicates that participation is much more likely (and successful) if people feel that they have an opportunity to make a difference. Setting unrealistic goals serves only to discourage the people associated with U-M AA from taking the initiative.
6.1.2.2 Goals should be measurable In order to produce a document that can be easily communicated and understood, the goals identified should be measurable where possible. Although some of the topics discussed within this report remained more qualitative than quantitative in nature, the utilization of measurables serves to clearly indicate past performance as well as future direction. Areas more subjective in nature still require a comparable format, which readers can utilize to ascertain progress.
6.1.2.3 Goal setting should include stakeholder input The U-M AA system as defined in this report consists of people from diverse and varying backgrounds. The behaviors of all of the people within this system create the impacts that
191 are captured within this assessment. Successful attainment of goals can only be realized if the stakeholders within the system are participating in the effort to move toward sustainability. Including the stakeholders in the goal setting process is an important part of creating this involvement. The goals need to have meaning and importance to those who impact the results. Without input into the process, it becomes less likely that stakeholders will participate in helping to achieve the desired results.
U-M AA, along with many universities, also has unique access to a broad knowledge base. The campus is home to numerous experts on each of the primary topics covered in the sustainability report. It is imperative that this knowledge be accessed to help formulate the goals of U-M AA.
6.1.2.4 Report progress toward goals, including successes and failures One of the purposes of a sustainability report is to communicate progress toward established goals. It is important for this type of report to be as open and transparent as possible about performance relative to goals. This includes reporting on short-term failures with as much detail as reporting on successes. An open, honest dialogue that includes discussion about shortcomings will encourage creative solutions and help to remove doubts and concerns of stakeholders about the activities of U-M AA. This will also increases the awareness of issues among a broader range of stakeholders, exposing the problem to more people with the potential to assist in creating a solution.
6.1.3 Publish a first sustainability report…soon Presentation of data as indicators and metrics must be in a readable format. There is a lot of interesting information to present; however, the amount of information included must be limited, so that the final document is of a reasonable length for public consumption. A report as extensive as the one presented here, although more comprehensive, makes it difficult for readers to extract key concepts that need more immediate attention. A sustainability report, designed in a manner similar to a public financial report, would highlight the key factors that the University feels need to be communicated without overwhelming the reader. Publishing this document soon allows the University to utilize much of the data that has been gathered to date while it still holds relevance. Long delays might make some of the information obsolete.
The design of the final document is important, as it influences what people take away from reading it. It is important to think very critically about the indicators and metrics used in presenting the data. For many indicators, the team determined that the best metrics to use were per capita, per square foot building space and per research dollar. However, for some indicators, it did not make sense to use these metrics. For example, crime rates were not presented per square foot building space, or per research dollar, because the team determined that doing so would not provide a meaningful way of understanding the data. It is also important to alert the audience that correlation is not causation. For example, energy use has decreased when looked at per research dollar. This may be indicative of increased efficiency in energy systems or increased research dollars, or both. The metrics are useful in that they present information in a way that takes the growth of the campus out of the picture.
192 However, it is nonetheless important to state clearly what trends the data show, and what the drivers of those trends may be. The clearest way to present the data is to show the absolute totals as indicators, and the metrics on a per unit basis. The reader is thus able to see for example, that although greenhouse gas emissions are decreasing on a per unit basis, they are increasing overall, and this is a cause for concern.
6.2 Getting ready for tomorrow If the University agrees that a more comprehensive and coordinated sustainability effort is worthwhile, the experiences drawn from this report can be utilized to inform the process. To assist the leaders of this type of initiative in ensuring the success of this program, the following recommendations are included:
6.2.1 Coordinate data gathering Gathering the data underlying reported indicators consisted of a four step process:
(1) identification of the correct contact(s), (2) solicitation of the data, (3) transmission and receipt of the data, and (4) transformation of the data into a useable format
These four steps were repeated in sequence for each of the indicators presented in this report. Each step required anywhere from one day to several weeks.
In order to simplify this process, the following actions are recommended:
(1) Vest one individual or office with the responsibility of gathering all data for the report year over year. This will allow the coordinating individual or office to avoid having to repeat step one of the data gathering process every year, and to establish ongoing relationships with the individuals and departments supplying the data.
(2) Identify sustainability points-of-contact within each department who are responsible for supplying data to the sustainability coordinator every year. This will ensure that knowledge gained by a department during one year of data provision is not lost, simplifying step two of the data gathering process.
(3) Establish common data transmission formats for each category of indicators, or for individual indicators as necessary, that standardize the information being gathered year over year and ensure that data is transmitted in a format compatible with the sustainability reporting framework. This will simplify steps three and four of the data gathering process. These data transmission formats should be developed with the participation of data suppliers so that they are as consistent as possible with other reporting requirements (e.g. local, state, or national regulatory) faced by supplying departments. They should also be designed to be
193 as simple and user-friendly as possible, so as not to add time-consuming reporting obligations.
6.2.2 Create a Sustainability Board of Advisors for U-M AA The ideal Sustainability Board of Advisors would be a multidisciplinary team that would produce an effective holistic, yet detailed, view of the system. This would help in the goal setting process and in the formulation of performance options for the U-M AA system.
The University should invite people from the corporate, the non-profit and academic worlds to serve as part of the Sustainability Board of Advisors. As potential external participants, the university should consider especially the members of the Prototype Sustainability Report Steering Committee of this project. The university should also consider members of the academic community that might be more knowledgeable on particular issues embedded in the concept of sustainability.
6.2.3 Get involved in national and international campus sustainability initiatives U-M AA could learn, gain ideas and share its own experiences on sustainability issues by working more with others in the campus sustainability movement. This collaboration could include, but would not be limited to, becoming a member of the Campus Ecology Program, which is sponsored by the National Wildlife Federation. The Campus Ecology Program was founded in 1989, and has a membership of over 100 colleges and universities. The program’s goals are to encourage institutions of higher learning to operate sustainably, to train students on the issue of sustainability and to ensure the presence of a vibrant environmental movement in the United States in the future. Members may participate in greening projects, training and have their constituents apply for fellowships (National Wildlife Federation 2002a).
The Talloires Declaration, which was extensively discussed in this report’s introduction, is a meaningful document in regard to campus sustainability. It was composed in 1990, and is an official means for university presidents from around the globe to commit to environmental sustainability. There are presently more than 270 signatories to the Talloires Declaration, which is coordinated by the organization Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (University Leaders for a Sustainable Future 2002a). U-M AA could consider becoming a signatory to this document. This type of action, which would signal a commitment to campus sustainability, would be one way for U-M AA to respond to the needs of those stakeholder groups which demand further steps in regard to this issue on the part of U-M AA.
6.3 Keeping the process alive Throughout this report, the Sustainability Assessment and Reporting Master’s Project team has attempted to communicate the idea that sustainability is not a destination but a continuous journey toward improvement. Although imperfections exist with assessing and reporting, a diligent effort to continue working on improving the process will benefit U-M AA in the long run. The following recommendations are made:
194 6.3.1 Refine framework and indicators on an ongoing basis The team has attempted to point out the areas of sustainability that have not been covered as thoroughly as other areas in this initial report. Limitations on time and resources have prevented the thorough coverage that each of the three legs of sustainability deserves. As a result, the team believes that further refinement to the framework and indicators should take place before U-M AA publishes its own official public report. In the short term, a comprehensive review of the framework introduced in this report should take place. This would involve a publicly announced review process where interested stakeholders are encouraged to participate. These stakeholders would include academic departments, students, faculty, and staff of U-M AA as well as community members. U-M AA should develop a process for gathering the input and making refinements based on these suggestions.
As mentioned previously, the concept of sustainability involves a continuous journey rather than a fixed end point. As U-M AA further evolves, the needs and requirements of this community will change and evolve as well. In addition, changes in the understanding of sustainability will take place. For these reasons, revisions to the framework should take place on a regular basis. U-M AA should strive to gain knowledge and expertise in sustainability assessment and reporting from internal (within the U-M AA system) and external sources and implement this new knowledge into the framework so that the assessment reflects the most current information on the subject.
6.3.2 Emphasize the development of leading as well as lagging indicators This report attempted to introduce the concept of sustainability indicators to a general audience. As mentioned previously, these indicators can be grouped into two categories: leading indicators and lagging indicators. The lagging indicators provide information necessary to assess what past performance has been. This may take the form of an indicator for total energy consumption, pesticide use, current diversity of the U-M AA community, or crime rates. Although all of the lagging indicators can be considered an important part of sustainability assessment and reporting, further development of leading indicators should be considered a priority as well. Leading indicators are those measurables that create insights into how well U-M AA is equipped to meet future goals. These indicators act as a proxy for predicting the degree to which U-M AA has invested in shaping future behavior. For example, while energy consumption represents an important lagging indicator, a related leading indicator might measure the amount of money the University spends on educating its community about the impacts of energy consumption and conservation. Without the leading indicators, it becomes more difficult to identify areas where U-M AA is making an effort to affect future results. In essence, the lagging indicators represent activities that have taken place and cannot be altered, while the leading indicators represent potential to affect future results.
6.3.3 Enhance in-depth analysis In order to properly address select sustainability issues related to each of the three legs of sustainability that have not profoundly addressed in this first report, there is a need to conduct further detailed analysis. A considerable limitation of this assessment and reporting
195 process is the incapability to evaluate some of the sustainability initiatives that are in progress. Many of the initiatives consist of services provided directly to U-M AA’s population. In order to assess their effectiveness and further needs and priorities of the beneficiaries, an effective strategy to look at issues such as collective transportation would be to conduct surveys that sample directly from U-M AA’s population. Indicators that would particularly benefit from this data gathering would be waste management in dining halls, community development, transportation, and human resource services and development, among others. Such detail-oriented studies will probably guide to the definition of new lagging indicators during the indicator refinement process.
Additional in-depth analysis will generate more accurate and complete information about sustainability that will facilitate decision-making related to optimization of current efforts and new initiatives design.
196 7 CONCLUSION
This Master’s Project and the products it has delivered are only one step on the journey toward a more sustainable campus. The indicators presented in this report provide a baseline of information about U-M AA’s past and present sustainability performance that can be used to inform decision-making and the establishment of goals for the future. Viewed collectively, they paint a mixed picture of sustainability at the U-M AA, with some indicators showing improving performance and others identifying a trend counter to sustainability. This report did not attempt to prioritize the indicators according to importance, as sustainability involves balancing performance and making trade-offs between all of the diverse but equally important areas presented in this report. It is therefore neither possible nor productive to assign an overall sustainability “grade” to the U-M AA. Instead, the information presented for each indicator can be used to guide decision-making and prioritization of areas for further study.
As discussed throughout the report, information-gathering for the indicators was complicated by several factors. First, complete information for the full geographic boundary and time period identified was not available for many indicators, including the energy indicators, food consumption, non-discrimination, and others. In these cases, existing data was used, extrapolated using clearly stated assumptions. Second, identification of the information to be gathered had to be subjective, rather than objective, for several indicators, including sustainability in education and quality of management. Third, the process of data gathering for several indicators was or would have been so time consuming that only a subset of or proxy for the actual information sought could be collected and processed. The indicators to which this factor applies include hazardous waste (data available but collection was time consuming), sustainability in education (ideal information would have been time consuming to gather), and others. These and other limitations related to specific indicators were highlighted both in this report and in the larger Masters Project of which this report was a part.
More broadly, the framework for assessing sustainability introduced in this report can be used as the foundation for future assessments of sustainability at the U-M AA. However, both the framework structure and the collection of indicators that it contains can and should be regularly refined as information needs change and understanding of sustainability issues increases. Regular sustainability assessments will allow the U-M AA to monitor the success of its sustainability initiatives and identify new areas of opportunity. As such, it is an integral step on the journey toward a more sustainable campus. In addition, regular publication of the results of future assessments will establish a regular and transparent channel of communication between the U-M AA and the wide variety of internal and external stakeholders interested in the U-M AA’s sustainability performance.
Finally, concerns about environmental, social and economic issues are being voiced with increasing frequency on university campuses across the nation. As one of the most respected public institutions in the United States, U-M AA is in a unique position to address these
197 issues, and to lead the way among universities in the continuing evolution toward the sustainable campus.
198 8 REFERENCES
Adrouni, Mike. 2002. Ann Arbor Waste Water Treatment Plant. Personal Communication [1 April 2002].
Ann Arbor Waste Water Treatment Plant Facilities Management Plan. 2001. [Internet]. Available from
Aper, Jeffrey P. 2000. Green Values and the Mission of Higher Education in the United States. International Journal of Environmental Education and Information. Vol. 19, # 3.
Argonne National Lab. 2001. Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emission, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) v1.5 Software Model [Internet] 25th May 2001. Available from < http://greet.anl.gov/download.html> [Accessed 11th July 2001]
Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future. Homepage. 2001. [Internet]. Available from < http://www.ulsf.org/programs_talloires.html> [Accessed 14 November 2001].
Barker, John R. and Marc H. Ross. 1999. An Introduction to Global Warming. American Journal of Physics. 67 (12), American Association of Physics Teachers, December, 1999, p. 1225.
Barrows, H.L., and V.J. Kilmer. 1963. Plant nutrient losses from solids by water erosion. Advances in Agronomy 15: 303-315. Quoted in David Pimentel. 1996.
Bentley Historical Library. University of Michigan History of Diversity at the University of Michigan. [Internet] Available from
Blackburn, Ruth. Entrée Plus Office. University of Michigan Dining Services. Personal communication. [18 January 2002].
Blanchard, Steven and Reppe, Peter. 1998. Life Cycle Analysis of a residential home in Michigan. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI.
Blank, Jared. 1996. Electric car is now part of U-M fleet of vehicles The University Record 51(2).[Internet] Available from
Bollinger, Lee and Nancy Cantor. 1998. The Educational Importance of Race Information on Admissions Lawsuits [Internet] Available from
199
Brown, Diane. 2001. New University buses benefit commuters and environment The University Record 56(9). [Internet] Available from
California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation. 1997. What is a Pesticide? [Internet] Available from
Center for the Education of Women University of Michigan (CEW) Homepage [Internet] Available from
Center for Research on Learning and Teaching (CRLT). University of Michigan. Homepage. [Internet] Available from
Center for the Study of Complex Systems. 2002. What is the study of complex systems? [Internet] Available from < http://www.pscs.umich.edu/complexity.html>.
Center for the Study of Higher and Post-Secondary Education & Center for the Education of Women (1999) University of Michigan Faculty Worklife Study Report [Acrobat]. Available from
Center for Sustainable Systems. 2001a. Community Metabolism Model. [Internet] Available from
Center for Sustainable Systems. 2001b. Sustainable Systems: Our Definition and Approach [Internet] Ann Arbor, MI. Available from
Chazan, Dahlia A. and Amy A. Cotter. 2001. Evaluating the Impacts of Proposed Land Conversion: A Tool for Local Decision-Making A Professional Project, Center for Sustainable Systems University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. April 16, 2001.
Chlorine Chemistry Council. 1995. Chlorine Stewardship Breakthroughs. [Internet] Available from
Chock, Malama. Office of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health University of Michigan. Personal communication [26 March 2002].
200 Cities Environment Reports on the Internet Program. Urban Information Gateway. [Internet] Available from
City of Ann Arbor Water Utilities. 2000. 2000 Annual Report on Drinking Water [Internet]. Available from
City of Ann Arbor. 2001. Frequently Asked Questions [Internet] Ann Arbor, MI. Available from:
Community Service Commission – MSA. 2000. Community Service Commission. [Internet] Available from
Conservation International. 2002. Hotspots. Available from
Costanza, Robert et al. 1997. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature. Vol. 387, issue 6630: 253-260.
CSR Network. 2001. The State of Global Environmental and Social Reporting: The 2001 Benchmark Survey. [Internet] Available from < http://www.csrnetwork.com/> [Accessed 14 March 2002].
Cunningham, William P. and Barbara Woodworth Saigo 1999. Environmental Science: A Global Concern, Fifth Edition. Boston: WCB McGraw-Hill p. 453.
Department of Environment and Infrastructure Services. 2002. Washtenaw County and Ann Arbor Area Green Map. [Internet] Available from
Dining Services. University of Michigan. 2002.. Nutrition and You. [Internet] Available from
Earth Summit 2002. Towards Earth Summit 2002. Briefing Paper. [Internet] Available from
Ecological Society of America. 1997. Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems. Issues In Ecology no 2. [Internet] Available from
201 Elkington, John. 1998. Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st. Century business. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Elkington, John. 2001. The Chrysalis Economy. Oxford, U.K.: Capstone Publishing Ltd.
Elkington, John. 2002. What Is Sustainable Development. [Internet] Available from
Elstom, Suzanne. 2001. Montreal Protocol Fortified. The Environmental News Network January 8, 2001. [Internet] Available from < http://www.enn.com/news/enn- stories/2001/01/01082001/montreal_41141.asp?P=1> [Accessed 20 January 2002].
Employees Relations and Compensation (ERC). 2001.University of Michigan [Internet] Available from
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 1999a. Annual Energy Review 1999, DOE/EIA- 0384(99); Washington, D.C.
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 1999b. State Energy Data Report 1999. [Internet] Available from < http://eia.doe.gov/pub/state.data/pdf/rank.pdf> [Accessed 8 December 2001].
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2000a. Annual Energy Review 2000, Table 2.1a. Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy [Internet] March 2002. Available from
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2000b. Annual Energy Review 2000, Table 1.1. Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy [Internet] March 2002. Available from
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2000c. Annual Energy Review 2000, Figure 1.1. Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy [Internet] March 2002. Available from
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2000d. Annual Energy Review 2000, Table 1.8, F1b[Internet] Available from
Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2001a. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2000. United States Department of Energy. DOE/EIA-0573. Washington D.C.
202 Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2001b. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2000: Executive Summary. United States Department of Energy [Internet] 26th March 2002. Available from
Environmental Defense et al. 2002. Lifecycle Environmental Comparison: Virgin Paper and Recycled Paper-Based Systems. [Internet] Available from < http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pdf.cfm?ContentID=1618&FileName=WP3%2 Epdf>. [Accessed April 2, 2002]
Environmental Sciences/Studies (ES/S) University of Michigan Curriculum Development Committee. 2000. Report of the Environmental Sciences/Studies (ES/S) Curriculum Development Committee.
Extoxnet. 1993a. Dose-Response Relationships in Toxicology. [Internet] Available from
Extoxnet. 1993b. Toxicology Information Brief: Ecological Effects. [Internet] Available from
Faculty and Staff Assistance Program (FASAP). 2001. University of Michigan [Internet] Available from
Foster, Duane. Utilities and Plant Engineering.2002. Personal communication [E-mail] [17 January 2002].
Fowler, Pamela. Director Office of Financial Aid. Personal communication. [15 March 2002].
Frank, Mary Jo. 2000. Allocation request focuses on undergrad, sustainability programs. The University Record 56(8) [Internet] Available from
Frank, Mary Joe. 2001. University of Michigan System Profile University of Michigan News and Information Services. [Internet] Available from
Gavin, Kara. 2001. Health System named tops in recycling for public institution The University Record 56(33).[Internet] Available from < http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0001/Jun04_01/4.htm> [Accessed 13 October 2001].
203 George, Maryanne. 2001. Alumni ask U-M to reduce its greenhouse gases Detroit Free Press. 31 Jan 2001.
George, Maryanne. 2002. U-M recycling program is tops among schools” Detroit Free Press 17 Jan 2002.
Gladwin, Thomas N. 2001. Gladwin Offers Vision for Sustainability. The University Record 57(10). [Internet] Available from
Gladwin, Thomas N. 2001b A call for Sustainable Development. Mastering Strategy. University of Michigan Business School [Internet] Available from
Glasser, Harold, Andrew Nixon, and Jason Tallant. 2002. Campus Sustainability Assessment Review Project. Paper for presentation at Economicology 4.5 conference.
Global Reporting Initiative. 2000a. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. [Internet] Available from
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). 2000b. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Boston, MA: Global Reporting Initiative. p. 18.
Global Reporting Initiative. 2000c. June 2000 GRI Guidelines [Internet]. Available from
Goldemberg, J., T. B. Johansson, A. K. N. Reddy, and R. H. Williams. 1987. Energy for a Sustainable World. New Delhi: John Wiley.
Green Seal. 2000. Choose Green Report. [Internet] Available from
Grounds & Waste 2001(a). Integrated Pest Management Plan. [Internet] Available from
Grounds & Waste 2001(b). Turf Crew. [Internet] Available from
Heller, Martin and Gregory Keoleian. 2000. Life Cycle-Based Sustainability Indicators for Assessment of the U.S. Food System. Report No. 2000-4. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Sustainable Systems.
204 Hokada, Elizabeth. 2002. Interview by author. Personal transmittal of electronic document, University of Michigan Directly Held Equities. 2001.
Holmes, Robert. 2002. Human Resources and Development, University of Michigan Personal communication [email] [20 March 2002].
Horace Rackham School of Graduate Studies University of Michigan [Internet]. Available from
Housing Services University of Michigan. 2001. 2000-01 Annual Report [Internet] Available from < http://www.housing.umich.edu/pdfs/2000-01AnnualReport.pdf> [Accessed 18th February 2002]
Housing Services University of Michigan. 2002. Environmental Efforts. [Internet] Available from
Hsiung, Paul and Richard A. Stoebner. 2001. City of Ann Arbor Water System Master Plan – Beyond the Year 2000. Water Distribution System Schematic Layout [online image]. Available from
Human Resources and Affirmative Action. 2002a. Consulting Services University of Michigan [Internet]. Available from < http://www.umich.edu/~hraa/consulting/> [Accessed 14 March 2002]
Human Resources and Affirmative Action. 2002b. Human Resources and Development University of Michigan [Internet]. Available from
Human Resources and Affirmative Action. 2002c. University of Michigan Council for Disability Concerns [Internet] Available from
Human Resources and Affirmative Action. 2002d. University of Michigan Employment and Executive Services Departmental Information [Internet] Available from
Huron River Watershed Council. 2001a. Map of the Creeksheds in the Huron River Watershed. [OnLine image]. Available from
205 Huron River Watershed Council 2001b. Details about the Watershed. [Internet]. Available from
ITCS Education Services. 2002. Education Services. University of Michigan [Internet] Available from
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1996. Climate Change 1995 - The Science of Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers, and Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Working Group II. 2001a. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. United Nations Environment Programme. [Internet]. Available from
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001b. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. United Nations Environment Programme. [Internet]. Available from
International Association of Universities. 1991. The Halifax Declaration. [Internet] Available from < http://www.unesco.org/iau/tfsd_halifax.html> [Accessed 16 January 2002].
International Center. 2002. University of Michigan. International Student and Scholar Policy and News [Internet]. Available from
ICLEI. 2002. Link Database: Affiliated Organizations. [Internet]. Available from
ICLEI. ICLEI News 2002. [Internet] Available from
Institute of Water Research. 1999. Michigan State University. Michigan’s Drinking Water: What is Groundwater? [Internet] Groundwater Education in Michigan Program. Available from < http://www.gem.msu.edu/gw/gw.html>. [Accessed 18 February 2002].
International Energy Agency.(IEA). 1998. Kyoto Protocol. [Internet]. Available from < http://www.iea.org/ieakyoto/index.htm>. [Accessed 16 January 2002].
International Energy Agency (IEA). 2002. Homepage. [Internet] Available from
206 International Paper. Paper Calculator. [Internet]. Available from
Intramural Sports Program (IMS) University of Michigan. 2002. Intramural Sports [Internet]. Available from
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1996. Climate Change1995: economic and social dimensions of Climate Change. ed. James P. Bruce, Hoesung Lee, Erik F. Haites. In: The Science of Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kellogg, Kate. 1993. Students, colleagues honor Stapp at weekend symposium. The University Record 48(30). [Internet]. Available from
Knudsen, Sanne and Gregory Keoleian. 2001. Environmental Law: Exploring the Influence on Environmental Design. Center for Sustainable Systems. [Internet] Available from
Kosteva, Jim. Director of Community Relations University of Michigan. Personal communication [Interview]. Ann Arbor, MI. [15 February 2002].
Kramer, Klaas Jan. 2000. Food Matters: On Reducing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Household Food Consumption. Veenendaal: Universal Press.
Learner, Howard. 2001. U-M should heed its own advice on global warming Detroit Free Press, 14 Jun 2001.
Literature, Arts & Sciences (LSA) Student Academic Affairs. 2002. Concentration Advising. University of Michigan. [Internet]. Available from
Marshall, W., Schumacher, and L.G, Howell, S. A. 1995. Engine Exhaust Emissions Evaluation of a Cummins L10E When Fueled with a Biodiesel Blend. SAE Paper No. 952363. SAE, Warrendale, PA.
Matthaei Botanical Gardens 2002. University of Michigan. [Internet]. Available from
207 McIntosh, Mary et al. 2000. State of the Campus Environment. National Wildlife Federation. [Internet] Available from
Medical Campus Human Resources Department (MCHRD). 2002. University of Michigan Health System. [Internet]. Available from
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 1995. Michigan Guide to Understanding Hazardous Waste Management. Lansing: Waste Management Division.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2000. Report of the Solid Waste Importation Task Force to Governor John Engler and Department of Environmental Quality Director Russell J. Harding. [Internet]. Available from
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2001. State of Michigan’s Environment 2001: First Biennial Report. [Internet] Available from < http://www.deq.state.mi.us/osep/ftp/deqdnrei01.pdf>. [Accessed 15 February 2002].
Michigan Environmental Council. 2002. Protect Our Water. [Internet] Available from
Michigan Recycles. 2002. University of Michigan [Internet]. Available from
Miller, Robert. 2002. Printing Services University of Michigan. Personal communication.
Murcott, Susan. 1997. Appendix A: Definitions of Sustainable Development, in What Is Sustainability? Presented at AAAS Annual Conference, Sustainability Indicators Symposium. [Internet]. Available from
National Biodiesel Board. 2001. Emissions fact sheet – Biodiesel emissions. [Internet]. Available from
National Renewable Energy Labs and West Virginia University (2001) Vehicle emissions testing. Heavy Vehicle Projects at NREL [Internet]. Available from
208 National Wildlife Federation. 2002a. Campus Ecology [Internet]. Available from
NC State University Cooperative Extension. 2002. The Fertilizer Zone. [Internet] Available from
Neely, Tamara. 2002. Office of Employees Relations and Compensation University of Michigan. Personal Communication [E-mail] [2 April 2002].
Nichols Arboretum University of Michigan. 2002. [Internet]. Available from
National Strategies for Sustainable Development (SSD). 2002. Homepage. [Internet]. Available from
Office of Budget and Planning. 2002. Electronic Fact Pages-University of Michigan. Faculty and Staff Information. [Internet]. Available from
Office of Budget and Planning. 2001. Electronic Fact Pages-University of Michigan Research Expenditures. [Internet]. Available from
Office of Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, and Transgender Affairs. 2002. University of Michigan In Queery. [Internet]. Available from
Office of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH). 2002a Pollution Prevention Program University of Michigan. Drift Management Plan. [Internet]. Available from
Office of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH). 2002b Pollution Prevention Program University of Michigan. Food Composting Program. [Internet]. Available from
Office of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH). 2002c Pollution Prevention Program University of Michigan. Manual-Chemical Waste in Laboratories [Internet] Available from
209
Office of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH). 2002d. University of Michigan. Environmental Stewrdship. [Internet]. Available from
Office of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH). 2002e. University of Michigan Mission and Vision. [Internet]. Available from
Office of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH). 2002f. University of Michigan. Pest Management. [Internet]. Available from
Office of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH). 2002g University of Michigan. Pesticides and Fertilizers. [Internet]. Available from
Office of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH). 2002h. University of Michigan. Salt Use Quality Improvement Team. [Internet]. Available from
Office of Safety and Environmental Health, University of Michigan (OSEH). 2002i. . Storm water. [Internet]. Available from
Office of the President, University of Michigan. 1995. Diversity at the University of Michigan: Building a Community for the Future. [Internet]. Available from
Office of the Provost, University of Michigan. 2002a Dates to remember [Internet] Available from
Office of the Provost, University of Michigan. 2002b Office of the Provost Institutional Reporting Policies Regarding Equity of Treatment, Non-Discrimination and Affirmative Action. [Internet]. Available from
210 Office of the Registrar, University of Michigan. 2001. Enrollment of Undergraduate Students by School and College, Field of Specialization, Class Level, and Gender. [Internet]. Available from
Office of the Registrar, University of Michigan. 2002. Religious-Academic Conflicts. [Internet]. Available from
O'Neill, D.K., & Scardamalia, M. 2000. Mentoring in the Open: A Strategy for Supporting Human Development in the Knowledge Society. In B. Fishman & S. O'Connor- Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 326- 333). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pesticide Action Network 1999a. Chemicals of Special Concern. [Internet]. Available from
Pimentel, David and Marcia, eds. 1996. Food, Energy, and Society. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado.
Plant Operations Division. 2002. Pest Management. University of Michigan [Internet] Available from
Plant Operations-Grounds and Waste. 1998. Recycling Matters Earth Day 1998 University of Michigan. [Internet] Available from
Plant Operations, Grounds and Waste. 2001a. Trees and Forests. University of Michigan [Internet]. Available from
Plant Operations, Grounds and Waste. 2001b. Turf Crew. University of Michigan. [Internet]. Available from
Plant Operations Grounds and Waste. 2002a. Michigan Recycle. University of Michigan. [Internet]. Available from
211 Plant Operations Grounds and Waste. 2002. Sustainable Winter Maintenance Practices University of Michigan. [Internet]. Available from
Plant Operations Utilities and Maintenance Services. 1996. Energy Star Green Lights Program Overview. University of Michigan. [Internet]. Available from
Plant Operations Utilities and Maintenance Services. 1996b. U-M Wins DOE "Best in Category" Energy Award University of Michigan. [Internet]. Available from
Plant Operations Utilities and Maintenance Services. 1997. U-M Project Listed in Environmental Success Index. University of Michigan. [Internet]. Available from
Plant Operations Utilities and Maintenance Services. 2000. UM Recognized by the EPA in the 1999 Honors Society at the Magna Cum Laude Level. University of Michigan [Internet] Available from
Redefining Progress. 2002a. Distribution of Footprints and Income Worldwide. [Internet]. Available from
Redefining Progress. 2002b. Genuine Progress Indicator [Internet] Available from
Reppe, Peter and Seth Bernard. 2001. The Presence of Environmental Education within the University of Michigan Curriculum: An Assessment Framework. Data unpublished.
Risser, J. 1981. A Renewed Threat of Soil Erosion: Its Worse than the Dust Bowl. Smithsonian 11: 120-122, 124, 126-130. Quoted in David Pimentel. 1996.
Rogner, H-H. 1997. An assessment of world hydrocarbon resources. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. Vol. 22: 217-262.
212 School of Natural Resources and Environment (SNRE). 2002. Joint Degrees. University of Michigan. [Internet]. Available from
Schumacher, L G. , Borgelt, S. & Russell, M. A. 1995. Fueling 5.9L and 7.3L Navistar Engines with Biodiesel-20. Proceedings of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers Summer Meeting. Chicago, IL. ASAE Paper No. 956739.
Sen, Amartya and Sudhir Anand. 1994. Sustainable Human Development: Concepts and Priorities. Background Paper for the 2001 Human Development Report. Human Development Report Office. [Internet]. Available from
Sen, Amartya. 1999. Economics and the value of freedom. Civilization: The Magazine of the Library of Congess. Quoted in Christopher Avery. 1999. Business and Human Rights in a Time of Change. London, UK: Amnesty International UK. [Internet] Available from
Sexual Harassment Policy Office (SHPO). 2002. Education and Training. University of Michigan. [Internet]. Available from
Sharp, Christopher. 1998. Exhaust emissions and performance of diesel engines with biodiesel fuels. National Biodiesel Board. [Internet]. Available from
Solar Car Team, School of Engineering. 2001. University of Michigan. [Internet] Available from
Sustainability. 2002. The Triple Bottom Line. [Internet] Available from
Sustainable Measures. 1998. Definitions of Sustainability. [Internet] Available from
Sustainable University of Michigan. 2000. The “Sustainable University of Michigan”, a student led initiative. [Internet]. University of Michigan. Available from
213 Taberski, J. S. and C. L. Peterson. 1998. Dynamometer Emissions Test Comparisons on a 5.9L Direct Injected Diesel Powered Pickup. Proceedings of Bioenergy ‘98, Expanding Bioenergy Partnerships. Madison, WI .
Taberski, Jeffrey S., Charles L. Peterson, Joseph Thompson, and Howard Haines. 1999. Using Biodiesel in Yellowstone National Park - Final Report of the Truck in the Park Project. SAE Technical Paper No. 1999-01-2798. SAE, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001.
Ulaby, Fawwaz. 2002. Annual Report on Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity at the University of Michigan FY2001. [Internet] University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research. Available from
United Nations. 1948. U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [Internet] Available from
United Nations. 1998. Report of the conference of the parties on its third session, held at Kyoto from 1 to 11 December. FCCC/CP/1997/7/Add.1 Framework Convention on Climate Change. Kyoto, Japan.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2002a. Human Development Report 2001. [Internet] Available from
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2002b. World Income Inequality Database. [Internet]. Available from
United Nations Environment Programme. 1997. Global Environment Outlook. United Nations Population Division. [Internet]. Available from
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2000. Global Environmental Outlook 2000. [Internet]. Available from
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2001. World Population Prospects: The 2000 Revision Highlights. United Nations Population Division. [Internet]. Available from
United States Asia Environmental Partnership. Clean Technologies in U.S. Industries: Focus on Pulp and Paper. [Internet]. Available from
214
U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Census 2000 Supplementary Survey. Available from:
United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service. 2002. National Organic Program. [Internet]. Available from
United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. 2001. Organic Marketing Features Fresh Foods and Direct Exchange. [Internet] Available from
U.S. Department of Energy and West Virginia University. 2001. WVU Transportable Heavy Duty Vehicle Emissions Testing Laboratory [Internet] 13th May, 1997 Available from
U.S. Department of Labor. 2002.Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers. Bureau of Labor Statistics Data-Midwest Data. [Internet]. Available from
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-1994. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (2122), Washington, D.C. EPA-230-R-96-006, p. 1.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000a. National Air Pollution Emission Trends, 1900-1998. [Internet] 22nd November 2000. Available from
US EPA. 2000b. Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2000 Status and Trends. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Internet] 12th February 2002. Available from
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ). 2001a. Certified vehicle test result report. Annual Certification and Test Results Data. [Internet]. Available from
US EPA. 2001b. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Office of Air Quality Planning &
215 Standards. [Internet] 5th March 2002. Available from
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001c. Control Small Entity Compliance Guide, June 2001. EPA 821-B-01-003. [Internet]. Available from
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001d. Global Warming Site: Presentations. Environmental Protection Agency Website [Internet] 6th April 2001. Available from
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001e. Summary of the Dioxin Reassessment Science. [Internet]. Available from < http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf>. [Accessed April 22, 2002].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002a. Great Lakes Indicators: Fish Contaminants. [Internet]. Available from
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002b. Water Pollution Controls, Effluent Guidelines. [Internet]. Available from
U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticide Programs. 1999. Assessing Health Risks from Pesticides. [Internet] Available from
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste. 1999. Estimating Risk from Contaminants Contained in Agricultural Fertilizers, Draft Report. [Internet] Available from
U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste. 1997. Measuring Recycling: A Guide for State and Local Governments. EPA530-R-97-011. [Internet]. Available from
U.S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 2000. AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. [Internet] Volume II, 5th Edition. Washington, D.C. Available from
U.S Geological Survey. 2000. World Petroleum Assessment 2000- Description and Results. Washington, D.C.: USGS World Energy Assessment Team.
216 United States National Park Service. 1994. Hazardous Waste Management Handbook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
U.S. News and World Report. 2000a. America’s Best Colleges. 1 September 2000.
U.S. News and World Report. 2000b. America’s Best Graduate Schools. 10 April 2000.
U.S. News and World Report. 2001. America’s Best Graduate Schools. 9 April 2001.
University Leaders for a Sustainable Future. 2002. Programs – Talloires Declaration [Internet] Available from
University of Michigan. 2000a. Facts about Michigan. [Internet]. [Accessed 24 November 2000]. U-M News and Information Services. Available from
University of Michigan. 2000b. Report and Recommendations of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Tobacco Investments. [Internet]. Available from:
University of Michigan. 2000c. University Past and Present-The nineteen sixties. [Internet]. Available from
University of Michigan. 2001. University of Michigan: Mission Statement [Internet] Ann Arbor, MI. Available from
University of Michigan. 2002b. Institutional Reporting. [Internet]. Available from
University of Michigan. 2002c. Life Sciences Initiative Current Research. [Internet] Available from
University of Michigan. 2002d. LS&A Women’s Studies. [Internet] Available from
University of Michigan. 2002e. Mission Statement. [Internet]. Available from:
217 University of Michigan Academic Units. 2001. [Internet]. Available from
University of Michigan Health System (UMHS). 2000. Department of Family Medicine Multicultural Awareness: Culturally Sensitive and Competent Healthcare. [Internet]. Available from
University of Michigan Health System (UMHS). 2002. U-M HS System at-a-glance. [Internet]. Available from
University of Michigan Multiethnic Student Affairs (MESA). 2002. [Internet]. Available from
University of Michigan News and Information Services (NIS) News Release. 2000. Peace Corps events at Michigan Union, Michigan Stadium October 6 (13). [Internet]. Available from < http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2000/Oct00/r100600.html>. [Accessed 17 January 2002].
University of Michigan News and Information Services (NIS) News Release. 2001. Code of conduct proposed by labor standards committee accepted. [Internet] Available from
University of Michigan News and Information Services. 2000. Strong Investment Return, 43.6% Total Return on Portfolio. News Release. [Internet]. Available from
University of Michigan News and Information Services. 2001. U-M Endowment. Quoting from Chronicle of Higher Education. Oct. 13, 2000. News Release. [Internet]. Available from
University of Michigan. Office of Development. 2000. University Endowment Fund Profile: June 30, 2000. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
University of Michigan. Office of Development. 2001. University Endowment Fund Profile: $3.6 Billion Total Value, June 30, 2001. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
University of Michigan Regent’s Communication. 1999. Anti-Sweatshop/Human Rights Policy. [Internet]. Available from
218
University of Michigan Task Force on Violence Against Women. Homepage. [Internet]. Available from
University of Michigan U-M Research. 2001. Annual Report 2000. [Internet]. Available from
University of Michigan U-M Research. 2002. Training Opportunities. [Internet]. Available from
University of Michigan (U-M) Utilities Department Annual Report 1989-90, 1994-5, 1995-6, 1996-7, 1997-8, 1998-9, 1999-2000, 2000-1. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Utilities Department.
Vogel, Chuck. Ann Arbor Waste Water Treatment Plant. 2001. Personal communication [29 July 2001].
Wackernagel, Mathis. Redefining Progress. 2002. Personal communication.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
World Energy. 2001. Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petrolium Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus. NREL/SR-580-24089. [Internet]. Available from
World Health Organization. 1999. Health Promotion’s Healthy Cities. [Internet] Available from < http://www.who.int/hpr/archive/cities/evaluation.html>. [Accessed 16 September 2001]
Yahoo Real Estate. 2002. Neighborhood Information, Ann Arbor, MI. [Internet]. Available from
Ybarra, Maureen, Risk Management. 2002. Personal Communication. University of Michigan. [E-mail] [8 February 02].
219 9 APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - U-M AA Building List (FY 2000)
Building Area (sq. BldRecNbr BldName BldAddressStreet City ft.) Ownership 1008003 115 ZINA PITCHER BUILDING 115 ZINA PITCHER PL ANN ARBOR 8,070 Owned 1000176 HEALTH SERVICE 207 FLETCHER ANN ARBOR 78,754 Owned 1000229 MEDICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH BLD III 1150 W MEDICAL CENTER DR ANN ARBOR 217,911 Owned 1000167 WEST HALL 550 E UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR 161,268 Owned 1000309 WOMENS HOSPITALS 1521 SIMPSON RD EAST ANN ARBOR 66,822 Owned 1000184 COOK WM W LEGAL RESEARCH LIBRARY 801 MONROE ANN ARBOR 211,048 Owned 1000332 North INGALLS BUILDING 300 N INGALLS ANN ARBOR 301,152 Title Amrt 1000259 THAYER ST PARKING STRUCTURE 216 S THAYER ST ANN ARBOR 165,185 Owned 1000874 Asian Studies MP SPH HOSP AD PRESS 1021 E HUR 1021 E HURON ANN ARBOR 4,533 Owned 1005045 LAW SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 726 OAKLAND AVE Ann Arbor 0 1000728 ELBEL FIELD LOCKER BUILDING 336 HILL ANN ARBOR 5,638 Owned 1000186 POUND MADELON HOUSE 1024 HILL ANN ARBOR 7,571 Owned 1000005 NICHOLS ARBORETUM RESIDENCE 1827 GEDDES RD ANN ARBOR 3,384 Owned 1000816 MAIL SERVICE BUILDING 1032 GREENE ST ANN ARBOR 5,898 Owned 1000834 CORNER HOUSE 202-206 S THAYER ST ANN ARBOR 12,402 Owned 1008023 TOWSLEY CENTER FOR CHILDREN 710-716 S FOREST ANN ARBOR 14,146 Owned 1000257 CHURCH ST PARKING STRUCTURE 525 CHURCH ST ANN ARBOR 228,001 Owned 1000201 HARTWIG M D WOMENS ATHL OFFICES 1100 S STATE ANN ARBOR 14,149 Owned 1000861 INGLIS HOUSE 2301 HIGHLAND ANN ARBOR 10,647 Owned 1000445 STEARNS FREDERICK BUILDING 2005 BAITS ANN ARBOR 19,398 Owned 1000409 FIRE SERV INSTR&RES CENTER 1946 BEAL ANN ARBOR 21,577 Owned 1000449 NORTH CAMPUS HOUSING SERVICE BLD 3261 BAXTER ANN ARBOR 28,144 Owned 1002501 AUXILIARY SERVICES BUILDING 1 1919 GREEN RD ANN ARBOR 81,105 Owned 1000183 LANE HALL 204 S STATE ANN ARBOR 25,624 Owned 1000858 MADISON BUILDING 109 E MADISON ANN ARBOR 21,806 Owned 1000886 TROTTER WM MONROE HOUSE 1443 WASHTENAW AVE ANN ARBOR 13,789 Owned 1000733 FISHER RAY BASEBALL STADIUM 1114 S STATE ANN ARBOR 11,556 Owned 1000443 CHRYSLER CNTR CONT ENGINEER ED 2121 BONISTEEL BLVD ANN ARBOR 45,207 Owned 1000406 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY LABORATORIES 1101 BEAL ANN ARBOR 29,329 Owned 1000439 BENTLEY HISTORICAL LIBRARY 1150 BEAL ANN ARBOR 32,663 Owned 1000710 COLISEUM 721 S FIFTH AVE ANN ARBOR 38,274 Owned 1000711 FOOTBALL STADIUM 1201 S MAIN ANN ARBOR 138,889 Owned 1000414 ENVIRONMENTAL & WATER RES ENG BL 1351 BEAL ANN ARBOR 37,665 Owned 1000704 OOSTERBAAN BENNIE FIELD HOUSE 1202 S STATE ANN ARBOR 79,363 Owned 1000890 PERRY BUILDING 330 PACKARD ANN ARBOR 58,345 Owned 1000317 TAUBMAN A ALFRED HEALTH CARE CTR 1620 E MEDICAL CENTER DR ANN ARBOR 489,498 Owned 1000831 ARGUS II 400 S FOURTH ST ANN ARBOR 69,214 Owned 1000399 INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE 2901 HUBBARD ANN ARBOR 108,853 Owned 1000742 CAMPUS SAFETY SERVICES BUILDING 1239 KIPKE DR ANN ARBOR 108,277 Owned 1000444 U-M TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INST 2901 BAXTER ANN ARBOR 77,882 Owned 1000400 LAY WALTER E AUTOMOTIVE LAB 1231 BEAL ANN ARBOR 63,208 Owned 1000415 NAVAL ARCH & MARINE ENGINEERING 2600 DRAPER ANN ARBOR 47,268 Owned 1000403 COOLEY MORTIMER E MEMORIAL 2355 BONISTEEL BLVD ANN ARBOR 43,380 Owned 1000812 FOOD STORES 3600 VARSITY DR ANN ARBOR 158,461 Owned 1000404 MICH MEMORIAL PHOENIX LABORATORY 2301 BONISTEEL BLVD ANN ARBOR 34,395 Owned 1000324 KELLOGG EYE CENTER 990 WALL ANN ARBOR 78,248 Owned 1000427 NORTH CAMPUS RECREATION BUILDING 2375 HUBBARD ANN ARBOR 66,846 Title Amrt 1000799 BUHR BUILDING 200 HILL ANN ARBOR 186,308 Owned 1000441 SPACE RESEARCH LABORATORY 2455 HAYWARD ANN ARBOR 103,564 Owned 1000709 YOST ICE ARENA 1116 S STATE ANN ARBOR 110,373 Owned 1000424 ENGINEERING PROGRAMS BUILDING 2609 DRAPER ANN ARBOR 61,814 Owned 1000440 MOORE EARL V BLDG 1100 BAITS ANN ARBOR 140,539 Owned 1000420 Computing Center North Campus 30,958 1000435 IST CENTRAL OFFICE 2200 BONISTEEL BLVD ANN ARBOR 88,269 Owned 1000442 PIERPONT COMMONS 2101 BONISTEEL BLVD ANN ARBOR 89,033 Owned 1000982 MATTHAEI BOT GDNS RESEARCH-ADMIN 1800 DIXBORO ANN ARBOR TWP 94,836 Owned 1008090 WOLVERINE TOWER 3003 S STATE ANN ARBOR 224,949 Owned 1000407 BROWN G G LABORATORY 2350 HAYWARD ANN ARBOR 219,709 Owned 1000396 Media Union INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY INSTR CTR 2281 BONISTEEL BLVD ANN ARBOR 239,621 Owned
220 1000800 HOOVER AVE BUILDING A 326 E HOOVER ANN ARBOR 173,190 Owned 1008102 3815 PLAZA DR 3815 PLAZA DR ANN ARBOR 4,800 Leased 1000202 NORTH UNIVERSITY BUILDING 1205 N UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR 76,484 Owned 1000062 NEWBERRY RESIDENCE 432 S STATE ANN ARBOR 31,304 Owned 1000158 CHEMISTRY 930 N UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR 534,831 Owned 1008110 WEST ANN ARBOR HEALTH CENTER 4810 JACKSON ANN ARBOR 5,326 Leased 1005055 126 E. HOOVER 126 E HOOVER Ann Arbor 0 1008151 COMMUNITY FAMILY HEALTH CENTER 1230 N MAPLE ANN ARBOR 960 Leased 1008035 ARB ATRIUM 315-317 W HURON ANN ARBOR 5,375 Leased 1008054 HAMILTON SQUARE 715 N UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR 5,364 Leased 1009630 1303 Linden #3 0 1009607 Glencoe Hills 0 1008065 AMBULATORY 375 BRIARWOOD CIRC 375 BRIARWOOD CIR ANN ARBOR 10,452 Owned 1000684 NORTHWOOD IV APTS 684 (BARRIER FREE APMT) 1529 MCINTYRE ANN ARBOR 0 Owned 1000109 COOK JOHN P LAW QUAD 551 S STATE ANN ARBOR 47,528 Owned 1000723 GOLF COURSE CARETAKER HOUSE 1753 S MAIN ANN ARBOR 2,355 Owned 1008038 RP HOUSING 511 GLEN AVE 511 GLEN AVE ANN ARBOR 1,619 Owned 1000100 MENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH 205 ZINA PITCHER PL ANN ARBOR 49,935 Owned 1000895 RP HOUSING 501 GLEN AVE 501 GLEN AVE ANN ARBOR 1,470 Owned 1000433 Institute for Science and Technology SOUTH 2200 BONISTEEL BLVD ANN ARBOR 7,156 Owned 1000853 RP HOUSING 1019 FERDON RD 1019 FERDON RD ANN ARBOR 3,634 Owned 1000010 BURNHAM HOUSE 1610 WASHINGTON HTS ANN ARBOR 3,447 Owned 1008055 715 E HURON 715 E HURON ANN ARBOR 3,176 Leased 1000888 RP HOUSING 1304 GARDNER 1304 GARDNER ANN ARBOR 1,920 Owned 1000829 RP HOUSING 1322 WILMOTT 1322 WILMOTT ANN ARBOR 1,819 Owned 1008029 BRAYTON BUILDING 250 W EISENHOWER ANN ARBOR 2,298 Leased 1000269 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SHOP 1014 FULLER ST ANN ARBOR 2,151 Owned 1008162 TRAVERWOOD 2401 PLYMOUTH ANN ARBOR 10,083 Leased 1000841 COMMUNITY DENTISTRY 406 N ASHLEY ANN ARBOR 1,880 Leased 1000135 WYLY SAM HALL 724 E UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR 82,516 Owned 1000053 COUZENS HALL 181,902 1000327 UNIV HOSPITALS EDUCATION CENTER 1018 FULLER ST ANN ARBOR 9,204 Owned 1000051 BARBOUR BETSY HOUSE 420 S STATE ANN ARBOR 33,884 Owned 1000063 SOUTH QUAD 600 E MADISON ANN ARBOR 348,557 Owned 1000976 RP HOUSING MATT BOT GNDS HOUSE 2224 DIXBORO ANN ARBOR TWP 3,650 Owned 1000255 THOMPSON ST PARKING STRUCTURE 508 THOMPSON ST ANN ARBOR 233,331 Owned 1000212 SIMPSON THOMAS H MEMORIAL INST 102 N OBSERVATORY ANN ARBOR 18,666 Owned 1008062 NORTHERN BREWERY 1327 JONES AVE ANN ARBOR 8,289 Leased 1000054 EAST QUADRANGLE 701 E UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR 297,016 Title Amrt 1000061 MOSHER-JORDAN 200 S OBSERVATORY ANN ARBOR 145,519 Owned 1000857 RP HOUSING 631 OXFORD 631 OXFORD ANN ARBOR 5,407 Owned 1008158 814 PHOENIX DR 814 PHOENIX DRIVE ANN ARBOR 4,240 Leased 1000060 MARKLEY MARY B HALL 1503 WASHINGTON HTS ANN ARBOR 302,826 Title Amrt 1000880 INFORMATION CENTER BLD (BOYER) 201-203 E HOOVER ANN ARBOR 15,619 Owned 1000059 LLOYD ALICE C HALL 100 S OBSERVATORY ANN ARBOR 176,318 Title Amrt 1000881 RP HOUSING 431 GLEN AVE 431 GLEN AVE ANN ARBOR 4,953 Owned 1008157 320 W ANN 320 W ANN ANN ARBOR 3,810 Leased 1008039 RP HOUSING 1011 CORNWELL PL 1011 CORNWELL PL ANN ARBOR 2,879 Owned 1000052 COOK MARTHA RESIDENCE 906 S UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR 63,234 Owned 1008040 RP HOUSING 1014 CORNWELL PL 1014 CORNWELL PL ANN ARBOR 3,283 Owned 1000836 LAW SCHOOL HOUSE 721 S STATE 721 S STATE ANN ARBOR 7,864 Owned 1008069 738 AIRPORT 738 AIRPORT ANN ARBOR 7,200 Leased 1000064 STOCKWELL HALL 324 S OBSERVATORY ANN ARBOR 141,769 Owned 1000887 LIBERTY CENTRE 520 - 540E LIBERTY ANN ARBOR 12,881 Leased 1008030 WILLIAMSBURG 2 400 E EISENHOWER ANN ARBOR 10,063 Owned 1008076 PSYCHIATRY 475 MARKET PL 475 MARKET PL ANN ARBOR 8,749 Owned 1008116 ANN ARBOR ICE CUBE 2121 OAK VALLEY ANN ARBOR 5,600 Leased 1008109 Homecare Plaza 3728 PLAZA DR 3728 PLAZA DR ANN ARBOR 12,000 Leased 1008067 WALLACE MIKE AND MARY HOUSE 620 OXFORD ANN ARBOR 3,962 Owned 1000326 RIVERVIEW PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES 1000 BROADWAY ANN ARBOR 20,200 Owned 1008063 RP HOUSING 1035 WALL 1035 WALL ANN ARBOR 10,400 Owned 1000819 MICHIGAN SQUARE 330 E LIBERTY ANN ARBOR 7,800 Leased 1008036 SURVIVAL FLIGHT ANN ARBOR AIRPORT 747 AIRPORT ANN ARBOR 10,000 Leased
221 1000418 NORTH CAMPUS SERVICE BLDG #1 1655 DEAN ANN ARBOR 22,010 Owned 1000851 RP OBSERVATORY LODGE 1402-140 WASHINGTON HTS ANN ARBOR 30,585 Owned 1000430 NORTH CAMPUS STORAGE BUILDING 3241 BAXTER ANN ARBOR 45,739 Owned 1000705 SCHEMBECHLER GLENN E HALL 1200 S STATE ANN ARBOR 67,015 Owned 1002506 PARKING SERVICES BUILDING 3231 BAXTER ANN ARBOR 29,272 Owned 1000808 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES BUILDING 1213 KIPKE DR ANN ARBOR 40,151 Owned 1000325 PARKVIEW MEDICAL CENTER 1000 WALL ANN ARBOR 44,499 Owned 1000429 INDUSTRIAL&OPERATIONS ENGIN BLDG 1205 BEAL ANN ARBOR 50,407 Owned 1000397 LURIE ROBERT H ENGINEERING CTR 1221 BEAL ANN ARBOR 53,043 Owned 1000040 OH GODDARD HALL 619 OXFORD ANN ARBOR 120,008 Title Amrt 1000350 PRIMARY CARE FACILITY E CAMPUS 4260 PLYMOUTH RD ANN ARBOR 79,822 Owned 1000450 NORTHWOOD I SVC BUILDING 450 1588 CRAM CIR ANN ARBOR 66,104 Owned 1000395 BAGNOUD FRANCOIS-XAVIER BUILDING 1320 BEAL ANN ARBOR 105,011 Owned 1008079 ARBOR LAKES 1 4251 PLYMOUTH RD ANN ARBOR 78,260 Owned 1000515 VERA BAITS II COMAN HOUSE 1440 HUBBARD ANN ARBOR 174,556 Title Amrt 1000510 VERA BAITS I EATON HOUSE 1320 HUBBARD ANN ARBOR 165,443 Title Amrt 1000447 DOW HERBERT H BUILDING 2300 HAYWARD ANN ARBOR 154,089 Owned 1000498 NORTHWOOD III SVC BUILDING 498 2150 CRAM PL ANN ARBOR 169,900 Title Amrt 1000457 NORTHWOOD II SVC BUILDING 457 2356 BISHOP ANN ARBOR 184,640 Owned 1000419 LAUNDRY 1665 DEAN ANN ARBOR 47,580 Owned 1002701 NORTHWOOD V APTS 2701 2101-210 STONE RD ANN ARBOR 559,838 Title Amrt 1000316 UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS 1500 E MEDICAL CENTER DR ANN ARBOR 1,681,237 Title Hold 1000601 NORTHWOOD IV APTS 601 1100-111 MCINTYRE DR ANN ARBOR 529,589 Title Amrt 1000555 BURSLEY HALL 1931 DUFFIELD ANN ARBOR 339,608 Title Amrt 1009603 1055 Wall Street 0 1008106 717 E HURON 717 E HURON ANN ARBOR 1,100 Leased 1000168 ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITY 1235 CATHERINE RD ANN ARBOR 15,802 Owned 1000226 CENTRAL CAMPUS REC BLD&BELL POOL 401 WASHTENAW AVE ANN ARBOR 206,033 Title Amrt 1000189 DANA SAMUEL TRASK BUILDING 430 E UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR 84,327 Owned 1000706 FERRY FIELD PUMP HOUSE FERRY FIELD ANN ARBOR 216 Owned 1000190 MEDICAL SCIENCE UNIT I 1301 CATHERINE RD ANN ARBOR 288,351 Owned 1008137 MICHIGAN HOUSE 2301 COMMONWEALTH ANN ARBOR 30,382 Leased 1000196 NORTH HALL 1105 N UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR 48,907 Owned 1000308 Outpatient clinic 1501 CATHERINE PL ANN ARBOR 125,981 Owned 1000268 SALT STORAGE BUILDING 950 FULLER ST ANN ARBOR 2,385 Owned 1000192 ALUMNI CENTER 200 FLETCHER ANN ARBOR 34,111 Owned 1000725 GOLF CLUBHOUSE 500 E STADIUM ANN ARBOR 22,737 Owned 1000313 TOWSLEY CENTER FOR CONT MED ED 1515 E HOSPITAL DR ANN ARBOR 52,817 Owned 1009613 1122 East Ann 0 1009637 1133 E Huron 1133 E Huron Ann Arbor 0 1009632 1137 E. Huron 1137 E Huron Ann Arbor 0 1009604 1501 Woodridge Drive 0 1009627 400 Maynard 400 Maynard ANN ARBOR 0 1000275 733 South State St 0 1009641 919 Wall Street 0 1009602 Acreage 0 1009642 Air Monitoring Site 0 1000151 ALUMNI MEMORIAL 525 S STATE ANN ARBOR 42,978 Owned 1000152 ANGELL JAMES B HALL 435 S STATE ANN ARBOR 229,548 Owned 1000871 BRADFORD BUILDING 1006-101 CATHERINE ST ANN ARBOR 2,121 Leased 1000210 BUHL RES CEN FOR HUMAN GENETICS 1241 CATHERINE ST ANN ARBOR 16,228 Owned 1000155 BURTON MEMORIAL TOWER 881 N UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR 20,114 Owned 1000146 BUS ADMIN ASSEMBLY HALL 901 HILL ANN ARBOR 25,856 Owned 1000139 BUSINESS ADMIN EXECUTIVE DORM 710 E UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR 50,914 Owned 1000301 CANCER AND GERIATRICS CENTER 1400 E MEDICAL CENTER DR ANN ARBOR 277,795 Owned 1000718 CANHAM DONALD B NATATORIUM 500 E HOOVER ANN ARBOR 77,063 Owned 1000159 CLEMENTS WILLIAM L LIBRARY 909 S UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR 17,248 Owned 1000304 CLINICAL FACULTY OFFICE BLDG 1414 CATHERINE PL ANN ARBOR 23,432 Owned 1009635 Construction Projects 0 1000160 Cooley, Thosas S. Memorial Fountain 0 1000700 CRISLER ARENA 333 E STADIUM ANN ARBOR 386,423 Title Amrt 1005039 Dana Construction Trailer 0 1000156 DAVIDSON HALL 701 TAPPAN ANN ARBOR 144,221 Owned
222 1009624 Liberty, Street Parking Lot 0 1009616 Lights , North Campus 0 1009615 Lights, Central Campus 0 1000150 LITERATURE SCIENCE AND THE ARTS 500 S STATE ANN ARBOR 126,897 Owned 1000305 LLOYD A C MEMORIAL LABORATORY 1331 E ANN ANN ARBOR 24,705 Owned 1000154 LORCH HALL 611 TAPPAN ANN ARBOR 90,755 Owned 1009606 LP 509 S. Division 0 1000214 LSA ADMINISTRATION ANNEX 1007 E HURON ANN ARBOR 10,693 Owned 1000394 LURIE ANN AND ROBERT H TOWER 1230 MURFIN ANN ARBOR 11,453 Owned 1000197 MASON HALL 419 S STATE ANN ARBOR 137,032 Owned 1000318 MATERNAL & CHILD HEALTH CARE CTR 200 E HOSPITAL DR ANN ARBOR 157,697 Owned 1000315 MEDICAL CENTER DR PARKING STRUCT 1600 E MEDICAL CENTER DR ANN ARBOR 683,313 Owned 1000223 MEDICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH BLDG I 1150 W MEDICAL CENTER DR ANN ARBOR 145,017 Owned 1000213 MEDICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH BLDG II 1150 W MEDICAL CENTER DR ANN ARBOR 163,871 Owned 1008042 MEDREHAB 355 BRIARWOOD CIRCLE 355 BRIARWOOD CIR ANN ARBOR 13,700 Owned 1000256 Memorial Fountain Class of 1956 0 1009629 mendelssohn theatre 27,476 1002500 MITCHELL FIELD BUILDING 1900 FULLER RD ANN ARBOR 1,449 Owned 1000207 MODERN LANGUAGES BUILDING 812 E WASHINGTON ANN ARBOR 130,484 Owned 1008061 MP Ambulatory Care 107 SIMPSON RD 107 SIMPSON RD ANN ARBOR 4,477 Owned 1008060 MP Cancer Cneter 101 SIMPSON RD 101 SIMPSON RD ANN ARBOR 2,752 Owned 1000194 MUSEUMS ANNEX 1109 N UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR 14,564 Owned 1000178 NEWBERRY HALL 434 S STATE ANN ARBOR 21,399 Owned 1000222 NEWS & INFORMATION SERVICE BLDG 412 MAYNARD ANN ARBOR 7,806 Owned 1009622 Parking Lighting 0 1009617 Parking Lighting - University Hospital 0 1009623 Parking Lot - Green Street 0 1000136 PATON CENTER ACCOUNTING ED & RES 951 HILL ANN ARBOR 14,310 Owned 1000807 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES BUILDING 326 E HOOVER ANN ARBOR 7,183 Owned 1000261 PLANT SERVICE BUILDING 1111 PALMER DR ANN ARBOR 15,817 Owned 1000180 POWER CENTER FOR PERFORMING ARTS 121 FLETCHER ANN ARBOR 71,958 Title Amrt 1000203 PRESIDENTS RESIDENCE 815 S UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR 14,227 Owned 1000172 RACKHAM HORACE H GRAD STUDIES 915 E WASHINGTON ANN ARBOR 173,161 Owned 1000963 RADRICK FARMS GOLF CLUBHOUSE 4895 GEDDES RD ANN ARBOR TWP 9,593 Owned 1000948 RADRICK FARMS GROUNDS STORAGE 4833 GEDDES RD ANN ARBOR TWP 225 Owned 1000964 RADRICK FARMS HOUSE #3 1010 DIXBORO ANN ARBOR TWP 3,460 Owned 1000953 RADRICK FARMS RECREATION FACILTY 1120 DIXBORO ANN ARBOR 2,459 Owned 1000813 REVELLI WM D BAND REHEARSAL HALL 350 E HOOVER ANN ARBOR 15,503 Owned 1008128 RP HOUSING 939 WALL 939 WALL ANN ARBOR 0 Owned 1000333 SCHOOL OF NURSING BUILDING 400 N INGALLS ANN ARBOR 150,928 Title Amrt 1000227 SHAPIRO HAROLD & VIVIAN LIBRARY 919 S UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR 175,068 Owned 1009609 SHORT TERM LEASES 0 1000320 SIMPSON CIRCLE PARKING STRUCTURE 1535 E HOSPITAL DR ANN ARBOR 464,866 Title Amrt 1009620 Sprinkler meters 0 1009621 Storm Water 0 1009619 Street lighting 0 1000215 STUDENT ACTIVITIES 515 E JEFFERSON ANN ARBOR 126,335 Owned 1000105 STUDENT PUBLICATIONS 420 MAYNARD ANN ARBOR 14,827 Owned 1000216 TAPPAN HALL 519 S STATE ANN ARBOR 36,945 Owned 1000209 TAUBMAN A ALFRED MEDICAL LIBRARY 1135 CATHERINE ST ANN ARBOR 137,410 Title Hold 1000703 TRACK & TENNIS BUILDING 1150 S STATE ANN ARBOR 67,869 Title Amrt 1000319 U-M MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL BLDG 1522 SIMPSON RD EAST ANN ARBOR 37,615 Owned 1009598 UMH Sign 1050 Maiden Lane ANN ARBOR 0 1009599 UMH Sin 1525 Fuller Ann Arbor 0 1000235 UNIVERSITY TOWERS 1225 S UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR 18,500 Leased 1009640 UTL 915 Maiden Lane 916 Maiden Ann Arbor 0 1009605 Vacant Preoperty 0 1000731 WEIDENBACH JOHN P HALL 1000 S STATE ANN ARBOR 23,223 Owned
Total Square Foo 26,298,312
223
APPENDIX B - Historical Energy Data 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 University Summary Electricity KWH 87973793 112922320 122290386 116478362 154422953 154943477 156503211 159213755 Total for Project scope 85,284,720 110,651,889 119,727,193 113,068,503 151,234,195 150,816,021 152,263,980 155,547,816 Electricity - CPP (purchased + generated) KWH 173,767,151 194,660,902 214,030,373 211,272,936 222,984,189 215,796,201 222,546,102 222,530,576 Electricity - CPP (purchased) 101,580,000 66,524,400 61,078,000 53,428,000 78,344,000 79,660,000 77,896,000 80,948,000 Electricity - NC KWH 68,115,240 73,623,279 81,478,695 82,097,568 83,312,814 81,727,713 82,377,753 81,324,147 Total Purchased Elec. 254,979,960 250,799,568 262,283,888 248,594,071 312,891,009 312,203,734 312,537,733 317,819,963 Fuel Oil Gal 35598 20471 974 5922 3283 1994 944 1201 Total for Project scope 6873 5207 974 5922 3283 1994 944 1201.00 Liquid Gas Gal 23343 23900 50532 43499 38817 39125 37694 43990 Total for Project scope 0 0 0 Natural Gas CCU 7473679 8461330 9307849 8792057 8349724 8113673 8248283 8447673 Miscellaneous 3582434 3655416 4194010 3895101 3815397 3735056 3858562 3834992 Outlying Boilers 3737684 4663712 4899885 4668478 4315373 4161688 4172144 4335163 Total for Project scope 7320118 8319128 9093895 8563579 8130770 7896744 8030706 8170155 Water & Sewer CCU 1545425 1686721 1639563 1594988 1459484 1541573 1975766 1538015 Total for Project scope CCU 1388885 1653818 1572821 1385925 1350007 1412214 1591818 1418206 Total Square Feet 22306275 25209684 25668279 26350901 26623564 26791733 26912087 27700802 Total for Project scope 21885961 24784127 25268193 25900680 26134059 26274115 26298312 27236063 Purchased Utilities CPP Water & Sewer CCU 252795 178,185 179,542 165,817 166,123 202,368 198,988 282,734 Total gas MCF 2808827 3215713 3418582 3378725 3307887 3054318 3163331 3333454 Total oil gal 81141 117527 478539 5073838 453124 29242 84280 1257042 Hoover Natural Gas CCU 1179790 949246 920333 1160927 994103 1006075 985135 941093 Water & Sewer CCU 5780 4150 3500 3670 3930 2640 2200 2470 Hospital waste incinerator *Used 2001 Incinerator data for 1990 data Medical Waste Tons 361.2 361.2 Solid Waste Tons 1209.2 2648.1 1209.2 Natural Gas MMCF 14.1 21.1 14.1 Crematorium Incinerator Human Remains Tons 24 19.5 24 Natural Gas MMCF 4.29 3.4 4.29 Animal Incinerator MS I Animal Remains Tons 0.1 0.1 Natural Gas MMCF 0 0 Total Generated Electricity 173,767,151 194,660,902 214,030,373 211,272,936 222,984,189 215,796,201 222,546,102 222,530,576
225 APPENDIX C - Fleet Fuel Economy and Emission Factors EMISSION FACTORS (g/mile) Engine HC- Evap Size Fuel Avg TOTAL VOC CO NOX PM Btw PM10 CH4 N20 Ethanol Cars 1996 Ford Taurus LX 2.4 E 23.2 0.17 0.127 0.5 0.2 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1997 Ford Taurus Ethanol 3 E 16.2 0.032 0.127 0.32 0.02 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1998 Ford Taurus Ethanol 3 E 16.2 0.032 0.127 0.32 0.02 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2000 Dodge Caravan 3.3 E 14.9 0.106857 0.127 0.826211 0.176252 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2000 Dodge Caravan Ethanol 3.3 E 14.9 0.106857 0.127 0.826211 0.176252 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2000 Ford Taurus Ethanol 3 E 16.5 0.133571 0.127 1.206078 0.194805 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2000 Ford Taurus GL 3 E 16.5 0.133571 0.127 1.206078 0.194805 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2000 Ford Taurus SE 3 E 16.5 0.133571 0.127 1.206078 0.194805 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2000 GMC Sonoma 2.2 E 15.9 0.038 0.107 0.74 0.03 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 2001 Dodge Caravan 3.3 E 14.5 0.15 0.127 1.27 0.21 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2001 Ford Taurus Ethanol 3 E 16.2 0.032 0.127 0.32 0.02 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2001 Ford Taurus LX 3 E 16.2 0.032 0.127 0.32 0.02 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2001 Ford Taurus LX 3.1 E 22.5 0.112 0.127 1.26 0.09 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2001 Ford Taurus LX 2.4 E 23.2 0.17 0.127 0.653 0.276 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2001 Ford Taurus SE 3 E 16.2 0.032 0.127 0.32 0.02 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2001 GMC Sonoma 2.2 E 15.9 0.04 0.107 0.5 0.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 2002 Dodge Caravan 3.3 E 15.2 0.068 0.127 0.32 0.19 0 0.021 0.084 0.028
Gasoline Cars
1989 Chevrolet Caprice 4.3 G 21.9 0.17459 0.127 1.2144 0.67642 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1991 Chevrolet Lumina 3.1 G 20.6 0.02432 0.127 0.19457 0.161127 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1992 Plymouth Acclaim 2.5 G 25.0 0.22 0.127 2.7 0.92 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1993 Dodge Caravan 3 G 21.3 0.04121 0.127 0.252212 0.131765 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1993 GMC Safari 4.3 G 17.9 0.22594 0.127 2.024 1.02554 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1993 GMC Safari 4.3 G 17.9 0.22 0.127 2 0.94 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1993 Ford Taurus 3.1 G 22.5 0.14 0.127 1.9 0.2 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1993 Plymouth Voyager 3 G 21.3 0.04121 0.127 0.252212 0.131765 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1993 Jeep Cherokee 4 G 17.9 0 0.107 1.007557 0.124378 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 1994 Plymouth Acclaim 2.5 G 24.0 0.22 0.127 2.7 0.92 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1994 Dodge Caravan 3 G 21.3 0.04121 0.127 0.252212 0.131765 0 0.021 0.084 0.028
226 1994 Buick Century 3.1 G 22.5 0.02432 0.127 0.19457 0.161127 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1994 Buick Century wagon 3.1 G 22.5 0.2912 0.127 3.738 0.2142 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1994 FORD CROWN VICT 4.6 G 19.6 0.099 0.127 1.06 0.06 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1994 Chevrolet Lumina 3.1 G 20.6 0.26 0.127 2.8 0.21 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1994 GMC Jimmy 4.3 G 18.9 0.020764 0.107 0.022029 0.286301 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 1994 Ford Ranger 2.3 G 22.6 0.14 0.107 0.8 0.2 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 1995 Dodge Caravan 3 G 21.3 0.04121 0.127 0.252212 0.131765 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1995 Buick Century 3.1 G 22.5 0.02432 0.127 0.19457 0.161127 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1995 Buick Century wagon 3.1 G 22.5 0.02432 0.127 0.19457 0.161127 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1995 Ford Crown Victoria 4.6 G 19.6 0.099 0.127 1.06 0.06 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1995 Chevrolet Lumina 3.1 G 20.6 0.02432 0.127 0.19457 0.161127 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1995 Ford Taurus LX 3.1 G 22.5 0.14 0.127 1.9 0.2 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1995 Plymouth Voyager SE 3 G 21.3 0.04121 0.127 0.252212 0.131765 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1995 GMC Jimmy 4.3 G 18.9 0.020764 0.107 0.022029 0.286301 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 1995 Chevrolet S10 4.3 G 20.3 0.164 0.107 1.34 0.26 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 1996 Plymouth Breeze 2 G 25.6 0.141468 0.127 1.638066 0.08 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1996 Dodge Caravan 3 G 21.3 0.17 0.127 0.9 0.2 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1996 Buick Century 3.1 G 23.2 0.229 0.127 3.06 0.14 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1996 Buick Century Wagon 3.1 G 23.2 0.229 0.127 3.06 0.14 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1996 Ford Crown Victoria 4.6 G 19.6 0.099 0.127 1.06 0.06 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1996 694 Lumina 3.1 G 20.6 0.02432 0.127 0.19457 0.161127 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1996 GMC Safari 4.3 G 18.9 0.17 0.127 1 0.5 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1996 Dodge Stratus 2.4 G 23.2 0.17 0.127 0.653 0.276 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1996 Ford Taurus Ethanol 3 G 16.2 0.032 0.127 0.32 0.02 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1996 Ford Taurus SE 3.1 G 23.2 0.229 0.127 3.06 0.14 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1996 Plymouth Voyager 3 G 21.3 0.17 0.127 0.9 0.2 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1996 GMC Sonoma 4.3 G 21.0 0.16 0.107 1.2 0.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 1997 Plymouth Breeze 2 G 25.6 0.16 0.127 2.1 0.1 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1997 GMC Safari 4.3 G 19.3 0.18 0.127 1.4 0.3 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1997 Plymouth Stratus 2.4 G 23.2 0.17 0.127 0.653 0.276 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1997 Ford Taurus 3 G 21.9 0.16 0.127 1 0.1 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1997 Plymouth Voyager 3 G 21.0 0.19159 0.127 0.7763 0.29578 0 0.021 0.084 0.028
227 1997 Jeep Cherokee 4 G 17.9 0 0.107 1.007557 0.124378 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 1997 GMC Jimmy 4.3 G 19.3 0 0.107 1.35 0.260417 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 1997 Ford Ranger XLT 2.3 G 22.6 0.14 0.107 0.8 0.2 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 1997 Chevrolet S10 4.3 G 20.6 0.14 0.107 1.3 0.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 1998 Plymouth Breeze 2 G 26.6 0.091973 0.127 0.82397 0.066934 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1998 GMC Safari 4.3 G 19.3 0 0.127 0.9 0.1 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1998 Ford Taurus LX 3 G 20.9 0.1362 0.127 0.5999 0.1574 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1998 Plymouth Voyager 3 G 21.6 0 0.127 1.4124 0.1035 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1998 Ford Ranger 2.5 G 22.0 0 0.107 0.8374 0.0561 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 1999 Dodge Caravan 3 G 21.6 0.108011 0.127 1.093892 0.132743 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1999 Ford Crown Victoria 4.6 G 19.6 0.099 0.127 1.06 0.06 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1999 Ford Taurus 3 G 21.2 0.15 0.127 0.8146 0.08741 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1999 Ford Taurus LX 3 G 20.9 0.15 0.127 0.8146 0.08741 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1999 Lincoln Town Car 4.6 G 19.6 0.169 0.127 1.66 0.06 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1999 Ford Windstar 3 G 19.3 0.0924 0.127 0.7445 0.0783 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 1999 Ford Ranger 4X4 3 G 17.6 0.1028 0.107 1.0609 0.0602 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 1999 GMC Sonoma 2.2 G 21.6 0.07 0.107 1 0.2 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 2000 Chevrolet Astro 4.3 G 18.2 0.27 0.127 2.2 0.19 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2000 Dodge Caravan 5.2 G 15.2 0.068 0.127 0.32 0.19 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2000 Ford Crown Victoria 4.6 G 20.6 0.13 0.127 1.2 0.2 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2000 GMC Safari 4.3 G 18.2 0.25 0.127 2 0.3 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2000 Ford Explorer 4 G 17.9 0.27 0.107 2.2 0.19 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 2000 Ford Explorer 4 G 17.9 0.27 0.107 2.2 0.19 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 2001 Ford Crown Victoria 4.6 G 20.6 0.099 0.127 1.06 0.06 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2001 GMC Safari 4.3 G 17.9 0.228 0.127 2.55 0.17 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2001 Ford Taurus LX 2.5 G 24.0 0.22 0.127 2.7 0.92 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2001 Ford Taurus LX 2.4 G 23.2 0.17 0.127 0.5 0.2 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2001 Ford Taurus LX 3.1 G 22.5 0.112 0.127 1.26 0.09 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2001 Ford Taurus SE 3.1 G 22.5 0.112 0.127 1.26 0.09 0 0.021 0.084 0.028 2001 Chevrolet Blazer 4.3 G 18.9 0.27 0.107 1.6 0.2 0 0.021 0.09 0.033 1998 Ford Ranger 22.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.021 0 0
228 DIESEL TRUCKS 1990 Ford E350 7.3 D 12.1 0.13188 0 1.89028 4.33006 0.103306 0.021 0.017 0.032 1991 Chevrolet Pickup 6.2 D 12.3 0.3291 0 2.194 4.7171 0.27425 0.021 0.017 0.032 1991 Ford F700 5.9 D 10.0 0.2286 0 1.2573 4.6863 0.18288 0.021 0.017 0.032 1991 GMC Pickup 6.2 D 12.3 0.3291 0 2.194 4.7171 0.27425 0.021 0.017 0.032 1992 Chevrolet F700 5.9 D 10.0 0.2286 0 1.2573 4.6863 0.18288 0.021 0.017 0.032 1992 Ford LN 8000 8.3 D 9.9 0.4428 0 2.261232 6.367464 0.2952 0.021 0.017 0.032 1992 GMC Dump 5.7 D 10.2 0.62694 0 3.3534 0.2916 0 0.021 0.017 0.032 1993 Ford 7000 5.9 D 10.1 0.2926 0 1.683913 5.9983 0.247247 0.021 0.017 0.032 1994 Ford CF7000 5.9 D 10.1 0.2926 0 1.683913 5.9983 0.247247 0.021 0.017 0.032 1994 Ford F700 5.9 D 10.0 0.2286 0 1.2573 4.6863 0.18288 0.021 0.017 0.032 1994 Ford E350 7.3 D 11.4 0.15 0 4.6875 4.925 0.1175 0.021 0.017 0.032 1994 Ford L8000 8.3 D 10.1 0.2934 0 1.467 7.1883 0.1467 0.021 0.017 0.032 1995 Ford CF7000 5.9 D 10.1 0.2926 0 1.683913 5.9983 0.247247 0.021 0.017 0.032 1995 Ford CF8000 5.9 D 10.1 0.2926 0 1.683913 5.9983 0.247247 0.021 0.017 0.032 1996 Ford F800 5.9 D 10.2 0.2916 0 1.678158 5.9778 0.246402 0.021 0.017 0.032 1996 Ford Econoline 7.3 D 13.0 0.1308 0 1.8748 4.2946 0.10246 0.021 0.017 0.032 1996 GMC Dump 5.7 D 10.2 0.62694 0 3.3534 0.2916 0 0.021 0.017 0.032 1997 Ford CF8000 5.9 D 10.2 0.2916 0 1.6038 5.9778 0.23328 0.021 0.017 0.032 1997 Ford E450 SD 7.3 D 9.4 0.138 0 1.978 4.531 0.1081 0.021 0.017 0.032 1997 Ford L 8513 8.3 D 10.2 0.2916 0 1.458 7.1442 0.1458 0.021 0.017 0.032 1997 Ford L8000 8.3 D 10.2 0.2916 0 1.458 7.1442 0.1458 0.021 0.017 0.032 1999 Dodge B350 Ram 5.9 D 13.0 0.1635 0 2.616 0.327 0 0.021 0.017 0.032 1999 FreightlinerFH 1652 7.3 D 10.2 0.17496 0 2.50776 5.74452 0.137052 0.021 0.017 0.032 1999 GMC 3500 7.2 D 10.2 0.24786 0 1.19556 9.1854 0.2916 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 -2 Cargo Van 5.9 D 10.2 0.11664 0 1.47258 5.42376 0.151632 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 Ford Chipper 7.3 D 11.7 0.15 0 2.15 4.925 0.1175 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 Ford Cutaway 7.3 D 11.7 0.138 0 1.978 4.531 0.1081 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 FreightlinerFCCC 7.3 D 10.2 0.17496 0 2.50776 5.74452 0.137052 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 GMC Cargo Van 6.5 D 13.0 0.0548 0 1.1336 4.09904 0.062472 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 GMC Sierra 3500 6.5 D 11.7 0.0625 0 1.3 4.675 0.07125 0.021 0.017 0.032
229 2000 GMC Topkick 6.6 D 10.2 0.2916 0 2.17242 8.58762 0.365958 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 GMC 3500 7.2 D 11.7 0.2125 0 1.025 7.875 0.25 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 GMC T7500 7.2 D 10.2 0.24786 0 1.19556 9.1854 0.2916 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 InternationaStep Van 7.3 D 5.1 0.13608 0 1.95048 4.46796 0.106596 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 Sterling 7000 5.9 D 10.2 0.11664 0 1.47258 5.42376 0.151632 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 Sterling L8513 8.3 D 10.2 0.08748 0 0.91854 5.58414 0.099144 0.021 0.017 0.032 2001 Ford CF7000 5.9 D 10.2 0.11664 0 1.47258 5.42376 0.151632 0.021 0.017 0.032 2001 Sterling Dump 8.3 D 10.2 0.56862 0 0.96228 10.51218 0.368874 0.021 0.017 0.032
GASOLINE TRUCKS 1988 Chevrolet P30 5.7 G 16.6 0.48 0.156 4.6 0.97 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1988 Chevrolet Pickup 5.7 G 14.5 0.63168 0.156 6.6332 0.9894 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1988 CHEVROL VANW 5.7 G 16.9 0.67554 0.156 8.6814 0.62868 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1989 CHEVROL 3500 5.7 G 14.5 0.63168 0.156 6.6332 0.9894 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1989 Chevrolet C-30 5.7 G 16.9 0.67554 0.156 8.6814 0.62868 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1989 Chevrolet Pickup 5.7 G 16.2 0.67554 0.156 8.6814 0.62868 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1990 Chevrolet 2500 5.7 G 14.5 0.63168 0.156 6.6332 0.9894 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1990 GMC 3500 5.7 G 16.6 0.48 0.156 4.6 0.97 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1991 Dodge B350 5.2 G 14.5 0.54 0.156 1.6 1.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1991 Ford E250 4.9 G 15.2 0.50904 0.156 4.186 1.4592 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1991 FORD VANW 4.9 G 15.2 0.50904 0.156 4.186 1.4592 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1991 GMC Jimmy 4.3 G 20.0 0.72306 0.156 2.0208 1.2507 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1992 DODGE VANW 5.2 G 14.5 0.72306 0.156 2.0208 1.2507 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1992 Ford Pickup 5.8 G 14.5 0.4 0.156 7.7 4.3 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1992 Ford E250 5.8 G 15.6 0.53 0.156 2.1 1.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1992 GMC Safari 4.3 G 17.9 0.22 0.156 2 0.94 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1992 GMC Sierra 5.7 G 15.6 0.73696 0.156 11.3918 0.9633 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1993 Chevrolet 1000 5.7 G 15.6 0.73696 0.156 11.3918 0.9633 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1993 Chevrolet Cutaway 5.7 G 15.6 0.73696 0.156 11.3918 0.9633 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1993 Ford E250 5.8 G 15.6 0.53 0.156 2.1 1.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1993 GMC Vandura 4.3 G 17.9 0.22594 0.156 2.024 1.02554 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1993 GMC 2500 5.7 G 15.6 0.73696 0.156 11.3918 0.9633 0 0.021 0.09 0.04
230 1993 GMC Cargo Van 5.7 G 14.5 0.29 0.156 2.7 0.37 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1993 GMC Sierra 5.7 G 15.6 0.38164 0.156 3.8934 0.37518 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1993 GMC Vandura 5.7 G 15.9 0.22594 0.156 2.024 1.02554 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1993 Internationa1652-SC 5.7 G 15.6 0.73696 0.156 11.3918 0.9633 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1993 UMC Aeromate 3 G 21.3 0.04121 0.156 0.252212 0.131765 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1994 Dodge B350 Ram 5.2 G 14.5 0.72306 0.156 2.0208 1.2507 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1994 Ford Clubwagon 4.9 G 14.2 0.53 0.156 4 1.5 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1994 Ford E250 4.9 G 14.2 0.53 0.156 4 1.5 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1994 Ford F250XL 5.8 G 14.5 0.4 0.156 7.7 4.3 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1994 GMC 3500 5.7 G 15.6 0.408 0.156 5.8 0.41 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1995 Chevrolet Astro 3.1 G 20.6 0.02432 0.156 0.19457 0.161127 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1995 Chevrolet P30 5.7 G 15.2 0.408 0.156 5.8 0.41 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1995 Chevrolet C3500 7.4 G 10.1 0.522645 0.156 12.58039 0.565885 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1995 Ford F250XL 4.9 G 13.5 0.137 0.156 1.59 0.14 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1995 Ford F250 5.4 G 16.6 0.17 0.156 1.28 0.15 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1995 Ford F250XL 5.8 G 14.5 0.137 0.156 1.59 0.14 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1995 GMC G3500HD 4.3 G 17.6 0.228 0.156 2.55 0.17 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1995 GMC Safari 4.3 G 17.9 0.228 0.156 2.55 0.17 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1995 GMC Savana 4.3 G 17.9 0.228 0.156 2.55 0.17 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1995 GMC Vandura 4.3 G 17.9 0.228 0.156 2.55 0.17 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1995 GMC 3500 5.7 G 15.6 0.408 0.156 5.8 0.41 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1995 GMC Rally 5.7 G 15.2 0.115135 0.156 1.152 1.154944 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1995 GMC Vandura 5.7 G 14.8 0.228 0.156 2.55 0.17 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1996 Dodge B350 Ram 5.2 G 15.6 0 0.156 2.5 0.4 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1996 Ford E250 4.9 G 13.5 0.54 0.156 4.2 1.3 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1996 Ford Econoline 4.9 G 13.5 0.7992 0.156 5.1156 1.6939 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1996 Ford F250XL 4.9 G 13.5 0.18 0.156 2.4 0.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1996 Ford F250 5.8 G 14.5 0.18 0.156 2.4 0.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1996 Ford F250 5.8 G 14.5 0.18 0.156 2.4 0.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1996 Ford F250XL 4X4 5.8 G 14.5 0.6712 0.156 8.8704 4.3 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1996 GMC 3500 4.3 G 17.6 0.17 0.156 1 0.5 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1996 GMC 2500 5.7 G 15.6 0.52073 0.156 6.44 0.7658 0 0.021 0.09 0.04
231 1996 GMC P30 5.7 G 14.5 0.43 0.156 5 0.7 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1996 GMC Sierra 5.7 G 15.6 0.43 0.156 5 0.7 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1997 Chevrolet 2500 5.7 G 16.6 0.17 0.156 1.7 0.2 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1997 Dodge B350 Ram 5.2 G 15.6 0 0.156 2.5 0.4 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1997 Ford E250 4.2 G 15.6 0.15 0.156 1 0.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1997 Ford Econoline 4.9 G 13.5 0.15 0.156 1 0.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1997 Ford E350 5.4 G 14.5 0.29 0.156 1.3 0.5 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1997 Ford F250 4X2 5.8 G 14.5 0 0.156 2.9 0.2 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1997 Ford F Super Duty 7.5 G 10.2 0.53298 0.156 8.93592 3.99168 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1997 Ford E250 5.8 G 15.6 0.53 0.156 2.1 1.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1997 GMC P30 5.7 G 15.6 0.17 0.156 1.7 0.2 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1998 Dodge Caravan 5.4 G 14.5 0.1994 0.156 1.6254 0.2039 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1998 Ford E350 5.4 G 14.5 0.219739 0.156 1.7278 0.230407 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1998 Ford F250 4.2 G 15.9 0.1096 0.156 0.9382 0.0457 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1998 Ford E250 5.4 G 14.5 0.219739 0.156 1.7278 0.230407 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1998 GMC P30 4.3 G 16.6 0 0.156 0.9 0.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1998 GMC Vandura 4.3 G 17.9 0 0.156 0.9 0.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1998 GMC F250XL 5.7 G 15.6 0.1096 0.156 0.9382 0.0457 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1998 GMC P30 5.7 G 15.6 0 0.156 0.9 0.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1998 GMC 3500 HD 7.4 G 11.7 0.4945 0.156 8.1305 0.345 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1999 Chevrolet P30 4.3 G 16.6 0.19 0.156 1.6 0.3 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1999 Chevrolet Suburban 7.4 G 13.0 0.47128 0.156 7.74872 0.3288 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1999 Dodge B350 Ram 5.2 G 15.2 0.17179 0.156 1.235658 0.262927 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1999 Ford E250 4.2 G 15.6 0.132 0.156 0.9529 0.115 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1999 Ford E250 4.2 G 15.6 0.132 0.156 0.9529 0.115 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1999 Ford E250 4.2 G 15.6 0.132 0.156 0.9529 0.115 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1999 Ford E250 5.4 G 14.9 0.132 0.156 0.9529 0.115 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1999 Ford F350SD 6.8 G 11.7 0.00046 0.156 1.0925 0.2185 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1999 GMC C3500 5.7 G 15.6 0.165153 0.156 1.711491 0.379507 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 1999 GMC Pickup 5.7 G 15.6 0 0.156 2.4 0.5 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 Chevrolet Venture 3.4 G 21.6 0.079639 0.156 0.767873 0.090186 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 Chevrolet Pickup 5.7 G 15.6 0.188 0.156 1.14 0.19 0 0.021 0.09 0.04
232 2000 Dodge B350 5.2 G 15.2 0.068 0.156 0.32 0.19 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 Dodge Ram 3500 5.9 G 14.1 0.068 0.156 0.32 0.19 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 Ford E250 5.4 G 14.9 0.2 0.156 2.6 0.39 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 Ford Pickup 5.4 G 16.6 0.188 0.156 1.14 0.19 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 Ford Cargo Van 6.8 G 13.0 0.000438 0.156 1.0412 0.20824 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 Ford F350 6.8 G 11.7 0.00046 0.156 1.0925 0.2185 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 GMC 2500 4.3 G 16.2 0.099 0.156 1.06 0.06 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 GMC 2500 Savana 4.3 G 16.2 0.099 0.156 1.06 0.06 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 GMC P30 4.3 G 16.6 0.2 0.156 2.3 0.27 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 GMC 2500 5.7 G 16.6 0.099 0.156 1.06 0.06 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 GMC C3500 5.7 G 15.6 0.19 0.156 1.36 0.06 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 GMC Cutaway 5.7 G 15.6 0.188 0.156 1.14 0.19 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 GMC Pickup 5.7 G 15.6 0.188 0.156 1.14 0.19 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 GMC Sierra 5.7 G 15.6 0.32 0.156 2.6 0.39 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 GMC Step Van 5.7 G 15.6 0.19 0.156 1.36 0.06 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 GMC Utility 5.7 G 15.6 0.188 0.156 1.14 0.19 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 GMC 3500 HD 7.4 G 11.7 0.4945 0.156 8.1305 0.345 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 GMC C6500 7.4 G 10.2 0.48762 0.156 8.01738 0.3402 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 GMC Cargo Van 7.4 G 13.0 0.47128 0.156 7.74872 0.3288 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2000 Workhorse P30 5.7 G 15.6 0.2 0.156 2.3 0.27 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2001 Dodge Ram 6 Pass 5.8 G 15.6 0.53 0.156 2.1 1.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2001 Ford F350SD 4.3 G 17.6 0.17 0.156 1 0.5 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2001 Ford Utility 4.3 G 17.9 0.228 0.156 2.55 0.17 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2001 Ford F250 4X2 4.9 G 13.5 0.137 0.156 1.59 0.14 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2001 Ford F250 5.4 G 16.6 0.17 0.156 1.28 0.15 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2001 Ford F250 4X4 5.7 G 15.6 0.52073 0.156 6.44 0.7658 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2001 Ford F250 4X4 5.8 G 14.5 0.18 0.156 2.4 0.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2001 Ford F350 5.8 G 14.5 0.137 0.156 1.59 0.14 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2001 General MoCutaway 5.7 G 15.2 0.04 0.156 3.9 0.2 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2001 GMC Savana 4.3 G 17.9 0.228 0.156 2.55 0.17 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2001 GMC Vandura 4.3 G 17.9 0.228 0.156 2.55 0.17 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2001 GMC Pickup 4.9 G 13.5 0.137 0.156 1.59 0.14 0 0.021 0.09 0.04
233 2001 GMC Savana 4.9 G 13.5 0.54 0.156 4.2 1.3 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2001 GMC Savana 5.2 G 14.5 0.72306 0.156 2.0208 1.2507 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2001 GMC Savana 5.2 G 14.5 0.54 0.156 1.6 1.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2001 GMC Savana 5.7 G 15.9 0.22594 0.156 2.024 1.02554 0 0.021 0.09 0.04 2001 GMC Savana 5.8 G 14.5 0.18 0.156 2.4 0.1 0 0.021 0.09 0.04
BUSES 1988 Flxible Metro L-10 D 3.968 1.673333 0 18.17222 24.01111 1.673889 0.021 0.017 0.032 1989 Flxible Metro L-10 D 3.968 1.673333 0 18.17222 24.01111 1.673889 0.021 0.017 0.032 1990 Flxible Metro L-10 D 3.968 1.673333 0 18.17222 24.01111 1.673889 0.021 0.017 0.032 1992 Flxible Metro L-10 D 3.968 1.673333 0 18.17222 24.01111 1.673889 0.021 0.017 0.032 1993 Flxible Metro L-10 D 3.968 1.673333 0 18.17222 24.01111 1.673889 0.021 0.017 0.032 1994 Ford E350 7.3L D 11.41 0.15 0 4.6875 4.925 0.1175 0.021 0.017 0.032 1998 Eldorado FE Escort 5TDS (GM T D 5.12 0.1685 0 3.5048 12.6038 0.19209 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 Gillig Low Floor 40' 8.3L Cumm D 5.12 0.2022 0 2.1231 12.9071 0.22916 0.021 0.017 0.032 2001 Bluebird Bus C1FE 5.9 L ISB D 5.14 0.75 0 2.2 20.5 0.6 0.021 0.017 0.032 1992 Champion F350 5.9 D 4.96 0.6768 0 3.894984 13.8744 0.571896 0.021 0.017 0.032
BIODIESEL BUS 1988 Flxible Metro L-10 Biodiesel 3.968 1.549507 0 15.50091 24.89952 1.432849 0.021 0.017 0.032 1989 Flxible Metro L-10 Biodiesel 3.968 1.549507 0 15.50091 24.89952 1.432849 0.021 0.017 0.032 1990 Flxible Metro L-10 Biodiesel 3.968 1.549507 0 15.50091 24.89952 1.432849 0.021 0.017 0.032 1992 Flxible Metro L-10 Biodiesel 3.968 1.549507 0 15.50091 24.89952 1.432849 0.021 0.017 0.032 1993 Flxible Metro L-10 Biodiesel 3.968 1.549507 0 15.50091 24.89952 1.432849 0.021 0.017 0.032 1993 Flxible Metro L-10 Biodiesel 3.968 1.549507 0 15.50091 24.89952 1.432849 0.021 0.017 0.032 1994 Ford E350 7.3 Biodiesel 11.41 0.1404 0 3.717188 4.8068 0.1175 0.021 0.017 0.032 1998 Eldorado FE Escort 6.5 Biodiesel 5.12 0.147438 0 3.126282 12.74244 0.167118 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 Gillig Low Floor 40' 8.3 Biodiesel 5.12 0.176925 0 1.893805 13.04908 0.199369 0.021 0.017 0.032 2001 Bluebird Bus C1FE 5.9 Biodiesel 5.14 0.663868 0 1.684872 20.79635 0.585821 0.021 0.017 0.032 1992 Champion F350 Biodiesel 4.96 0.599075 0 2.982977 14.07497 0.558381 0.021 0.017 0.032
234 BIODIESEL TRUCKS 1992 GMC Dump 5.7 Biodiesel 10.2 0.548573 0 2.991233 0.294808 0 0.021 0.017 0.032 1996 GMC Dump 5.7 Biodiesel 10.2 0.548573 0 2.991233 0.294808 0 0.021 0.017 0.032 1991 Ford F700 5.9 Biodiesel 9.99 0.202347 0 0.962904 4.754046 0.178558 0.021 0.017 0.032 1992 Chevrolet F700 5.9 Biodiesel 9.99 0.202347 0 0.962904 4.754046 0.178558 0.021 0.017 0.032 1993 Ford 7000 5.9 Biodiesel 10.13 0.258997 0 1.289626 6.085012 0.241404 0.021 0.017 0.032 1993 Ford F700 5.9 Biodiesel 9.99 0.202347 0 0.962904 4.754046 0.178558 0.021 0.017 0.032 1994 Ford CF7000 5.9 Biodiesel 10.13 0.258997 0 1.289626 6.085012 0.241404 0.021 0.017 0.032 1994 Ford F700 5.9 Biodiesel 9.99 0.202347 0 0.962904 4.754046 0.178558 0.021 0.017 0.032 1995 Ford CF7000 5.9 Biodiesel 10.13 0.258997 0 1.289626 6.085012 0.241404 0.021 0.017 0.032 1995 Ford CF8000 5.9 Biodiesel 10.13 0.258997 0 1.289626 6.085012 0.241404 0.021 0.017 0.032 1996 Ford F800 5.9 Biodiesel 10.2 0.258112 0 1.285219 6.064216 0.240579 0.021 0.017 0.032 1997 Ford CF8000 5.9 Biodiesel 10.2 0.258112 0 1.228272 6.064216 0.227767 0.021 0.017 0.032 1999 Dodge B350 Ram 5.9 Biodiesel 12.96 0.144723 0 2.003466 0.331727 0 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 Sterling 7000 5.9 Biodiesel 10.2 0.103245 0 1.127777 5.502167 0.148049 0.021 0.017 0.032 2001 Ford CF7000 5.9 Biodiesel 10.2 0.103245 0 1.127777 5.502167 0.148049 0.021 0.017 0.032 1991 GMC Pickup 6.2 Biodiesel 12.26 0.287963 0 1.957048 4.768988 0.238598 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 GMC Cargo Van 6.5 Biodiesel 12.96 0.04795 0 1.011171 4.144129 0.054351 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 GMC Topkick 6.6 Biodiesel 10.2 0.25515 0 1.937799 8.682084 0.318383 0.021 0.017 0.032 1999 GMC 3500 7.2 Biodiesel 10.2 0.216878 0 1.06644 9.286439 0.253692 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 GMC 3500 7.2 Biodiesel 11.66 0.185938 0 0.9143 7.961625 0.2175 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 GMC T7500 7.2 Biodiesel 10.2 0.216878 0 1.06644 9.286439 0.253692 0.021 0.017 0.032 1990 Ford E350 7.3 Biodiesel 12.11 0.12344 0 1.498992 4.226139 0.103306 0.021 0.017 0.032 1994 Ford E350 7.3 Biodiesel 11.41 0.1404 0 3.717188 4.8068 0.1175 0.021 0.017 0.032 1996 Ford Econoline 7.3 Biodiesel 12.96 0.122429 0 1.486716 4.19153 0.10246 0.021 0.017 0.032 1997 Ford E450 SD 7.3 Biodiesel 9.39 0.129168 0 1.568554 4.422256 0.1081 0.021 0.017 0.032 1999 FreightlinerFH 1652 7.3 Biodiesel 10.2 0.163763 0 1.988654 5.606652 0.137052 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 Ford Chipper 7.3 Biodiesel 11.66 0.1404 0 1.70495 4.8068 0.1175 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 Ford Cutaway 7.3 Biodiesel 11.66 0.129168 0 1.568554 4.422256 0.1081 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 FreightlinerFCCC 7.3 Biodiesel 10.2 0.163763 0 1.988654 5.606652 0.137052 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 InternationaStep Van 7.3 Biodiesel 5.12 0.127371 0 1.546731 4.360729 0.106596 0.021 0.017 0.032
235 1992 Ford LN 8000 8.3 Biodiesel 9.92 0.38745 0 2.017019 6.437506 0.256824 0.021 0.017 0.032 1994 Ford L8000 8.3 Biodiesel 10.06 0.256725 0 1.308564 7.267371 0.127629 0.021 0.017 0.032 1997 Ford L8000 8.3 Biodiesel 10.2 0.25515 0 1.300536 7.222786 0.126846 0.021 0.017 0.032 2000 Sterling L8513 8.3 Biodiesel 10.2 0.076545 0 0.819338 5.645566 0.086255 0.021 0.017 0.032 2001 Sterling Dump 8.3 Biodiesel 10.2 0.497543 0 0.858354 10.62781 0.32092 0.021 0.017 0.032
Fuel economy data taken from : U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2001) www.fueleconomy.gov [Internet] 19th February, 2002 Available from:
236 APPENDIX D - Energy and Emissions Graph Data ENERGY (Btu unless noted) Fuel Cycle Energy Consumed (Btu) Transportation, electricity, HVAC 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fossil fuels 4.95E+12 5.51E+12 5.91E+12 Renewable 2.21E+10 2.58E+10 3.66E+10 Electricity and HVAC Fossil fuels 4.78E+12 5.24E+12 5.62E+12 6.21E+12 5.62E+12 5.29E+12 5.42E+12 5.79E+12 Renewable 2.04E+10 2.08E+10 2.22E+10 2.58E+10 2.5E+10 2.42E+10 2.44E+10 2.61E+10
On-site energy per capita 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 On-site transportation, electricity, HVAC 77052745 78702079 #DIV/0! On-site electricity and HVAC 74524321 78502208 87228841 95293604 83977782 76426063 77571589 #DIV/0!
On-site energy consumed On-site transportation, electricity, HVAC 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fossil fuels 4.44E+12 4.93E+12 5.29E+12 Renewable 2.61E+09 3.61E+09 1.23E+10 On-site electricity and HVAC Fossil fuels 4.29E+12 4.71E+12 5.06E+12 5.59E+12 5.04E+12 4.75E+12 4.86E+12 5.2E+12 Renewable 2.61E+09 2.57E+09 2.68E+09 2.54E+09 3.2E+09 3.2E+09 3.2E+09 3.25E+09
Total on-site transportation energy 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fossil fuels 1.46E+11 7.05E+10 9.74E+10 Renewable 0 4.15E+08 9.07E+09
Total fuel cycle vs. on-site 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total fuel cycle electricity and HVAC 4.8E+12 5.26E+12 5.64E+12 6.23E+12 5.64E+12 5.32E+12 5.44E+12 5.81E+12 On-site electricity and HVAC 4.29E+12 4.72E+12 5.06E+12 5.6E+12 5.05E+12 4.75E+12 4.87E+12 5.2E+12
237 EMISSIONS
On-site GHG Emissions (metric tons) 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 On-site transportation, electricity, HVAC 393738.1 0 0 0 0 0 467801.3 485881 On-site electricity and HVAC 382052.3 414380.2 444556.4 478439.2 465866 455449.5 462665.7 478632.7
Total fuel cycle GHG Emissions (metric tons) 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Transportation, electricity, HVAC 453086.2 0 0 0 0 0 534522.2 557506.2 electricity and HVAC 438872.2 475668.7 510072.9 549149.6 533145.9 519481.4 527965.7 547739.5
On-site GHG emissions by key activity tons 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Auxilary 29762.53 27250.41 32645.32 30666.72 29859.21 30143.61 24628.38 26734.49 Athletic 7979.686 9007.362 9269.219 11128.74 10991.58 10084.71 9967.89 10686.6 General Fund 261654.8 296833 322285.6 351947.3 338813 335901 339688.3 344766.4 Leased Property 1407.749 2124.79 2374.837 2403.622 2095.907 1671.223 1724.074 1794.123 Miscellaneous 2531.912 2072.295 2291.127 2508.048 2305.333 2158.881 1903.347 2160.175 Hospital 63284.8 67002.45 65281.88 73198.47 79585.64 75816.87 82987.79 89711.77 Housing 51582.71 49795.54 51506.12 52748.85 47040.08 43770.16 46128.66 48685.87 Parking 2935.906 2689.662 4384.829 2786.517 2838.125 2500.044 2957.431 3075.866 Transportation 12881.38 0 0 0 0 0 5660.985 7989.839
On-site criteria pollutant emissions (metric tons) 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 CO 105.5806 99.54229 107.8163 112.9217 108.4964 117.225 100.6394 97.64563 PB 0.000958 0.000194 0.00022 0.000256 0.000217 0.000871 0.001277 0.000708 NOX 637.2922 559.0244 615.1559 613.4699 660.3908 654.616 582.7209 591.0647 PM 12.1884 15.00456 15.28121 20.39682 14.50841 22.04706 19.85151 16.25584 PM10 26.63718 31.72097 32.37341 34.85576 35.72026 40.83138 41.21625 39.16905 SO2 6.124673 3.646757 17.80437 327.6008 21.02853 2.637058 0.725707 46.84182
238 APPENDIX E - Fuel Cycle Energy and Emission Factors
Electricity (Includes recovery, processing, processing emissions, transmission and distribution) Fuel-Cycle Energy Use and Emissions of Electric Generation: Btu or Grams per mmBtu of Electricity Available at User Sites
Stationary Application Total Feedstock Fuel Total Energy 197,645 2,993,307 Fossil fuels 183,123 2,469,285 Petroleum 24,504 6,356 VOC 15.822 4.129 CO 40.620 37.305 NOx 53.952 384.194 PM10 8.243 22.353 SOx 24.462 446.591 CH4 378.281 3.583 N2O 0.208 1.908 CO2 14,164 207,332
Electric Transmission and Distribution Loss 0.08 Calculation of Power Plant Emissions: Grams per kWh at Power Plant Gate User Input Emission Factors: GREET-Calculated Emission Factors Stationary Electricity Use By Fuel-Type Plants By Fuel-Type Plants Oil NG Coal Oil NG Coal VOC 0.0245 0.0166 0.0146 0.0041 0.0041 0.0041 CO 0.1616 0.1572 0.1267 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 NOx 0.8782 0.4780 2.1921 0.4838 0.4838 0.4838 PM10 0.0614 0.0316 0.1245 0.0463 0.0463 0.0463 SOx 0.6691 0.0027 2.9778 0.8796 0.8796 0.8796 CH4 0.0091 0.0169 0.0108 0.0091 0.0169 0.0108 N2O 0.0036 0.0096 0.0053 0.0036 0.0096 0.0053 CO2 824.9421 520.6437 977.5183 825.1036 496.7653 974.8378
239 Power Plant Emissions: Grams per kWh at User Sites (wall outlets) Stationary Applications Total VOC 0.0141 CO 0.1273 NOx 1.3109 PM10 0.0763 SOx 1.5238 CH4 0.0122 N2O 0.0065 CO2 707.1715
Natural Gas (Includes recovery, processing, processing emissions, transmission and distribution) Summary of Energy Consumption and Emissions: Btu or Grams per mmBtu of Fuel Throughput at Each Stage
NG to CNG NG to LPG Crude Oil to LPG LPG: Combined
Feedstock Fuel Feedstock Fuel Feedstock Fuel Feedstock Fuel Loss factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Total energy 96,265 134,372 62,571 75,991 37,333 113,619 52,476 91,042 Fossil fuels 94,778 103,693 61,490 69,618 33,127 105,445 50,145 83,949 Petroleum 4,605 1,955 4,447 15,186 9,474 51,883.137 6,457 29,865 VOC 3.090 2.199 1.130 4.531 3.317 5.171 2.005 4.787 CO 20.475 7.886 12.675 6.436 15.607 7.841 13.848 6.998 NOx 31.163 29.578 11.254 11.885 10.027 17.639 10.763 14.187 PM10 0.832 1.254 0.491 0.918 0.530 1.812 0.507 1.276 SOx 3.363 16.892 3.054 4.171 2.859 10.758 2.976 6.806 CH4 197.371 19.967 103.713 7.781 90.421 9.984 98.396 8.662 N2O 0.126 0.099 0.070 0.076 0.052 0.104 0.063 0.087 CO2 6,775 8,462 4,944 5,000 3,502 8,059 4,367 6,223
240 Light Fuel Oil (Includes recovery, processing, processing emissions, transmission and distribution) Summary of Energy Consumption and Emissions: Btu or Grams per mmBtu of Fuel Throughput at Each Stage Total Energy Use and Emissions Feedstock Fuels Crude C. Gasoline LPG Resi. Oil Diesel Loss factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Total energy 37,333 222,207 113,619 71,888 158,448 Fossil fuels 33,127 213,059 105,445 69,118 151,700 Petroleum 9,474 105,363 51,883 37,464 77,033 VOC 3.317 13.884 5.171 3.711 5.524 CO 15.607 9.488 7.841 3.529 8.295 NOx 10.027 26.122 17.639 9.582 21.079 PM10 0.530 2.958 1.812 1.039 2.341 SOx 2.859 19.340 10.758 6.408 14.069 CH4 90.421 22.129 9.984 6.036 13.294 N2O 0.052 0.156 0.104 0.064 0.148 CO2 3,502 12,952 8,059 5,196 11,262
241 All data currently uses LHV Specifications of Fuels Fuel Heating Value Density C ratio S ratio Calculation: LHV LHV HHV (% by wt) (ppm by wt) Liquid Fuels: Btu/gal Btu/gal Btu/gal grams/gal Crude oil 130,000 130,000 138,100 3,200 85.0% 16,000 Conventional gasoline 115,500 115,500 125,000 2,791 85.5% 200 FRFG2 112,265 112,265 121,456 2,795 82.9% 30 CARFG2 112,985 112,985 122,245 2,794 83.5% 30 Conventional diesel 128,500 128,500 138,700 3,240 87.0% 250 Reformulated diesel 128,000 128,000 138,000 3,240 87.0% 50 Residual oil 140,000 140,000 149,500 3,630 87.0% 5,000 Methanol 57,000 57,000 65,000 2,996 37.5% 0 Ethanol 76,000 76,000 84,500 2,996 52.2% 0 Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG 84,000 84,000 91,300 2,000 82.0% 0 Liquefied natural gas (LNG) 72,900 72,900 80,900 1,589 74.0% 0 Dimethyl ether (DME) 68,180 68,180 2,502 52.2% 0 Dimethoxy methane (DMM) 72,200 72,200 3,255 47.4% 0 Methyl ester (biodiesel, BD) 117,090 117,090 128,520 3,346 78.0% 0 Fischer-Tropsch diesel (FTD 118,800 118,800 128,500 2,915 86.0% 0 Liquid hydrogen 30,100 30,100 35,700 263 0.0% 0 Methyl tertiary butyl ether (M 93,500 93,500 100,900 2,820 68.1% 0 Ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETB 96,900 96,900 2,821 70.6% 0 Tertiary amyl methyl ether (T 100,600 100,600 2,910 70.6% 0 Butane 93,000 93,000 103,000 2,191 82.8% 0 Isobutane 85,430 85,430 94,620 2,078 84.2% 0 Isobutylene 94,000 94,000 104,110 2,249 84.2% 0 Propane 84,030 84,030 91,330 2,215 81.8% 0 Natural gas liquids 81,460 81,460 90,500 0 Still gas (in refineries) 128,590 128,590 142,860 0 Gaseous Fuels: Btu/SCF Btu/SCF Btu/SCF grams/SCF Natural gas 928 928 1,031 20.5 74.0% 7 Gaseous hydrogen 274 274 324 2.4 0.0% 0 Solid Fuels: Btu/ton Btu/ton Btu/ton Coal 18,495,000 18,495,000 20,550,000 60.0% 11,100 Coking coal 20,532,600 20,532,600 22,814,000 11,800 Woody biomass 17,000,000 17,000,000 0 Herbaceous biomass 15,600,000 15,600,000 0 242 APPENDIX F - Conversion factors
Conversion factors Natural gas 928 Btu/SCF Fuel oil 140,000 Btu/gal Liquified petroleum gas 84,000 Btu/gal Electricity 3412 Btu/kWh
243 APPENDIX G - Key GREET 1.5a Input Assumptions Key Scenario Control Variables and Input Assumptions 1. Selection of Near- or Long-Term Technology Options for Simulation 1 1 -- Near Term Technologies 2 -- Long Term Technologies 2. Selection of Vehicle Types for Simulation 3 1 -- Passenger Cars 2 -- Light-Duty Trucks 1 3 -- Light-Duty Trucks 2 3. Key Input Parameters for Simulating Petroleum-Based Fuels 3.1) Type of Ether for Use in RFG to Meet RFG Oxygen Requirement 11 -- MTBE 2 -- ETBE 3 -- TAME 4 -- Ethanol 3.2) RFG Oxygen Requirements: Oxygen as Weight Percentage 2.7% Federal Phase 2 RFG 2.1% California Phase 2 RFG
3.3) Conventional Gasoline MTBE Content: MTBE as Volumetric Percentage 2.0% MTBE volumetric content in conventional gasoline 4. Key Input Parameters for Simulating Natural Gas-Based Fuels 4.1) Simulation Scenarios 4.1.a) Selection of Gaseous Hydrogen or Liquid Hydrogen Gaseous Hydrogen Liquid Hydrogen Share of Each 100.0% 0.0% 4.1.b) Selection of Liquid Hydrogen Production Pathways: Natural Gas, Flared Gas, or Solar Energy as Energy Feedstocks Natural Gas Flared Gas Solar Energy Share of Each 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1.c) Selection of Gaseous Hydrogen Production Pathways: Natural Gas in Central Plants, Natural Gas in Refueling Stations, or Solar Energy in Central Plants
NG in Central NG in Refueling Solar Energy in Plants Stations Central Plants Flared gas Share of Each 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 4.1.d) Selection of Methanol Production Pathways: Natural Gas, Flared Gas, or Landfill Gas as Energy Feedstocks Natural Gas Flared Gas Landfill Gas Share of Each 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1.e) Selection of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Production Pathways: Natural Gas or Petroleum as Energy Feedstocks Natural Gas Petroleum Share of Each 60.0% 40.0% 4.1.f) Selection of Liquefied Natural Gas Production Pathways: Natural Gas or Flared Gas as Energy Feedstocks Natural Gas Flared Gas Share of Each 100.0% 0.0% 4.1.g) Selection of Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Production Pathways: Natural Gas or Flared Gas as Energy Feedstocks
244 Natural Gas Flared Gas Share of Each 100.0% 0.0% 4.1.h) Selection of Dimethyl Ether Production Pathways: Natural Gas or Flared Gas as Energy Feedstocks Natural Gas Flared Gas Share of Each 100.0% 0.0% 4.1.i) Fuel Production Pathways for Upstream Production Activities Gaseous and Liquid Hydrogen Shares Gaseous Hydrogen Liquid Hydrogen 100.0% 0.0% Gaseous Hydrogen Production: Natural Gas or Solar Energy as Energy Feedstocks Natural Gas Solar Energy Share of Each 100.0% 0.0% Methanol Production: Natural Gas or Landfill Gas as Feedstocks Natural Gas Landfill Gas Share of Each 100.0% 0.0% Liquefied Petroleum Gas Production: Natural Gas or Petroleum as Feedstocks Natural Gas Petroleum Share of Each 60.0% 40.0% 4.2) Selection of Energy Export Options: Steam, Electricity, or No Export Central G. H2 Refueling Station Central L.H2 MeOH Plants DME Plants plants G. H2 Plants FTD Plants 0 -- No steam or electricity export NG as feedstock 2 2 1 0 2 2 1 -- Steam export FG as feedstock 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -- Electricity export 4.3) Percentage of CO2 Emissions to Be Sequestered in Central Hydrogen Plants 0.0% 4.4) Extent of NG Transmission through Pipeline to plants (100% for NG to City Gates) Fuel Production and Steam Generation NG CC Power Plants NG FG NG FG MeOH 0% 0% 50% 50% DME 0% 0% 50% 50% G. H2 0% 0% 50% 50% L.H2 0% 0% 50% 50% FTD 0% 0% 50% 50% 5. Key Input Parameters for Simulating Ethanol Produced from Corn, Woody Biomass, and Herbaceous Biomass 5.1) Selection of Ethanol Production Pathways: Corn, Woody Biomass, or Herbaceous Biomass as Feedstocks Herbaceous Corn Woody Biomass Biomass Share of Each 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
245 5.2) Selection of Corn Ethanol Plant Types Near-Term Long-Term Selection Selection Dry milling plant 33.3% 50.0% Wet milling plant 66.7% 50.0% 3) Selection of Method for Dealing with Co-Products of Corn Ethanol 1 1 -- displacement method Other values -- market value-based method 5.4) CO2 Emissions Changes from Land Use Changes Due to Farming: grams/bushel for corn and grams/dry ton for biomass Herbaceous Corn Woody Biomass Biomass Data cells 390 -225,000 -97,000 Calculation cells 390 -225,000 -97,000 5.5) Key Assumptions for Simulating Corn-Based Ethanol Production 5.5.a) Ethanol Yield: gallons/bushel Near-Term Long-Term Selection Selection Dry milling plant 2.6 2.7 Wet milling plant 2.5 2.6 5.5.b) Share of Process Fuels in Corn-Based Ethanol Plants Near-Term Selection Long-Term Selection Coal NG Coal NG Dry milling plant 50% 50% 20% 80% Wet milling plant 80% 20% 50% 50% 5.6) Key Assumptions for Simulating Cellulosic Ethanol Production 5.6.a) Ethanol Yield: Gallons per Dry Ton of Biomass Woody Biomass 76 Herbaceous Biomass 80 5.6.b) The Amount of Electricity Co-Produced in Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for Export: kWh per gallon of ethanol Woody Biomass -1.730 Herbaceous Biomass -0.865 6. Simulation of Biodiesel: Allocation of Upstream Energy Use and Emissions Between Biodiesel and Co-Products Soydiesel Co-products Soybean farming 33.6% 66.4% (Market value-based split for soy oil production) Soyoil extraction 33.6% 66.4% (Market value-based split for soy oil production) Soyoil transesterification 70.1% 29.9% (Market value-based split for biodiesel production)
246 7. Key Input Parameters for Simulating of Electric Generation 7.1) Selection of GREET-Calculated or User-Inputted Emission Factors for Power Plants 1 1 -- GREET-calculated emissions factors Other values -- User-inputted emission factors 7.2) Electricity generation mix Marginal Mix for Transportation Use Average Mix for Stationary Use Near-Term Long-Term Near-Term Long-Term Selection Selection Selection Selection Residual oil 1.0% 0.8% 0.01 0.8% Natural gas 14.9% 21.1% 0.15 21.1% Coal 53.8% 54.0% 0.54 54.0% Nuclear power 18.0% 12.4% 0.18 12.4% Others 12.3% 11.7% 0.12 11.7% 7.3) Shares of Advanced Technologies for Natural Gas and Coal Power Plants Near-Term Long-Term Selection Selection NG CC turbines: % of total NG capacity 30% 45% Advanced coal technology: % of total coal capacity 5% 20% 8. Key Input Parameters for Simulating Vehicle Operations 8.1) Share of an Alternative Fuel in a Fuel Blend: Volumetric Percentage Near-Term Long-Term Option Option Selection Selection MeOH in MeOH blend for FFVs 85% 85% MeOH in MeOH blend for dedicated vehicles 90% 90% EtOH in EtOH blend for FFVs 85% 85% EtOH in EtOH blend for dedicated vehicles 90% 90% FTD in FTD blend for CIDI vehicles 100% 100% Biodiesel in biodiesel blend for CIDI vehicles 20% 20% 8.2) Type of Gasoline or Diesel for Alternative Fuel Blends Near Term Long-Term Option Option Gasoline for MeOH blend 1 2 Gasoline for EtOH blend 1 2 Diesel for FTD blend 1 2 1 -- conventional gasoline or conventional diesel Diesel for biodiesel blend 1 2 2 -- reformulated gasoline or reformulated diesel 3) Shares of Grid-Connected HEV's VMT Powered by Grid Electricity and On-Board Engines Grid electricity 30% On-board ICEs 70%
247 9. GREET Default Key Assumptions for Upstream Activities: Near- and Long-Term Technologies Near-Term Long-Term Assumptions Assumptions Item 20% 0% Upstream fuel combustion technologies: share of current emission control technologies 50% 0% NG-fueled industrial boilers for agricultural chemical production: share of current emission control technologies 78% 0% NG-fueled engine for biodiesel T&S&D: share of current emission control technologies 56% 60% Energy conversion efficiency of combined-cycle gas turbines 91.7% 92.7% Energy efficiency of natural gas compression: NG compressors 96.6% 97.0% Energy efficiency of natural gas compression: electric compressors 90.0% 90.0% Energy efficiency of natural gas liquefaction 88.0% 88.0% Energy efficiency of flared gas liquefaction 96.5% 96.5% Energy efficiency of LPG production from natural gas 67% 70% Energy efficiency of methanol plants, natural gas as feedstock, no steam or electricity export 65% 65% Energy efficiency of methanol plants, natural gas as feedstock, with steam or electricity export 111,000 111,000 Steam export credit from methanol plants, natural gas as feedstock: Btu per mmBtu of methanol produced 65% 67% Energy efficiency of methanol plants, flared gas as feedstock, without steam or electricity export 65% 67% Energy efficiency of methanol plants, flared gas as feedstock, with steam or electricity export 0 0 Steam export credit from methanol plants, flared gas as feedstock: Btu per mmBtu of methanol produced 57% 57% Energy efficiency of FTD plants, NG as feedstock, without steam or electricity export 49% 49% Energy efficiency of FTD plants, natural gas as feedstock, with steam or electricity export 347,000 347,000 Steam export credit from FTD plants, natural gas as feedstock: Btu per mmBtu of FTD produced 55% 57% FTD plant efficiency: flared gas as feedstock, without steam or electricity credit 55% 57% FTD plant efficiency: flared gas as feedstock, with steam or electricity credit 0 0 Steam export credit from FTD plants, flared gas as feedstock: Btu per mmBtu of FTD produced 69% 70% Energy efficiency of DME plants, NG as feedstock, without steam or electricity export 68% 68% Energy efficiency of DME plants, natural gas as feedstock, with steam or electricity export 44,000 44,000 Steam export credit from DME plants, natural gas as feedstock: Btu per mmBtu of DME produced 68% 69% DME plant efficiency: flared gas as feedstock, without steam or electricity credit 68% 69% DME plant efficiency: flared gas as feedstock, with steam or electricity credit 0 0 Steam export credit from DME plants, flared gas as feedstock: Btu per mmBtu of DME produced 73% 73% Energy efficiency of central gaseous hydrogen production, NG as feedstock, without steam or electricity export 71% 71% Energy efficiency of central gaseous hydrogen production, natural gas as feedstock, with steam or electricity export 169,000 169,000 Steam export credit from central gaseous hydrogen production, natural gas as feedstock: Btu per mmBtu of hydrogen produced 70% 70% Energy efficiency of gaseous hydrogen production at refueling stations, NG as feedstock 77% 79% Energy efficiency of hydrogen compression at refueling stations: NG compressors 90% 90% Energy efficiency of hydrogen compression at refueling stations: electric compressors 70% 72% Energy efficiency of gaseous hydrogen production (for Liquid hydrogen), flared gas as feedstock, without steam or electricity export 70% 72% Energy efficiency of gaseous hydrogen production (for Liquid hydrogen), flared gas as feedstock, with steam or electricity export 0% 0% Steam export credit from gaseous hydrogen plants (for liquid hydrogen), flared gas as feedstock: Btu per mmBtu of gaseous hydrogen produced 65% 70% Energy efficiency of hydrogen liquefaction, natural gas as feedstock 63% 65% Energy efficiency of hydrogen liquefaction, flared gas as feedstock 100% 85% Energy use intensity for manufacturing agricultural chemicals, % of near-term intensity 100% 90% Energy use intensity for corn and soybean farming, % of near-term intensity 100% 90% Chemical use intensity for corn and soybean farming, % of near-term intensity 100% 90% Energy use intensity for biodiesel production, % of near-term intensity 100% 90% Energy use intensity of ethanol plants (for both corn and cellulosic plants), % of near-term intensity
248 10. Fuel Economy and Emission Rates of Baseline Vehicles: gasoline-equivalent MPG and grams/mile
Gasoline Car Gasoline LDT1 Gasoline LDT2 Diesel Car Diesel LDT1 Diesel LDT2 10.1) Near-Term Baseline Vehicles Gas. Equiv. MPG 22.40 16.80 15.56 30.2 22.7 21.0 Exh. VOC 0.080 0.091 0.150 0.080 0.091 0.540 Evap. VOC 0.127 0.107 0.156 0.000 0.000 0.000 CO 5.517 8.247 1.000 1.070 1.139 1.208 NOx 0.275 0.381 0.100 0.600 0.600 1.224 Exh. PM10 0.012 0.015 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.109 BTW PM10 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 CH4 0.084 0.090 0.090 0.011 0.014 0.017 N2O 0.028 0.033 0.040 0.016 0.024 0.032 10.2) Long-Term Baseline Vehicles Gas. Equiv. MPG 24.00 18.00 15.40 36.0 27.0 23.1 Exh. VOC 0.062 0.062 0.080 0.049 0.080 0.112 Evap. VOC 0.063 0.063 0.078 0.000 0.000 0.000 CO 2.759 2.759 5.518 2.759 5.518 5.518 NOx 0.036 0.036 0.135 0.063 0.135 0.180 Exh. PM10 0.010 0.010 0.020 0.010 0.020 0.020 BTW PM10 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 CH4 0.065 0.065 0.091 0.011 0.014 0.017 N2O 0.028 0.033 0.040 0.016 0.024 0.032 11. Fuel Economy and Emission Changes by Alternative-Fueled and Advanced Vehicle Technologies 11.1) Near-Term Passenger Car and LDT1 Technologies: SI AFVs Relative to GVs Fueled with CG, and CIDI AFVs Relative to CIDI Vehicles Fueled with CD
SIDI HEVs: Grid Operation Grid-Connected SIDI HEVs: CARFG2 ICE Grid- Independent SIDI HEVs: FRFG2 Conventional Conventional Gasoline Vehicle: FRFG2 Conventional Gasoline Vehicle: CARFG2 vehicle: CIDI conventional diesel Bi-fuel CNGV on CNG CNGV Dedicated Dedicated LPGV FFV MeOH EtOH FFV Vehicle Electric Grid-Connected
MPG (CG equivalent gallon) 100.0% 100.0% 135.0% 90.0% 93.0% 100.0% 105.0% 105.0% 300.0% 300.0% 180.0% 190.0% VOC: exhaust 90.0% 90.0% 60.0% 40.0% 80.0% 85.0% 85.0% 0.0% 0.0% 90.0% 90.0% VOC: evaporative 70.0% 70.0% 50.0% 10.0% 10.0% 85.0% 85.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 60.0% CO 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 75.0% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 80.0% 80.0% NOx 95.0% 95.0% 100.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% PM: exhaust 95.0% 95.0% 10.0% 5.0% 10.0% 40.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 120.0% 120.0% PM: brake and tire 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CH4 92.0% 92.0% 1000.0% 1000.0% 130.0% 50.0% 150.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% N2O 100.0% 100.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
249 11.2) Near-term LDT2 Technologies: SI AFVs Relative to GVs Fueled with CG, and CIDI AFVs Relative to CIDI vehicles Fueled with CD Conventional Conventional Gasoline Vehicle: FRFG2 Conventional Gasoline Vehicle: CARFG2 vehicle: CIDI conventional diesel Bi-fuel CNGV on CNG CNGV Dedicated LPGV Dedicated FFV MeOH EtOH FFV Vehicle Electric Grid-connected SIDI HEVs: Grid Operation Grid-connected SIDI HEVs: CARFG2 ICE Grid-independent SIDI HEVs: FRFG2
MPG (CG equivalent gallon) 100.0% 100.0% 135.0% 90.0% 93.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 300.0% 300.0% 180.0% 190.0% VOC: exhaust 90.0% 90.0% 50.0% 30.0% 70.0% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 75.0% VOC: evaporative 70.0% 70.0% 50.0% 10.0% 10.0% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 60.0% CO 80.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 75.0% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 75.0% NOx 95.0% 95.0% 100.0% 100.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 0.0% 0.0% 85.0% 85.0% PM: exhaust 95.0% 95.0% 10.0% 5.0% 10.0% 40.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 120.0% 120.0% PM: brake and tire 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CH4 92.0% 92.0% 1000.0% 1000.0% 130.0% 50.0% 150.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% N2O 100.0% 100.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11.3) Long-Term Passenger Car and LDT1 Technologies: SI AFVs Relative to GVs Fueled with RFG, and CIDI AFVs Relative to CIDI Vehicles with RFD Dedicated Dedicated CNGV Dedicated LNGV Dedicated LPGV MeOH Dedi. Vehicle EtOH Dedi. Vehicle SIDI Vehicle: Phase Federal 2 RFG SIDI Vehicle: California 2 RFG Phase SIDI Dedi. Vehicle MeOH SIDI Dedi. EtOH Vehicle CIDI Vehicle: Reformulated Diesel CIDI Vehicle: Dimethyl Ether CIDI Vehicle: FT Diesel
MPG (RFG equivalent gallon) 105.0% 105.0% 110.0% 110.0% 110.0% 125.0% 125.0% 125.0% 125.0% 150.0% 150.0% 150.0% VOC: exhaust 90.0% 90.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 100.0% VOC: evaporative 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% CO 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% NOx 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% PM: exhaust 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 60.0% 140.0% 140.0% 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 80.0% PM: brake and tire 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CH4 500.0% 500.0% 110.0% 50.0% 150.0% 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 150.0% 200.0% 100.0% N2O 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11.4) Long-Term LDT2 Technologies: SI AFVs Relative to GVs Fueled with RFG, and CIDI AFVs Relative to CIDI Vehicles Fueled with RFD
Vehicle CIDI Vehicle: Reformulated Diesel CIDI Vehicle: Dimethyl Ether CIDI Vehicle: FT Diesel Dedicated Dedicated CNGV Dedicated LNGV Dedicated LPGV MeOH Dedi. Vehicle EtOH Dedi. Vehicle SIDI Vehicle: Phase Federal 2 RFG SIDI Vehicle: California 2 RFG Phase SIDI Dedi. Vehicle MeOH SIDI Dedi. EtOH
MPG (RFG equivalent gallon) 100.0% 100.0% 105.0% 105.0% 105.0% 125.0% 125.0% 125.0% 125.0% 150.0% 150.0% 150.0% VOC: exhaust 80.0% 80.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 100.0%
250 VOC: evaporative 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 100.0% 100.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% CO 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% NOx 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% PM: exhaust 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 60.0% 140.0% 140.0% 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 85.0% PM: brake and tire 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CH4 500.0% 500.0% 110.0% 50.0% 150.0% 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 150.0% 200.0% 100.0% N2O 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
251 APPENDIX H - Determination of 1990 Fleet Vehicle Mileage
STEP 1 - Determine 1989 and 1991 vehicle mileage by category from given information
1. Determine 1989 and 1991 allocation of diesel vs. gasoline trucks from 2000 data
Given information: 1989 Total Cars 296 1989 Total Trucks 332 1991 Total Cars 341 1991 Total Trucks 353 1991 Total Car & Truck Miles 3,966,148
2000 Vehicle Fleet Quantity Percent of total Trucks (gas) 407 90.50% Trucks (diesel) 39 9.50%
Use same allocation for 1989 and 1991 trucks 1989 Assumption: Total trucks = 332 x 0.905 = 300 gas trucks Total trucks = 332 x 0.095 = 32 diesel trucks Ratio of gasoline to diesel trucks remained the same 1991 from 1990 to 2000 319 gas trucks 34 diesel trucks 2. Allocate 1989 and 1991 car & truck mileage using 2000 percentages 2000 Quantity Total Mileage % of total mileage Buses (diesel) 53 1123664 miles per bus = 21,201 Trucks (gas) 407 2849072 42.03% % of cars+trucks Trucks (diesel) 39 178652 2.64% % of cars+trucks Cars (gas) 482 3665142 54.07% % of cars+trucks Cars (ethanol) 11 86128.5 1.27% % of cars+trucks Total 7,902,658 100.00% 1991 Assumption: Total mileage of cars+trucks = 3,966,148 For bus mileage, the Quantity Total Mileage average miles traveled Buses (diesel) 40 848,048 miles per bus = 21,201 per bus was assumed to Trucks (gas) 319 1,666,890 42.03% of cars+trucks miles per truck (gas)= 5,218 remain the same (based Trucks (diesel) 34 104,523 2.64% of cars+trucks miles per truck (diesel)= 3,117 on comparison of 1990 Cars (gas) 341 2,194,735 55.34% of cars+trucks miles per car = 6,436 and 2000 bus routes) Total 4,814,196
252
2a. For 1989 use same average miles per vehicle type as 1991 1989 Quantity Total Mileage Buses (diesel) 34 720,841 miles per bus = 21,201 Trucks (gas) 300 1,565,327 miles per truck (gas)= 5,218 Trucks (diesel) 32 99,739 miles per truck (diesel)= 3,117 Cars (gas) 296 1,905,107 miles per car = 6,436 Total 4,291,013
3. Take average of 1989 and 1991 years to determine 1990 mileage 1990 Total avg (91 and 89) mileage 4,552,605 By type Buses (diesel) 784445 Trucks (gas) 1616109 Trucks (diesel) 102131 Cars (gas) 2049921
STEP 2 - Determine average age of 1990 fleet and derive fuel economy for average vehicle Average age in years Buses (diesel) used 2000 information Assumption: Trucks (gas) 5 Trucks (diesel) 5 Average age of Cars (gas) 3.5 vehicle(except buses) the same in 1990 and Fuel Economy 2000 Buses (diesel) used 2000 information Trucks (gas) 14.15 Taken from Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Trucks (diesel) 9.83 Passenger Cars, Cars (gas) 17.4 www.bts.gov/ntda/nts /NTS99/data/Chapter4
Taken from allocation of 3.8% fleet as heavy gas Derived from extrapolated curve fits for and the rest (96.2%) diesel trucks according to weight class allocated as other 2 axle allocation of Year 2000 UM fleet four tire vehicles from 1985 using Browning study (took weight class Average Fuel Efficiency of distribution as the same for 1985 vs. 2000) U.S. Passenger Cars, derived 1985 fuel economy from www.bts.gov/ntda/nts/NTS extrapolation of Mobile6 fuel economies by 99/data/Chapter4/4- weight class and then took average value. 23 h l
253 STEP 3 - Input fuel economy data into GREET 1.5 Model to determine energy consumption per mile and multiple results by mileage from Step 1 Total energy Fossil fuels Petroleum 1990 Energy Totals Btu Btu Btu Bus 1.41E+11 1.39E+11 1.28E+11 Car 1.71E+10 1.70E+10 1.49E+10 truck (gas) 1.66E+10 1.64E+10 1.45E+10 truck diesel 1.43E+09 1.42E+09 1.30E+09 truck diesel 1.43E+09 1.42E+09 1.30E+09
254 APPENDIX I - Water Use
change change change from 1990- from 1995 change from change from change from change from from 1998 FY Units 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1995 to 1996 1996 to 1997 1997 to 1998 1998 to 1999 1999 to 2000 to 2000
Total Water Use for Project scope CCU 1388885 1653818 1572821 1385925 1350007 1412214 1591818 19.0752294 -4.8975764 -11.8828525 -2.59162653 4.607902033 12.7179025 17.911833
Power Plants and Auxiliary Buildings CCU 252795 178184.544 179541.54 165816.576 166122.652 202367.591 198987.45 -29.514214 0.76156803 -7.64445088 0.18458718 21.81818006 -1.67029966 19.7834514
Real total with PP and Auxiliary Units CCU 1641680 1832003 1752363 1551742 1516130 1614582 1790805.4 11.5931572 -4.3471557 -11.4485993 -2.29496486 6.493635894 10.9145215 18.1169067 in gallons gallons 1.228E+09 1370433167 1310858303 1160783389 1134143818 1207790988 1.34E+09 11.5931572 -4.3471557 -11.4485993 -2.29496486 6.493635894 10.9145215 18.1169067 gallons per day gallons/day 3364553.4 3744352.92 3591392.61 3180228.46 3107243.34 3299975.38 3670179.7 11.2882579 -4.0850931 -11.4485993 -2.29496486 6.202669676 11.2183969 18.1169067 in liters Liters 464923.78 518823.12 496269.071 439453.214 429367.917 457249.507 507156.1 11.5931572 -4.3471557 -11.4485993 -2.29496486 6.493635894 10.9145215 18.1169067
Total Building Area for Project scope sq feet 21885961 24784127 25268193 25900680 26134059 26274115 26298312 13.2421236 1.95312911 2.503095492 0.90105356 0.53591369 0.09209444 0.62850168 volume in ccu per sq ft per sq ft 0.0750106 0.07391838 0.06935053 0.05991123 0.05801355 0.06145142 0.0680958 -1.4561422 -6.1795895 -13.6109985 -3.16747775 5.925964151 10.8124694 17.3791766 Gal/sq ft Volume in building gallons per sq spaceper ft day 56.111861 55.2947928 51.8778016 44.8167148 43.3971553 45.9688552 50.939224 -1.4561422 -6.1795895 -13.6109985 -3.16747775 5.925964151 10.8124694 17.3791766 gallons per sq gal/sq ft per day ft/day 0.1537311 0.15107867 0.14213096 0.12278552 0.11889632 0.12559797 0.1395595 L/sq ft Volume in building liters per sq ft space 0.021243 0.02093369 0.01964007 0.01696686 0.01642944 0.01740304 0.0192847 -1.4561422 -6.1795895 -13.6109985 -3.16747775 5.925964151 10.8124694 17.3791766 Students, University faculty and population staff 57629 60090 58052 58737 60111 62190 62750 4.27041941 -3.3915793 1.179976573 2.33924102 3.458601587 0.90046631 4.39021144
255 Volume in ccu per capita per capita 28.487046 30.4876443 30.1860839 26.4184684 25.2221665 25.9620774 28.538732 7.0228334 -0.9891233 -12.4812994 -4.52827853 2.933573681 9.92468672 13.1494084 gallons per gal/capita capita per day 21309.792 22806.3433 22580.7604 19762.3881 18867.4921 19420.9839 21348.456 7.0228334 -0.9891233 -12.4812994 -4.52827853 2.933573681 9.92468672 13.1494084 gallons per capita per gal/capita day per day 58.382992 62.3124133 61.865097 54.143529 51.6917592 53.0627975 58.48892 6.73042128 -0.7178607 -12.4812994 -4.52827853 2.652334409 10.2258502 13.1494084 liters per capita 8.0675316 8.63410086 8.54869895 7.48171024 7.14291756 7.35246031 8.082169 7.0228334 -0.9891233 -12.4812994 -4.52827853 2.933573681 9.92468672 13.1494084 Research research dollars dollars 286082483 409235763 441294540 458478301 491472206 499673610 545418036 43.0481722 7.83381608 3.893943714 7.19639401 1.668742179 9.15486131 10.9763745 Volume in ccu per ccu per research research dollars dollars 0.0057385 0.00447664 0.00397096 0.00338455 0.00308487 0.00323127 0.0032834 -21.989107 -11.296059 -14.7675047 -8.85417738 4.745700214 1.61207679 6.43428134
Gallons per research gal/research dollars $ per day 4.2926851 3.34876199 2.97048385 2.53181751 2.30764589 2.41715985 2.4561263 -21.989107 -11.296059 -14.7675047 -8.85417738 4.745700214 1.61207679 6.43428134 gallons per research dollar per gal/research day $ 0.0117608 0.00914962 0.00813831 0.00693649 0.00632232 0.00660426 0.0067291 -22.202251 -11.053035 -14.7675047 -8.85417738 4.459509776 1.89046604 -330043.19 Liters per research L/research dollars $ 0.0016251 0.00126779 0.00112458 0.0009585 0.00087364 0.0009151 0.0009298 -21.989107 -11.296059 -14.7675047 -8.85417738 4.745700214 1.61207679 6.43428134
256 APPENDIX J - Regional Water Use in 1995 United Great Scale/Region States Lakes Michigan Population 267,068 21,836 9,549 Per capita (gal/d) 1,280 1,500 1,260 Groundwater (Mgal) Fresh 76,400 1,510 858 Saline 1,110 4.6 4.4 Total 77,500 1,520 862 Surface water Fresh 264,000 31,100 11,200 Saline 59,700 6.5 0 Total 324,000 31,100 11,200 Total Fresh 341,000 32,700 12,100 Saline 60,800 11 4.4 (Mgal) Total 402,000 32,700 12,100 Reclaimed waste water 1,020 0 0 Conveyance losses 25,300 0.1 0 Consumptive use 100,000 1,580 667
Public Supply 40,200 4,420 1,300 Commercial 3,390 355 194 Irrigation 2,890 152 41 Livestock 134,000 315 227 Industrial Fresh 5,490 70 14 Saline 20,700 4,170 1,850 Mining Fresh 2,560 3.6 3.6 Saline 1,210 390 58 Thermoelectric Fresh 132,000 7.6 0.8 Saline 57,900 22,800 8,370 Total Fresh 341,000 32,700 12,100 Saline 60,800 11 4.4
257 APPENDIX K : Materials Consumed - Estimated Total Paper Use
Assumptions Units Notes 1 gram = 0.00220462 lbs
Weight of 500 sheets of 8.5x11" 20# bond (in l 5 lbs Assuming basic size of 17x22 (From International Paper's Paper Calculator, www.ipconverting.com) Weight of 500 sheets of 8.5x11" 24# bond (in l 6 lbs Assuming basic size of 17x22 (From International Paper's Paper Calculator, www.ipconverting.com) Weight of 1 page (face) of the Daily 0.011 lbs Weighed on a Setra high-resolution counting scale Weight of 1 page (face) of the Record 0.007 lbs Weighed on a Setra high-resolution counting scale Weight of 1 page (face) of the Michigan Today 0.006 lbs Weighed on a Setra high-resolution counting scale
Recycled- Chlorine- content free paper, # Books Avg. Book Lbs. Paper paper, as % as % of Traditional Recycled U-M Press published per Weight Units used/yr of total total (20# bond) content Newsprint
Books 365,000 FY01 1.44 lbs 525,600 Assume 0% Assume 0% 525,600 0 0
Recycled- Chlorine- # Issues Avg. # pgs content free paper, Marketing printed per (faces) per Size of paper, as % as % of Traditional Recycled Communications year publication # Pgs per year page Lbs. Paper / Yr of total total (20# bond) content Newsprint
Fac/Staff Directory 26,000 500 13,000,000 8.5x11 46,644 Thinks 100% 46,644
Planning Guide 7,000 24 168,000 8.5x11 603 Thinks 100% 603
Total 47,247 - - 47,247
Chlorine- Printing Services (Paper # Sheets Recycled- free paper, Use in Addition to M- (8.5x11 20#) Lbs. Paper / content paper, as % of Traditional Recycled Stores Purchases) per year Yr as % of total total (20# bond) content Newsprint
Copy Centers 430,000 4,300 0% 0% 4,300 - 0
Printing 18,000,000 180,000 45% 10% 99,000 81,000 0
Recycled- # Issues Avg. # pgs content # Issues printed per (faces) per Lbs. Paper / paper, as % Traditional Recycled University newspapers printed per year publication # Pgs per year Yr of total (20# bond) content Newsprint day (5 days/wk, 30 Michigan Daily 18,000 wk/yr) 2,700,000 16 43,200,000 470,060 unknown 470,060 week (published 38 University Record 21,500 weeks per yr) 817,000 20 16,340,000 117,256 unknown 117,256 some, but couldn't Michigan Today 400,000 3x per year 1,200,000 24 28,800,000 161,801 guar. 161,801 Total 749,118 749,118 258 Assumptions for student use: Average # classes per semester per student: 5 Average # coursepacks + textbooks per class 1.5 Average # pages (not sides) of 8.5x11" paper per coursepack or text: 50 Assuming double-sided printing for coursepacks Average # pages (not sides) 8.5x11" notebook paper used / student / class: 50 # semesters (at full enrollment) per year 2.2 (Fall and Winter, plus limited summer enrollment) % of coursepacks, textbooks, and notebook paper containing recycled content: 10%
Equiv. # classes / # pgs / sheets paper # students student / coursepack # semesters / (8.5x11) Lbs of Traditional Recycled Student Use (FY 2000) semester # / class or textbook year used/yr paper used (20# bond) content Newsprint
Estimate: coursepacks and textbooks 38,103 5 1.5 50 2.2 31,434,975 314,350 282,915 31,435 -
Estimate: notebook paper 38,103 5 1 50 2.2 20,956,650 209,567 188,610 20,957 - Total 52,391,625 523,916 471,525 52,392
Notes for totals: Source Total campus community: 62,750 Registrar Calendar Year 2000 Additional M-Stores 20# M-Stores 20# Additional 20# 20# bond - bond - bond - recycled In lbs / bond - recycled traditional In lbs / capita content capita traditional In lbs / capita content In lbs / capita Newsprint In lbs / capita M-Stores 2,676,539 42.7 407,950 6.5 ------U-M Press - - - - 525,600 8.4 - - - - Marketing Communications ------47,247 0.8 Printing Services - - - - 103,300 1.6 81,000 1.3 - - Newspapers ------749,118 11.9 Student use - - - - 471,525 7.5 52,392 0.8 - - Total (estimate) 2,676,539 42.7 407,950 6.5 1,100,425 17.5 133,392 2.1 796,365 12.7
259 APPENDIX L : Materials Consumed - Paper Purchases Through M-Stores Assumptions Notes Weight of 500 sheets of 8.5x11" 20# bond (in lbs): 5 Assuming basic size of 17x22 (From International Paper's Paper Calculator, www.ipconverting.com) Weight of 500 sheets of 8.5x11" 24# bond (in lbs): 6 Assuming basic size of 17x22 (From International Paper's Paper Calculator, www.ipconverting.com)
1999 2000
Cal Yr 99 Cal Yr 99 Total Total weight % of Cal Yr 00 Total Description of each paper sold by M-Stores Paper type Item ID Qty units sheets (Lbs) total Qty units sheets Fort James Eureka 100, 100% recycled, chlorine free, 500 sheets/ream, 10 reams/case recycled, chlor ?????? 208 cases 1,041,959 10,420 0.4% 240 cases 1,200,000 Hammermill Great White, Copy Paper 30% recycled, 8.5 x 11" white 20# 500 sheet/ream, 10 reams/case recycled 290075 6,414 cases 32,070,000 320,700 11.1% 5,256 cases 26,280,000 Xerox Copy Paper, 30% recycled, 8.5 x 11", white, 20#, 500 sheets/ream, 10 reams/case recycled 290099 3,523 cases 17,615,000 176,150 6.1% 2,663 cases 13,315,000 Fox River Bond w/U of M watermark, 8.5 x 11", white, 20#, 500 sheets/ream - sold by the ream not case traditional 286825 4,179 reams 2,089,500 20,895 0.7% 2,491 reams 1,245,500 Hammermill Copy Paper, 8.5 x 11", white 20#, 500 sheets/ream, 10 reams/case. traditional 290300 16,154 cases 80,770,000 807,700 27.9% 20,082 cases 100,410,000 Hammermill Copy Paper, 11 x 17", white, 20#, 500 sheets/ream - sold by the ream not case traditional 290320 1,183 reams 591,500 5,915 0.2% 804 reams 402,000 Hammermill Copy Paper, 8.5 x 11", 3-hole punch, white, 20#, 500 sheets/ream, 10 reams/case traditional 290305 508 cases 2,540,000 25,400 0.9% 878 cases 4,390,000 Hammermill Copy Paper, 8.5 x 11", Express Pack, 20#, white, 2500 sheets/carton traditional 290310 603 cartons 1,507,500 15,075 0.5% 701 cartons 1,752,500 Hammermill Copy Paper, 8.5 x 14", white, 20#, 500 sheets/ream - sold by the ream not case traditional 290315 2,680 reams 1,340,000 13,400 0.5% 2,769 reams 1,384,500 Hammermill Laser Paper, 8.5 x 11", white, 24#, 500 sheets/ream - sold by the ream not case traditional 285985 5,355 reams 2,677,500 32,130 0.9% 5,680 reams 2,840,000
Paper Computer, 9.5 x 11" or 14 7/8 x 11", white, approx 3,220 sheets/case traditional ?????? 5,680 cases 18,289,600 182,896 6.3% 5,238 cases 16,866,360 Xerox Copy Paper, 8.5 x 11", 3-hole punch, white, 20#, 500 sheets/ream, 10 reams/case traditional 290087 884 cases 4,420,000 44,200 1.5% 961 cases 4,805,000 Xerox Copy Paper, 8.5 x 11", white, 20#, 500 sheets/ream, 10 reams/case traditional 290269 24,950 cases 124,750,000 1,247,500 43.1% 26,598 cases 132,990,000 Total 289,702,559 2,902,381 100.0% 307,880,860
In Lbs 1999 2000 2001 Paper type Lbs % of total Lbs % of total Lbs % of total Total chlorine free and recycled content 10,420 0.36% 12,000 0.39% 12,050 0.40% Total recycled content 496,850 17.12% 395,950 12.84% 385,450 12.68% Total traditional 2,395,111 82.52% 2,676,539 86.77% 2,641,949 86.92% Total 2,902,381 100.00% 3,084,489 100.00% 3,039,449 100.00%
1999 2000 2001 Notes Total campus community: 62,190 62,750 63,315 Estimated in 2001
In Lbs / Capita Paper type 1999 2000 2001 Per cap chlorine free and recycled content 0.168 0.191 0.190 Per cap recycled content 7.989 6.310 6.088 Per cap traditional 38.513 42.654 41.727 Total 46.67 49.16 48.01
260 APPENDIX M : Materials Consumed - Summary of Total Pesticide Applications
Grounds - Grounds - Athletics - Athletics - Radrick - Radrick - Blue - Matthei - Matthei - Toxicity - 2000 Liquid Solid Liquid Solid Liquid Solid Liquid Blue - Solid Arb - Liquid Arb - Solid Liquid Solid Total - Toxicity 1 19.00 0.00 18.24 0.00 2.05 820.00 18.03 187.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total - Toxicity 2 7.90 1275.00 0.00 0.00 83.46 7.75 20.28 75.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total - Toxicity 3 20.12 4050.00 15.33 0.00 35.86 6538.90 10.06 137.62 3.36 0.00 0.43 0.00 Total - Toxicity 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total - Unknown 0.00 10.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 5.50 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 47.02 5335.00 37.08 121.37 7372.15 49.40 401.08 3.36 0.00 0.43 0.00
Grounds - Grounds - Athletics - Athletics - Radrick - Radrick - Blue - Matthei - Matthei - PAN Bad Actor - 2000 Liquid Solid Liquid Solid Liquid Solid Liquid Blue - Solid Arb - Liquid Arb - Solid Liquid Solid Total PAN Bad Actor 26.91 1285.00 33.16 0.00 71.41 1080.75 37.09 401.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Non-PAN Bad Actor 20.12 4050.00 0.40 0.00 49.96 6291.40 11.28 0.00 3.36 0.00 0.43 0.00 Total Unknown 0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 47.02 5335.00 37.08 121.37 7372.15 49.40 401.08 3.36 0.00 0.43 0.00
Grounds - Grounds - Athletics - Athletics - Radrick - Radrick - Blue - Matthei - Matthei - Toxicity - 2001 Liquid Solid Liquid Solid Liquid Solid Liquid Blue - Solid Arb - Liquid Arb - Solid Liquid Solid Total - Toxicity 1 10.50 0.00 8.63 0.00 25.92 20.00 57.36 28.80 0.00 0.00 2.60 0.00 Total - Toxicity 2 7.90 255.00 0.00 0.00 110.94 248.00 46.87 13.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total - Toxicity 3 35.83 585.00 12.00 0.00 69.62 6418.40 132.41 247.32 5.02 80.00 0.46 0.00 Total - Toxicity 4 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total - Unknown 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 182.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 55.37 840.00 20.63 206.47 6686.40 419.37 289.91 5.02 80.00 3.06
Grounds - Grounds - Athletics - Athletics - Radrick - Radrick - Blue - Matthei - Matthei - PAN Bad Actor - 2001 Liquid Solid Liquid Solid Liquid Solid Liquid Blue - Solid Arb - Liquid Arb - Solid Liquid Solid Total PAN Bad Actor 33.91 255.00 10.98 0.00 185.61 447.00 107.18 289.91 0.00 0.00 2.60 0.00 Total Non-PAN Bad Actor 20.33 585.00 9.66 0.00 20.86 6239.40 129.45 0.00 5.02 80.00 0.46 0.00 Total Unknown 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 182.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 55.37 840.00 20.63 206.47 6686.40 419.37 289.91 5.02 80.00 3.06
Total 2000 Total 2001 % increase Liquid 258.66 709.92 174% Solid 13,108.23 7,896.31 -40%
261 APPENDIX M-1 : Materials Consumed - Pesticide Applications – Grounds Conversions 1 pint = 0.125 gallons 1 gallon = 128 ounces 1 gallon = 16 cups 1 gallon = 4 quarts 1 gallon = 768 tsp 1 gallon = 256 TBSP
Notes: Used 2 oz/gal (1.6%) rate for Roundup if not specified, per Marvin Pettway
Total EPA pesticide - Total Toxicity PAN Bad Tot Liquid (in pesticide - Site / Dept Date Chemical Ranking Actor carrier Units Rate gallons) Solid (in Lbs) Notes Totals - 2000 By EPA Toxicity Ranking
Estimated or Some data was not available for 2000. In those cases, 2001 totals were multiplied by a conversio 100% Actual Totals
Turf 2000 Millenium Ultra 1 Yes 124 pints n/a 15.50 Turf Triplet 1 Yes 28 pints n/a 3.50 Grounds - Forestry (2001 figure) Banner Max 2 Yes n/a gallons n/a 7.90 Pres Res 2000 Daconil 2 Yes 1 gallons 0.2% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Enstar 2 No 1 gallons 0.1% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Enstar 2 No 1 gallons 0.1% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Enstar 2 No 1 gallons 0.1% 0.00 Turf Dylox 2 Yes 1275 lbs n/a n/a 1,275 CC Diag 2000 Round-up 3 No 120 oz n/a 0.94 Grounds - D.S. (2001 figure) Bio-Neem 3 No n/a tbsp n/a 0.00 Grounds - D.S. (2001 figure) Roundup 3 No n/a gallons n/a 0.50 Grounds - Forestry (2001 figure) Arbotect 3 No n/a gallons n/a 10.20 Grounds - Forestry (2001 figure) Conserve 3 No n/a gallons n/a 0.25 Grounds - L.H. (2001 figure) Roundup 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Grounds - S.C (2001 figure) Roundup 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13
262 Inglis House (2001 figure) Banner Max 3 No gallons n/a 0.01 Inglis House (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 2.3% 0.09 Inglis House (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 2.1% 0.09 Inglis House (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 2.3% 0.09 Inglis House (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 2.3% 0.07 Inglis House (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 2.3% 0.05 Inglis House (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 2.3% 0.05 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 7 gallons 1.6% 0.11 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 7 gallons 1.6% 0.11 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 0.75 gallons 1.6% 0.01 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 0.5 gallons 1.6% 0.01 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 10 gallons 1.6% 0.16 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 1.75 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08
263 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Roundup 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Roundup 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Roundup 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 3.5% 0.18 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 3.5% 0.11 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 4.0% 0.12 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 4.0% 0.20 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 4.0% 0.32 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 36 gallons 1.6% 0.56 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 1 gallons 1.6% 0.02 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05
264 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 7 gallons 3.1% 0.22 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 3 gallons 3.1% 0.09 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 4 gallons 3.1% 0.13 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 6 gallons 3.1% 0.19 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 2 gallons 3.1% 0.06 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 4 gallons 3.1% 0.13 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 4 gallons 3.1% 0.13 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 6 gallons 3.1% 0.19 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 7 gallons 3.1% 0.22 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 2 gallons 3.1% 0.06 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 3.1% 0.16 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 3.1% 0.16 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 3.1% 0.16 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 4 gallons 3.1% 0.13 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 6 gallons 3.1% 0.19 Pres Res 2000 Mavrik 3 Yes 1 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Mavrik 3 Yes 1 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Mavrik 3 Yes 1 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Mavrik 3 Yes 1 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Mavrik 3 Yes 0.5 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Mavrik 3 Yes 0.25 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Mavrik 3 Yes 0.5 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Round-up 3 No 3 gallons 3.1% 0.09 Pres Res 2000 Round-up 3 No 1 gallons 3.1% 0.03 Pres Res 2000 Round-up 3 No 3 gallons 3.1% 0.09 Pres Res 2000 Round-up 3 No 0.25 gallons 2.0% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Round-up 3 No 0.25 gallons 2.0% 0.00 Sun Spray Ultra- Fine Horticultural Pres Res 2000 Oil 3 No 0.5 gallons 1.2% 0.01 Sun Spray Ultra- Fine Horticultural Pres Res 2000 Oil 3 No 1 gallons 1.6% 0.02 Sun Spray Ultra- Fine Horticultural Pres Res 2000 Oil 3 No 1 gallons 1.6% 0.02 Turf Mach 2 3 No 450 lbs n/a n/a 450 Turf Merit 3 No 3600 lbs n/a n/a 3,600 Inglis House (2001 figure) Talstar ? Yes 1.5 gallons 0.2% 0.00
265 Pres Res 2000 Talstar ?Yes 10 lbs n/a n/a 10
Total 47.02 5,335.00 - Quantity estimated (% of total) - gallons 50.7% - Quantity estimated (% of total) - pounds 0.0%
Toxicity - 2000: Toxicity - 2000: Liquid Solid Total - Toxicity 1 19.00 Total - Toxicity 1 0.00 Total - Toxicity 2 7.90 Total - Toxicity 2 1275.00 Total - Toxicity 3 20.12 Total - Toxicity 3 4050.00 Total - Toxicity 4 0 Total - Toxicity 4 0 Total - Unknown 0.00 Total - Unknown 10.00 Gallons 47.02 Pounds 5335.00
Totals - 2000 By PAN Bad Actor Ranking Turf 2000 Millenium Ultra 1 Yes 124 pints n/a 15.50 Turf Triplet 1 Yes 28 pints n/a 3.50 Pres Res 2000 Daconil 2 Yes 1 gallons 0.2% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Mavrik 3 Yes 1 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Mavrik 3 Yes 1 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Mavrik 3 Yes 1 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Mavrik 3 Yes 1 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Mavrik 3 Yes 0.5 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Mavrik 3 Yes 0.25 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Mavrik 3 Yes 0.5 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Turf Dylox 2 Yes 1275 lbs n/a n/a 1,275 Inglis House (2001 figure) Talstar ? Yes 1.5 gallons 0.2% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Talstar ?Yes 10 lbs n/a n/a 10 Grounds - Forestry (2001 figure) Banner Max 2 Yes n/a gallons n/a 7.90 Pres Res 2000 Enstar 2 No 1 gallons 0.1% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Enstar 2 No 1 gallons 0.1% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Enstar 2 No 1 gallons 0.1% 0.00 CC Diag 2000 Round-up 3 No 120 oz n/a 0.94 Grounds - D.S. (2001 figure) Bio-Neem 3 No n/a tbsp n/a 0.00 Grounds - D.S. (2001 figure) Roundup 3 No n/a gallons n/a 0.50
266 Grounds - Forestry (2001 figure) Arbotect 3 No n/a gallons n/a 10.20 Grounds - Forestry (2001 figure) Conserve 3 No n/a gallons n/a 0.25 Grounds - L.H. (2001 figure) Roundup 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Grounds - S.C (2001 figure) Roundup 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Inglis House (2001 figure) Banner Max 3 No gallons n/a 0.01 Inglis House (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 2.3% 0.09 Inglis House (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 2.1% 0.09 Inglis House (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 2.3% 0.09 Inglis House (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 2.3% 0.07 Inglis House (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 2.3% 0.05 Inglis House (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 2.3% 0.05 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 7 gallons 1.6% 0.11 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 7 gallons 1.6% 0.11 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 0.75 gallons 1.6% 0.01 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 0.5 gallons 1.6% 0.01 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 10 gallons 1.6% 0.16 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 1.75 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08
267 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 Medical Campus (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 N. Campus 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Roundup 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Roundup 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Roundup 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 3.5% 0.18 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 3.5% 0.11 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 4.0% 0.12 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 4.0% 0.20 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 4.0% 0.32
268 N. Campus - June applications (2001 figure) Round-Up Pro 3 No 36 gallons 1.6% 0.56 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 1 gallons 1.6% 0.02 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 7 gallons 3.1% 0.22 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 3 gallons 3.1% 0.09 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 4 gallons 3.1% 0.13 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 6 gallons 3.1% 0.19 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 2 gallons 3.1% 0.06 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 4 gallons 3.1% 0.13 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 4 gallons 3.1% 0.13 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 6 gallons 3.1% 0.19 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 7 gallons 3.1% 0.22 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 2 gallons 3.1% 0.06 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 3.1% 0.16 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 3.1% 0.16 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 5 gallons 3.1% 0.16 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 4 gallons 3.1% 0.13 N. of N. University 2000 Round-up 3 No 6 gallons 3.1% 0.19 Pres Res 2000 Round-up 3 No 3 gallons 3.1% 0.09 Pres Res 2000 Round-up 3 No 1 gallons 3.1% 0.03 Pres Res 2000 Round-up 3 No 3 gallons 3.1% 0.09 Pres Res 2000 Round-up 3 No 0.25 gallons 2.0% 0.00 Pres Res 2000 Round-up 3 No 0.25 gallons 2.0% 0.00 Sun Spray Ultra- Fine Horticultural Pres Res 2000 Oil 3 No 0.5 gallons 1.2% 0.01 Sun Spray Ultra- Fine Horticultural Pres Res 2000 Oil 3 No 1 gallons 1.6% 0.02 Sun Spray Ultra- Fine Horticultural Pres Res 2000 Oil 3 No 1 gallons 1.6% 0.02 Turf Mach 2 3 No 450 lbs n/a n/a 450 Turf Merit 3 No 3600 lbs n/a n/a 3,600 47.02 5335.00
269 PAN Bad Actor - PAN Bad Actor - 2000: Liquid 2000: Solid Total PAN Bad Total PAN Bad Acto 26.91 Actor 1285.00 Total Non-PAN Total Non-PAN Bad 20.12 Bad Actor 4050.00 Total Unknown - Total Unknown - Gallons 47.02 Pounds 5335.00
Totals - 2001 By EPA Toxicity Ranking Turf 2001 Millenium Ultra 1 Yes n/a gallons n/a 9.50 Turf 2001 Triplet 1 Yes n/a gallons n/a 1.00 Forestry 2001 Banner Max 2 Yes n/a gallons n/a 7.90 Turf 2001 Dylox 2 Yes n/a lbs n/a n/a 255 Presidential Residence 3/27/01 Enstar 2 No 0.5 gallons 0.1% 0.00 Presidential Residence 4/3/01 Enstar 2 No 0.5 gallons 0.1% 0.00 Assumed Glyphos was Round-Up and was applied in the rate of N. Campus 6/6/01 Glyphos 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 2oz/gal Assumed Glyphos was Round-Up and was applied in the rate of N. Campus 6/7/01 Glyphos 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 2oz/gal Assumed Glyphos was Round-Up and was applied in the rate of N. Campus 6/8/01 Glyphos 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 2oz/gal N. Campus 6/8/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 3.5% 0.11 N. Campus 6/7/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 3.5% 0.18 N. Campus 6/10/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 N. Campus 6/12/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 N. Campus 6/13/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 N. Campus 6/14/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 N. Campus 6/15/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 4.0% 0.12 N. Campus 6/19/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 N. Campus 6/20/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 4.0% 0.20 N. Campus 6/23/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. Campus 6/25/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 4.0% 0.32
270 N. Campus 6/26/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 36 gallons 1.6% 0.56 N. Campus 6/27/02 Round-Up Pro 3 No 11 gallons 4.0% 0.44 N. Campus 7/9/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 12 gallons 1.6% 0.19 N. Campus 7/10/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 N. Campus 7/13/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 Assumed a total carrier amt of 5 gallons (same as previous N. Campus 7/17/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 4.0% 0.20 application) N. Campus 7/16/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 4.0% 0.12 N. Campus 7/18/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 1.5 gallons 4.0% 0.06 N. Campus 7/18/01 Fusilade 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Assumed a rate of 2oz/gallon N. Campus 7/19/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2.5 gallons 1.6% 0.04 N. Campus 7/24/02 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2.5 gallons 1.6% 0.04 Assumed a total carrier amt of 5 gallons (same as previous N. Campus 7/25/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 application) Assumed a total carrier amt of 5 gallons (same as previous N. Campus 7/26/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 application) N. Campus 7/27/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 N. Campus 7/30/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 4.0% 0.24 N. Campus 7/30/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. Campus 8/21/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. Campus 9/5/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 4.0% 0.12 N. Campus 9/5/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 Medical Campus 5/17/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 7 gallons 1.6% 0.11 Medical Campus 6/14/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 7 gallons 1.6% 0.11 Medical Campus 6/22/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 Medical Campus 6/25/02 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 Medical Campus 6/25/02 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus 6/26/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus 6/26/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus 6/27/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus 7/5/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus 7/5/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus 7/6/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 Medical Campus 7/9/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus 7/9/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 0.75 gallons 1.6% 0.01 Medical Campus 7/11/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03
271 Medical Campus 7/17/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus 7/18/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus 7/23/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus 7/25/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus 7/30/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus 7/31/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus 7/30/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus 7/31/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus 8/1/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus 8/2/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 0.5 gallons 1.6% 0.01 Medical Campus 8/13/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus 8/21/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 10 gallons 1.6% 0.16 Medical Campus 8/27/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 1.75 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus 8/29/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 S.C 2001 Roundup 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 L.H. 2001 Roundup 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 D.S. 2001 Roundup 3 No 0.5 gallons 1.6% 0.01 Forestry 2001 Arbotect 3 No n/a gallons n/a 10.20 Turf 2001 Merit 3 No n/a lbs n/a n/a 315 Turf 2001 Mach 2 3 No n/a lbs n/a n/a 270 D.S. 2001 Bio-Neem 3 No n/a tbsp n/a 0.00 Forestry 2001 Dursban Pro 3 Yes n/a gallons n/a 15.50 Forestry 2001 Conserve 3 No n/a gallons n/a 0.25 Inglis House 4/30/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 2.3% 0.09 Inglis House 5/13/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 2.1% 0.09 Inglis House 6/29/01 Bio Neem 3 No 2 tbsp n/a 0.01 Inglis House 6/29/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 2.3% 0.09 Inglis House 7/20/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 2.3% 0.07 Inglis House 8/28/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 2.3% 0.05 Inglis House 10/31/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 2.3% 0.05 Presidential Residence 6/29/01 Hinder 3 No 0.75 gallons 3.1% 0.02 Presidential Residence 7/9/01 Hinder 3 No 0.25 gallons 3.1% 0.01 Presidential Residence 5/9/01 Hinder 3 No 1 gallons 3.1% 0.03 Presidential Residence 6/26/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 1 gallons 3.1% 0.03
272 Presidential Residence 3/27/01 Mavrik 3 Yes 0.5 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Presidential Residence 4/3/01 Mavrik 3 Yes 0.5 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Presidential Residence 3/10/01 Mavrik 3 Yes 0.5 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Presidential Residence 3/10/01 Mavrik 3 Yes 0.5 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Presidential Residence 3/18/01 Mavrik 3 Yes 1 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Sun Spray Ultra Presidential Fine Horticultural Residence 1/30/01 Oil 3 No 2 gallons 0.4% 0.01 Data for Aug - Dec. 2001 was Presidential missing, so following Pres. Res. Residence 8/1/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 1 gallons 3.1% 0.03 estimates are from 2000. Data for Aug - Dec. 2001 was Presidential missing, so following Pres. Res. Residence 8/3/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 3.1% 0.09 estimates are from 2000. N. of N. University 5/14/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 3.1% 0.16 N. of N. University 5/14/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 N. of N. University 5/25/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 2.0% 0.06 N. of N. University 5/29/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. of N. University 5/30/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 2.3% 0.14 N. of N. University 6/4/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 12 gallons 3.1% 0.38 N. of N. University 6/8/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 3.1% 0.19 N. of N. University 6/8/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 2.3% 0.12 N. of N. University 6/14/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 7 gallons 3.1% 0.22 N. of N. University 6/14/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 3.1% 0.19 N. of N. University 6/14/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 2.3% 0.12 N. of N. University 6/15/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 15 gallons 2.3% 0.35 N. of N. University 6/21/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 N. of N. University 6/21/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4.5 gallons 2.3% 0.11 N. of N. University 6/26/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 N. of N. University 6/26/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 N. of N. University 7/6/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No n/a gallons n/a 0.03 N. of N. University 7/23/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No n/a gallons n/a 0.02 N. of N. University 8/13/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No n/a gallons n/a 0.09 N. of N. University 8/21/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No n/a gallons n/a 0.02
273 Assumed applied amt. and rate since none given. Assumed same Inglis House 6/29/01 Talstar ? Yes 1.5 gallons 0.2% 0.00 as Pres. Res. Presidential Residence 6/28/01 Talstar ? Yes 1.5 gallons 0.2% 0.00 Presidential Residence 7/5/01 Talstar ? Yes 1.5 gallons 0.2% 0.00 Presidential Residence 3/18/01 Gnatrol ? ? 10 gallons 0.4% 0.04 Presidential Residence 3/10/01 Gnatrol ? ? 11 gallons 0.4% 0.04 Presidential Residence 1/7/01 Gnatrol ? ? 1 gallons 0.4% 0.00 Presidential Residence 1/30/01 Gnatrol ? ? 14 gallons 0.4% 0.05 Presidential Residence 1/30/01 Gnatrol ? ? 3 gallons 0.4% 0.01 Sprint 330 C.C. Diag 2001 Chelated Iron ?? ozn/a0.19 Advanced Presidential Garden Rose & Residence 6/26/01 Flower Care ? ? n/a oz n/a 0.78 Presidential Residence 3/27/01 Preclude (IGR) ? ? n/a gallons n/a 0.02 Total - 2001 55.37 840.00
Toxicity - 2001: Toxicity - 2001: Liquid Solid Total - Toxicity 1 10.50 Total - Toxicity 1 0.00 Total - Toxicity 2 7.90 Total - Toxicity 2 255.00 Total - Toxicity 3 35.83 Total - Toxicity 3 585.00 Total - Toxicity 4 0 Total - Toxicity 4 0 Total - Unknown 1.15 Total - Unknown 0.00 Gallons 55.37 Pounds 840.00
274 Total - 2001 By PAN Bad Actor Ranking Turf 2001 Millenium Ultra 1 Yes n/a gallons n/a 9.50 Turf 2001 Triplet 1 Yes n/a gallons n/a 1.00 Forestry 2001 Banner Max 2 Yes n/a gallons n/a 7.90 Turf 2001 Dylox 2 Yes n/a lbs n/a n/a 255 Forestry 2001 Dursban Pro 3 Yes n/a gallons n/a 15.50 Presidential Residence 3/27/01 Mavrik 3 Yes 0.5 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Presidential Residence 4/3/01 Mavrik 3 Yes 0.5 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Presidential Residence 3/10/01 Mavrik 3 Yes 0.5 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Presidential Residence 3/10/01 Mavrik 3 Yes 0.5 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Presidential Residence 3/18/01 Mavrik 3 Yes 1 gallons 0.03% 0.00 Assumed applied amt. and rate since none given. Assumed same Inglis House 6/29/01 Talstar ? Yes 1.5 gallons 0.2% 0.00 as Pres. Res. Presidential Residence 6/28/01 Talstar ? Yes 1.5 gallons 0.2% 0.00 Presidential Residence 7/5/01 Talstar ? Yes 1.5 gallons 0.2% 0.00 Presidential Residence 3/27/01 Enstar 2 No 0.5 gallons 0.1% 0.00 Presidential Residence 4/3/01 Enstar 2 No 0.5 gallons 0.1% 0.00 Assumed Glyphos was Round-Up and was applied in the rate of N. Campus 6/6/01 Glyphos 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 2oz/gal Assumed Glyphos was Round-Up and was applied in the rate of N. Campus 6/7/01 Glyphos 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 2oz/gal Assumed Glyphos was Round-Up and was applied in the rate of N. Campus 6/8/01 Glyphos 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 2oz/gal N. Campus 6/8/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 3.5% 0.11 N. Campus 6/7/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 3.5% 0.18 N. Campus 6/10/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 N. Campus 6/12/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13
275 N. Campus 6/13/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 N. Campus 6/14/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 N. Campus 6/15/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 4.0% 0.12 N. Campus 6/19/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 N. Campus 6/20/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 4.0% 0.20 N. Campus 6/23/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. Campus 6/25/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 4.0% 0.32 N. Campus 6/26/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 36 gallons 1.6% 0.56 N. Campus 6/27/02 Round-Up Pro 3 No 11 gallons 4.0% 0.44 N. Campus 7/9/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 12 gallons 1.6% 0.19 N. Campus 7/10/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 N. Campus 7/13/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 Assumed a total carrier amt of 5 gallons (same as previous N. Campus 7/17/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 4.0% 0.20 application) N. Campus 7/16/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 4.0% 0.12 N. Campus 7/18/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 1.5 gallons 4.0% 0.06 N. Campus 7/18/01 Fusilade 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Assumed a rate of 2oz/gallon N. Campus 7/19/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2.5 gallons 1.6% 0.04 N. Campus 7/24/02 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2.5 gallons 1.6% 0.04 Assumed a total carrier amt of 5 gallons (same as previous N. Campus 7/25/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 application) Assumed a total carrier amt of 5 gallons (same as previous N. Campus 7/26/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 application) N. Campus 7/27/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 N. Campus 7/30/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 4.0% 0.24 N. Campus 7/30/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. Campus 8/21/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. Campus 9/5/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 4.0% 0.12 N. Campus 9/5/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 Medical Campus 5/17/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 7 gallons 1.6% 0.11 Medical Campus 6/14/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 7 gallons 1.6% 0.11 Medical Campus 6/22/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 Medical Campus 6/25/02 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 Medical Campus 6/25/02 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus 6/26/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus 6/26/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06
276 Medical Campus 6/27/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus 7/5/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus 7/5/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus 7/6/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 Medical Campus 7/9/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus 7/9/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 0.75 gallons 1.6% 0.01 Medical Campus 7/11/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus 7/17/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus 7/18/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus 7/23/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus 7/25/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus 7/30/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus 7/31/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus 7/30/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus 7/31/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus 8/1/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 Medical Campus 8/2/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 0.5 gallons 1.6% 0.01 Medical Campus 8/13/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 Medical Campus 8/21/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 10 gallons 1.6% 0.16 Medical Campus 8/27/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 1.75 gallons 1.6% 0.03 Medical Campus 8/29/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 1.6% 0.08 S.C 2001 Roundup 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 L.H. 2001 Roundup 3 No 2 gallons 1.6% 0.03 D.S. 2001 Roundup 3 No 0.5 gallons 1.6% 0.01 Forestry 2001 Arbotect 3 No n/a gallons n/a 10.20 Turf 2001 Merit 3 No n/a lbs n/a n/a 315 Turf 2001 Mach 2 3 No n/a lbs n/a n/a 270 D.S. 2001 Bio-Neem 3 No n/a tbsp n/a 0.00 Forestry 2001 Conserve 3 No n/a gallons n/a 0.25 Inglis House 4/30/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 2.3% 0.09 Inglis House 5/13/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 2.1% 0.09 Inglis House 6/29/01 Bio Neem 3 No 2 tbsp n/a 0.01 Inglis House 6/29/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 2.3% 0.09 Inglis House 7/20/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 2.3% 0.07 Inglis House 8/28/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 2.3% 0.05 Inglis House 10/31/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 2 gallons 2.3% 0.05 Presidential Residence 6/29/01 Hinder 3 No 0.75 gallons 3.1% 0.02
277 Presidential Residence 7/9/01 Hinder 3 No 0.25 gallons 3.1% 0.01 Presidential Residence 5/9/01 Hinder 3 No 1 gallons 3.1% 0.03 Presidential Residence 6/26/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 1 gallons 3.1% 0.03 Sun Spray Ultra Presidential Fine Horticultural Residence 1/30/01 Oil 3 No 2 gallons 0.4% 0.01 Data for Aug - Dec. 2001 was Presidential missing, so following Pres. Res. Residence 8/1/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 1 gallons 3.1% 0.03 estimates are from 2000. Data for Aug - Dec. 2001 was Presidential missing, so following Pres. Res. Residence 8/3/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 3.1% 0.09 estimates are from 2000. N. of N. University 5/14/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 3.1% 0.16 N. of N. University 5/14/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4 gallons 1.6% 0.06 N. of N. University 5/25/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 2.0% 0.06 N. of N. University 5/29/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 3 gallons 1.6% 0.05 N. of N. University 5/30/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 2.3% 0.14 N. of N. University 6/4/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 12 gallons 3.1% 0.38 N. of N. University 6/8/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 3.1% 0.19 N. of N. University 6/8/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 2.3% 0.12 N. of N. University 6/14/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 7 gallons 3.1% 0.22 N. of N. University 6/14/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 3.1% 0.19 N. of N. University 6/14/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 5 gallons 2.3% 0.12 N. of N. University 6/15/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 15 gallons 2.3% 0.35 N. of N. University 6/21/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 6 gallons 1.6% 0.09 N. of N. University 6/21/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 4.5 gallons 2.3% 0.11 N. of N. University 6/26/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 N. of N. University 6/26/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No 8 gallons 1.6% 0.13 N. of N. University 7/6/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No n/a gallons n/a 0.03 N. of N. University 7/23/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No n/a gallons n/a 0.02 N. of N. University 8/13/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No n/a gallons n/a 0.09 N. of N. University 8/21/01 Round-Up Pro 3 No n/a gallons n/a 0.02 Presidential Residence 3/18/01 Gnatrol ? ? 10 gallons 0.4% 0.04 Presidential Residence 3/10/01 Gnatrol ? ? 11 gallons 0.4% 0.04
278 Presidential Residence 1/7/01 Gnatrol ? ? 1 gallons 0.4% 0.00 Presidential Residence 1/30/01 Gnatrol ? ? 14 gallons 0.4% 0.05 Presidential Residence 1/30/01 Gnatrol ? ? 3 gallons 0.4% 0.01 Sprint 330 C.C. Diag 2001 Chelated Iron ?? ozn/a0.19 Advanced Presidential Garden Rose & Residence 6/26/01 Flower Care ? ? n/a oz n/a 0.78 Presidential Residence 3/27/01 Preclude (IGR) ? ? n/a gallons n/a 0.02 Total 55.37 840.00
PAN Bad Actor - PAN Bad Actor - 2001: Liquid 2001: Liquid Total PAN Bad Total PAN Bad Acto 33.91 Actor 255.00 Total Non-PAN Total Non-PAN Bad 20.33 Bad Actor 585.00 Total Unknown 1 Total Unknown - Gallons 55.37 Pounds 840.00
279 APPENDIX M-2 : Materials Consumed - Pesticide Applications - Athletics (not including golf courses) Conversions 1 pint = 0.125 gallons 1 gallon = 128 ounces 1 acre = 44 thousand square feet
Area (in Rate Total 1000 sq Level of PAN Bad (oz/1000 Total Applied Site ft) Date Pesticide Hazard Actor sq ft) Applied Units (gallons) Notes
2000
Stadium 75 7/3/00 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes 3 225 oz 1.76 Stadium 75 7/27/00 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes 3 225 oz 1.76 Stadium 75 9/6/00 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes 3 225 oz 1.76 Practice Football 155.416 7/3/00 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes 3 466.248 oz 3.64 Practice Football 103.6107 9/12/00 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes 3 310.832 oz 2.43 Elbel & V. Soccer 176 7/23/00 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes 3 528 oz 4.13 Practice Football 310.832 5/14/00 Millenium 1 Yes 0.727273 226.05964 oz 1.77 Elbel & V. Soccer 176 5/14/00 Millenium 1 Yes 0.727273 128 oz 1.00 Stadium 75 7/3/00 Chipco 3 Yes 3 225 oz 1.76 Stadium 75 7/27/00 Chipco 3 Yes 3 225 oz 1.76 Practice Football 310.832 7/3/00 Chipco 3 Yes 3 932.496 oz 7.29 Elbel & V. Soccer 176 7/23/00 Chipco 3 Yes 3 528 oz 4.13 Stadium 75 6/12/00 Merit 3 No 0.145455 10.909091 oz 0.09 Practice Football 103.6107 7/3/00 Merit 3 No 0.145455 15.070642 oz 0.12 Elbel & V. Soccer 176 6/30/00 Merit 3 No 0.145455 25.6 oz 0.20 Stadium 75 9/6/00 Macrosorb ? ? 3 225 oz 1.76 Stadium 75 9/6/00 Quelant (CA) ? ? 3 225 oz 1.76
Total by Toxicity 37.08
Stadium 75 7/3/00 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes 3 225 oz 1.76 Stadium 75 7/27/00 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes 3 225 oz 1.76 Stadium 75 9/6/00 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes 3 225 oz 1.76 Practice Football 155.416 7/3/00 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes 3 466.248 oz 3.64 Practice Football 103.6107 9/12/00 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes 3 310.832 oz 2.43 Elbel & V. Soccer 176 7/23/00 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes 3 528 oz 4.13 Practice Football 310.832 5/14/00 Millenium 1 Yes 0.727273 226.05964 oz 1.77
280 Elbel & V. Soccer 176 5/14/00 Millenium 1 Yes 0.727273 128 oz 1.00 Stadium 75 7/3/00 Chipco 3 Yes 3 225 oz 1.76 Stadium 75 7/27/00 Chipco 3 Yes 3 225 oz 1.76 Practice Football 310.832 7/3/00 Chipco 3 Yes 3 932.496 oz 7.29 Elbel & V. Soccer 176 7/23/00 Chipco 3 Yes 3 528 oz 4.13 Stadium 75 6/12/00 Merit 3 No 0.145455 10.909091 oz 0.09 Practice Football 103.6107 7/3/00 Merit 3 No 0.145455 15.070642 oz 0.12 Elbel & V. Soccer 176 6/30/00 Merit 3 No 0.145455 25.6 oz 0.20 Stadium 75 9/6/00 Macrosorb ? ? 3 225 oz 1.76 Stadium 75 9/6/00 Quelant (CA) ? ? 3 225 oz 1.76
Total by PAN Bad Actor 37.08
Toxicity - 2000 Total - Toxicity 1 18.24 Total - Toxicity 2 0.00 Total - Toxicity 3 15.33 Total - Toxicity 4 0 Total - Unknown 3.52 37.08
PAN Bad Actor - 2000 Total PAN Bad Actor 33.16 Total Non-PAN Bad Actor 0.40 Total Unknown 4 37.08
2001
Stadium 75 7/14/01 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes 3 225 oz 1.76 Assumed each practice Mid. Soccer, 2&3 293.3333 8/2/01 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes 3 880 oz 6.88 field was same size Stadium 75 4/10/01 Heritage 3 No 0.4 30 oz 0.23 Stadium 75 7/14/01 Heritage 3 No 0.4 30 oz 0.23 Stadium 75 7/16/01 Systec 3 Yes 4 300 oz 2.34
281 Assumed each practice Stadium, Soccer, 2&3 368.3333 12/4/01 Prograss 3 No 0.75 276.25 oz 2.16 field was same size Stadium 75 12/13/01 Turfcide 3 No 12 900 oz 7.03
Total 20.63
Stadium 75 7/14/01 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes 3 225 oz 1.76 Stadium 75 7/16/01 Systec 3 Yes 4 300 oz 2.34 Mid. Soccer, 2&3 293.3333 8/2/01 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes 3 880 oz 6.88 Stadium 75 4/10/01 Heritage 3 No 0.4 30 oz 0.23 Stadium 75 7/14/01 Heritage 3 No 0.4 30 oz 0.23 Stadium, Soccer, 2&3 368.3333 12/4/01 Prograss 3 No 0.75 276.25 oz 2.16 Stadium 75 12/13/01 Turfcide 3 No 12 900 oz 7.03
Total 20.63
Toxicity - 2001 Total - Toxicity 1 8.63 Total - Toxicity 2 0.00 Total - Toxicity 3 12.00 Total - Toxicity 4 0 Total - Unknown 0.00 20.63
PAN Bad Actor - 2001 Total PAN Bad Actor 10.98 Total Non-PAN Bad Actor 9.66 Total Unknown - 20.63
282 APPENDIX M-3 : Materials Consumed - Pesticide Applications - Radrick Farms Golf Course Conversions: 1 oz = 0.0078125 gallons 1 pint = 0.125 gallons
Level of PAN Bad Total Total pest Total pest Date Pesticide Hazard Actor pesticide Units (gallons) (lbs)
Total - Calendar Year 1999
Total 2000 - By EPA Toxicity Ranking 08/15/00 Confront 1 Yes 0.75 oz 0.005859 03/08/00 Copper Sulfate 1 Yes 40 lbs n/a 40 06/02/00 Copper Sulfate 1 Yes 15 lbs n/a 15 07/14/00 Copper Sulfate 1 Yes 15 lbs n/a 15 08/14/00 Copper Sulfate 1 Yes 15 lbs n/a 15 07/13/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 50 lbs n/a 50 07/14/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 10 lbs n/a 10 07/19/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 40 lbs n/a 40 08/04/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 100 lbs n/a 100 08/09/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 195 lbs n/a 195 08/23/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 100 lbs n/a 100 09/19/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 40 lbs n/a 40 09/20/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 20 lbs n/a 20 09/30/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 40 lbs n/a 40 10/03/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 40 lbs n/a 40 10/31/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 100 lbs n/a 100 05/24/00 Momentum 1 Yes 1.5 gallons 1.5
283 06/06/00 Momentum 1 Yes 1.5 pts 0.1875 06/26/00 Momentum 1 Yes 44 oz 0.34375 07/12/00 Momentum 1 Yes 2 oz 0.015625 06/16/00 Banner 2 Yes 8.25 gallons 8.25 06/26/00 Banner 2 Yes 1.7 gallons 1.7 08/09/00 Banner 2 Yes 5 lbs n/a 5 09/11/00 Bayleton 2 Yes 2.75 lbs n/a 2.75 05/08/00 Dimension 2 No 10 gallons 10 04/17/00 Manicure 2 Yes 12.5 gallons 12.5 05/17/00 Manicure 2 Yes 4 gallons 4 05/21/00 Manicure 2 Yes 12.5 gallons 12.5 07/01/00 Manicure 2 Yes 30 gallons 30 07/05/00 Manicure 2 Yes 8 oz 0.0625 08/22/00 Manicure 2 Yes 8 oz 0.0625 05/16/00 Primo 2 No 12 oz 0.09375 05/22/00 Primo 2 No 4.5 pts 0.5625 07/05/00 Subdue 2 No 1 oz 0.007813 07/24/00 Subdue 2 No 110 oz 0.859375 08/07/00 Subdue 2 No 110 oz 0.859375 08/08/00 Subdue 2 No 2 gallons 2 05/17/00 Drive 3 No 1 lbs n/a 1 08/14/00 Drive 3 No 2 lbs n/a 2 08/16/00 Drive 3 No 12 lbs n/a 12 08/21/00 Dursban 3 Yes 24 oz 0.1875 04/27/00 Heritage 3 No 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 06/09/00 Heritage 3 No 7.7 lbs n/a 7.7 06/26/00 Heritage 3 No 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 08/11/00 Heritage 3 No 2.2 lbs n/a 2.2 08/23/00 Heritage 3 No 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 06/20/00 Mach 2 3 No 3.75 gallons 3.75 06/23/00 Mach 2 3 No 3 gallons 3 05/31/00 Merit 3 No 6250 lbs n/a 6250
284 05/02/00 Pennant 3 Yes 4 oz 0.03125 05/08/00 Pennant 3 Yes 3 oz 0.023438 05/11/00 Pennant 3 Yes 2 oz 0.015625 05/30/00 Pennant 3 Yes 3 oz 0.023438 11/28/00 Revere 3 No 20 gallons 20 05/02/00 Roundup 3 No 16 oz 0.125 05/08/00 Roundup 3 No 12 oz 0.09375 05/11/00 Roundup 3 No 8 oz 0.0625 05/30/00 Roundup 3 No 12 oz 0.09375 05/17/00 Roundup 3 No 16 oz 0.125 05/16/00 Touche 3 Yes 2.75 lbs n/a 2.75 06/01/00 Touche 3 Yes 11 lbs n/a 11 06/02/00 Touche 3 Yes 66 lbs n/a 66 06/15/00 Touche 3 Yes 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 07/27/00 Touche 3 Yes 13.75 lbs n/a 13.75 07/28/00 Touche 3 Yes 33 lbs n/a 33 08/04/00 Touche 3 Yes 11 lbs n/a 11 08/24/00 Touche 3 Yes 16.5 lbs n/a 16.5 08/25/00 Touche 3 Yes 66 lbs n/a 66 09/14/00 Touche 3 Yes 22 lbs n/a 22 06/09/00 mcpp 3 No 2.8 gallons 2.8 06/14/00 mcpp 3 No 2.75 gallons 2.75 06/15/00 mcpp 3 No 2.75 gallons 2.75 06/21/00 mcpp 3 No 4 oz 0.03125 06/28/00 Eagle ? Yes 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 Total 121.4 7,372.2
Toxicity - 2000 Liquid Solid Total - Toxicity 1 2.05 820.00 Total - Toxicity 2 83.46 7.75 Total - Toxicity 3 35.86 6538.90 Total - Toxicity 4 0 0 Total - Unknown 0.00 5.50 121.37 7,372.15
285 Total 2000 - By PAN Bad Actor Classification 08/15/00 Confront 1 Yes 0.75 oz 0.005859 03/08/00 Copper Sulfate 1 Yes 40 lbs n/a 40 06/02/00 Copper Sulfate 1 Yes 15 lbs n/a 15 07/14/00 Copper Sulfate 1 Yes 15 lbs n/a 15 08/14/00 Copper Sulfate 1 Yes 15 lbs n/a 15 08/21/00 Dursban 3 Yes 24 oz 0.1875 06/28/00 Eagle ? Yes 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 05/02/00 Pennant 3 Yes 4 oz 0.03125 05/08/00 Pennant 3 Yes 3 oz 0.023438 05/11/00 Pennant 3 Yes 2 oz 0.015625 05/30/00 Pennant 3 Yes 3 oz 0.023438 07/13/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 50 lbs n/a 50 07/14/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 10 lbs n/a 10 07/19/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 40 lbs n/a 40 08/04/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 100 lbs n/a 100 08/09/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 195 lbs n/a 195 08/23/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 100 lbs n/a 100 09/19/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 40 lbs n/a 40 09/20/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 20 lbs n/a 20 09/30/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 40 lbs n/a 40 10/03/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 40 lbs n/a 40 10/31/00 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 100 lbs n/a 100 06/16/00 Banner 2 Yes 8.25 gallons 8.25 06/26/00 Banner 2 Yes 1.7 gallons 1.7 08/09/00 Banner 2 Yes 5 lbs n/a 5 09/11/00 Bayleton 2 Yes 2.75 lbs n/a 2.75 04/17/00 Manicure 2 Yes 12.5 gallons 12.5
286 05/17/00 Manicure 2 Yes 4 gallons 4 05/21/00 Manicure 2 Yes 12.5 gallons 12.5 07/01/00 Manicure 2 Yes 30 gallons 30 07/05/00 Manicure 2 Yes 8 oz 0.0625 08/22/00 Manicure 2 Yes 8 oz 0.0625 05/24/00 Momentum 1 Yes 1.5 gallons 1.5 06/06/00 Momentum 1 Yes 1.5 pts 0.1875 06/26/00 Momentum 1 Yes 44 oz 0.34375 07/12/00 Momentum 1 Yes 2 oz 0.015625 05/16/00 Touche 3 Yes 2.75 lbs n/a 2.75 06/01/00 Touche 3 Yes 11 lbs n/a 11 06/02/00 Touche 3 Yes 66 lbs n/a 66 06/15/00 Touche 3 Yes 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 07/27/00 Touche 3 Yes 13.75 lbs n/a 13.75 07/28/00 Touche 3 Yes 33 lbs n/a 33 08/04/00 Touche 3 Yes 11 lbs n/a 11 08/24/00 Touche 3 Yes 16.5 lbs n/a 16.5 08/25/00 Touche 3 Yes 66 lbs n/a 66 09/14/00 Touche 3 Yes 22 lbs n/a 22 05/08/00 Dimension 2 No 10 gallons 10 05/16/00 Primo 2 No 12 oz 0.09375 05/22/00 Primo 2 No 4.5 pts 0.5625 07/05/00 Subdue 2 No 1 oz 0.007813 07/24/00 Subdue 2 No 110 oz 0.859375 08/07/00 Subdue 2 No 110 oz 0.859375 08/08/00 Subdue 2 No 2 gallons 2 05/17/00 Drive 3 No 1 lbs n/a 1 08/14/00 Drive 3 No 2 lbs n/a 2 08/16/00 Drive 3 No 12 lbs n/a 12 04/27/00 Heritage 3 No 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 06/09/00 Heritage 3 No 7.7 lbs n/a 7.7 06/26/00 Heritage 3 No 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5
287 08/11/00 Heritage 3 No 2.2 lbs n/a 2.2 08/23/00 Heritage 3 No 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 06/20/00 Mach 2 3 No 3.75 gallons 3.75 06/23/00 Mach 2 3 No 3 gallons 3 05/31/00 Merit 3 No 6250 lbs n/a 6250 11/28/00 Revere 3 No 20 gallons 20 05/02/00 Roundup 3 No 16 oz 0.125 05/08/00 Roundup 3 No 12 oz 0.09375 05/11/00 Roundup 3 No 8 oz 0.0625 05/30/00 Roundup 3 No 12 oz 0.09375 05/17/00 Roundup 3 No 16 oz 0.125 06/09/00 mcpp 3 No 2.8 gallons 2.8 06/14/00 mcpp 3 No 2.75 gallons 2.75 06/15/00 mcpp 3 No 2.75 gallons 2.75 06/21/00 mcpp 3 No 4 oz 0.03125 Total - Calendar Year 2000 121.4 7,372.2
PAN Bad Actor - 2000 Total PAN Bad Acto 71.41 1080.75 Total Non-PAN Bad 49.96 6291.40 Total Unknown - - 121.37 7,372.15
Total 2001 - By EPA Toxicity Ranking 05/09/01 Lesco Ageacide 1 Yes 5 gallons 5 06/04/01 Lesco Ageacide 1 Yes 5 gallons 5 08/21/01 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 20 lbs n/a 20 05/08/01 Momentum 1 Yes 12.5 oz 0.097656 05/14/01 Momentum 1 Yes 6.75 gallons 6.75 05/18/01 Momentum 1 Yes 9 gallons 9
288 06/05/01 Momentum 1 Yes 9 oz 0.070313 07/07/01 Banner 2 Yes 1 gallons 1 12/03/01 Banner 2 Yes 5 gallons 5 05/02/01 Dimension 2 No 10 gallons 10 05/14/01 Dimension 2 No 27 lbs n/a 27 05/18/01 Dimension 2 No 36 lbs n/a 36 04/30/01 Manicure 2 Yes 12.5 gallons 12.5 05/31/01 Manicure 2 Yes 50 lbs n/a 50 06/14/01 Manicure 2 Yes 20 lbs n/a 20 06/21/01 Manicure 2 Yes 50 lbs n/a 50 07/07/01 Manicure 2 Yes 15 lbs n/a 15 07/19/01 Manicure 2 Yes 13.75 gallons 13.75 07/26/01 Manicure 2 Yes 5.5 gallons 5.5 07/30/01 Manicure 2 Yes 16.5 gallons 16.5 08/03/01 Manicure 2 Yes 13.75 gallons 13.75 08/17/01 Manicure 2 Yes 13.75 gallons 13.75 08/30/01 Manicure 2 Yes 13.75 gallons 13.75 12/03/01 Manicure 2 Yes 50 lbs n/a 50 09/07/01 Oftanol 2 Yes 1 gallons 1 09/10/01 Oftanol 2 Yes 1 gallons 1 07/09/01 Subdue 2 No 110 oz 0.859375 07/31/01 Subdue 2 No 110 oz 0.859375 08/17/01 Subdue 2 No 110 oz 0.859375 08/30/01 Subdue 2 No 110 oz 0.859375 06/13/01 Bayleton 3 Yes 33 lbs n/a 33 06/28/01 Bayleton 3 Yes 27.5 lbs n/a 27.5 07/11/01 Bayleton 3 Yes 33 lbs n/a 33 07/26/01 Bayleton 3 Yes 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 07/30/01 Bayleton 3 Yes 33 lbs n/a 33 07/19/01 Cavalier 3 Yes 13.75 gallons 13.75 08/03/01 Cavalier 3 Yes 13.75 gallons 13.75 08/17/01 Cavalier 3 Yes 6.8 gallons 6.8
289 08/30/01 Cavalier 3 Yes 6.8 gallons 6.8 08/06/01 Dursban 3 Yes 2 gallons 2 08/13/01 Dursban 3 Yes 2.5 gallons 2.5 04/30/01 Heritage 3 No 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 05/31/01 Heritage 3 No 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 06/14/01 Heritage 3 No 4.4 lbs n/a 4.4 06/21/01 Heritage 3 No 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 08/23/01 Heritage 3 No 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 07/16/01 Lesco Flo 3 Yes 5.5 gallons 5.5 07/16/01 Lesco Flo 3 Yes 6.8 gallons 6.8 06/25/01 Mach 2 3 No 3.75 gallons 3.75 06/25/01 Mach 2 3 No 3 gallons 3 05/21/01 Merit 3 No 5400 lbs n/a 5400 05/23/01 Merit 3 No 750 lbs n/a 750 05/23/01 Pennant 3 Yes 7 oz 0.054688 05/30/01 Pennant 3 Yes 7 oz 0.054688 06/07/01 Pennant 3 Yes 24 oz 0.1875 05/04/01 Roundup 3 No 2 oz 0.015625 05/23/01 Roundup 3 No 18 oz 0.140625 05/30/01 Roundup 3 No 18 oz 0.140625 06/07/01 Roundup 3 No 48 oz 0.375 06/30/01 Systec 3 Yes 1.5 gallons 1.5 07/03/01 Systec 3 Yes 2.5 gallons 2.5 05/29/01 Touche 3 Yes 11 lbs n/a 11 07/04/01 Touche 3 Yes 11 lbs n/a 11 08/24/01 Touche 3 Yes 11 lbs n/a 11 08/26/01 Touche 3 Yes 66 lbs n/a 66 09/14/01 Touche 3 Yes 11 lbs n/a 11 Total - Calendar Year 2001 206.5 6,686.4
290 Toxicity - 2001 Gallons Pounds Total - Toxicity 1 25.92 20.00 Total - Toxicity 2 110.94 248.00 Total - Toxicity 3 69.62 6418.40 Total - Toxicity 4 0 0 Total - Unknown 0.00 0.00 206.47 6,686.40
Total 2001 - By PAN Bad Actor Classification 07/07/01 Banner 2 Yes 1 gallons 1 12/03/01 Banner 2 Yes 5 gallons 5 06/13/01 Bayleton 3 Yes 33 lbs n/a 33 06/28/01 Bayleton 3 Yes 27.5 lbs n/a 27.5 07/11/01 Bayleton 3 Yes 33 lbs n/a 33 07/26/01 Bayleton 3 Yes 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 07/30/01 Bayleton 3 Yes 33 lbs n/a 33 07/19/01 Cavalier 3 Yes 13.75 gallons 13.75 08/03/01 Cavalier 3 Yes 13.75 gallons 13.75 08/17/01 Cavalier 3 Yes 6.8 gallons 6.8 08/30/01 Cavalier 3 Yes 6.8 gallons 6.8 08/06/01 Dursban 3 Yes 2 gallons 2 08/13/01 Dursban 3 Yes 2.5 gallons 2.5 05/09/01 Lesco Ageacide 1 Yes 5 gallons 5 06/04/01 Lesco Ageacide 1 Yes 5 gallons 5 07/16/01 Lesco Flo 3 Yes 5.5 gallons 5.5 07/16/01 Lesco Flo 3 Yes 6.8 gallons 6.8 04/30/01 Manicure 2 Yes 12.5 gallons 12.5 05/31/01 Manicure 2 Yes 50 lbs n/a 50 06/14/01 Manicure 2 Yes 20 lbs n/a 20 06/21/01 Manicure 2 Yes 50 lbs n/a 50 07/07/01 Manicure 2 Yes 15 lbs n/a 15 07/19/01 Manicure 2 Yes 13.75 gallons 13.75
291 07/26/01 Manicure 2 Yes 5.5 gallons 5.5 07/30/01 Manicure 2 Yes 16.5 gallons 16.5 08/03/01 Manicure 2 Yes 13.75 gallons 13.75 08/17/01 Manicure 2 Yes 13.75 gallons 13.75 08/30/01 Manicure 2 Yes 13.75 gallons 13.75 12/03/01 Manicure 2 Yes 50 lbs n/a 50 08/21/01 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 20 lbs n/a 20 05/08/01 Momentum 1 Yes 12.5 oz 0.097656 05/14/01 Momentum 1 Yes 6.75 gallons 6.75 05/18/01 Momentum 1 Yes 9 gallons 9 06/05/01 Momentum 1 Yes 9 oz 0.070313 09/07/01 Oftanol 2 Yes 1 gallons 1 09/10/01 Oftanol 2 Yes 1 gallons 1 05/23/01 Pennant 3 Yes 7 oz 0.054688 05/30/01 Pennant 3 Yes 7 oz 0.054688 06/07/01 Pennant 3 Yes 24 oz 0.1875 06/30/01 Systec 3 Yes 1.5 gallons 1.5 07/03/01 Systec 3 Yes 2.5 gallons 2.5 05/29/01 Touche 3 Yes 11 lbs n/a 11 07/04/01 Touche 3 Yes 11 lbs n/a 11 08/24/01 Touche 3 Yes 11 lbs n/a 11 08/26/01 Touche 3 Yes 66 lbs n/a 66 09/14/01 Touche 3 Yes 11 lbs n/a 11 05/02/01 Dimension 2 No 10 gallons 10 05/14/01 Dimension 2 No 27 lbs n/a 27 05/18/01 Dimension 2 No 36 lbs n/a 36 04/30/01 Heritage 3 No 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 05/31/01 Heritage 3 No 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 06/14/01 Heritage 3 No 4.4 lbs n/a 4.4 06/21/01 Heritage 3 No 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 08/23/01 Heritage 3 No 5.5 lbs n/a 5.5 06/25/01 Mach 2 3 No 3.75 gallons 3.75
292 06/25/01 Mach 2 3 No 3 gallons 3 05/21/01 Merit 3 No 5400 lbs n/a 5400 05/23/01 Merit 3 No 750 lbs n/a 750 05/04/01 Roundup 3 No 2 oz 0.015625 05/23/01 Roundup 3 No 18 oz 0.140625 05/30/01 Roundup 3 No 18 oz 0.140625 06/07/01 Roundup 3 No 48 oz 0.375 07/09/01 Subdue 2 No 110 oz 0.859375 07/31/01 Subdue 2 No 110 oz 0.859375 08/17/01 Subdue 2 No 110 oz 0.859375 08/30/01 Subdue 2 No 110 oz 0.859375 Total - Calendar Year 2001 206.5 6,686.4
PAN Bad Actor - 20 Gallons Pounds Total PAN Bad Acto 185.61 447.00 Total Non-PAN Bad 20.86 6239.40 Total Unknown - - 206.47 6,686.40
293 APPENDIX M-4 : Materials Consumed - Pesticide Applications - Blue Golf Course Size (in 1,000 sq. Size Conversions Area ft.) (acres) Notes 1 pint = 0.125 gallons Tees 121.4 2.8 1 gallon = 128 ounces Fairways 1,240.8 28.2 1 acre = 44 thousand square feet Greens 132 3 Estimate from Tracey Jones 1 quart = 0.25 gallons Rough 990 22.5 Estimate from Tracey Jones Driving range (DR) 176 4 Estimate from Tracey Jones - DR tees 58.67 Assumed 1/3 of total DR - DR roughs 117.33 Assumed 2/3 of total DR Bunker banks 22 0.5 Estimate from Tracey Jones VTC 11 0.25 Tracey Jones did not know; said not a large area
Rate Rate Total Total Area (in Level of PAN Bad (oz/1000 (Lb/1000 Total Applied Applied Site 1000 sq ft) Date Pesticide Hazard Actor sq ft) sq ft) Applied Units (gallons) (lbs) Notes
2000 - By EPA Toxicity Ranking DR Tees 58.67 2000 Confront 1 Yes 1.4 82.133333 oz 0.64 Bunker banks 22 2000 Confront 1 Yes 1.4 30.8 oz 0.24 Assumed that Roughs - various 495 2000 Confront 1 Yes n/a 20 oz 0.16 "various" = 1/2 Roughs - various 495 2000 Confront 1 Yes n/a 20 oz 0.16 DR - tees and fairways 58.67 2000 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes n/a 0.11 6.67 lbs n/a 6.67 Assumed = to tees DR 176 2000 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 0.11 20.00 lbs n/a 20.00 Greens 14-16, Fairways 1,241 2000 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 0.11 141.00 lbs n/a 141.00 Assumed same area Roughs 5,6,11-14 - 2000 Three Way 1 Yes 1.4 0 oz 0.00 per rough Roughs (7 total) - 2000 Three Way 1 Yes 1.4 0 oz 0.00 Various 2000 Three Way 1 Yes 1.4 0 oz 0.00 Assumed total Rough Roughs - finish - 2000 Three Way 1 Yes 1.4 0 oz 0.00 area Under trees / green and tee surrounds - 2000 Momentum 1 Yes 1.4 0 oz 0.00 Assumed Greens DR Tees 58.67 2000 Momentum 1 Yes 1.4 82.133333 oz 0.64 Bunker banks 22 2000 Momentum 1 Yes 1.4 30.8 oz 0.24 Pond perimeter 11 2000 Momentum 1 Yes 1.4 15.4 oz 0.12 DR 176 2000 Lesco 1 Yes 0.11 20.00 lbs n/a 20.00 Greens and tees 253 2000 Lesco Flo 1 Yes 8 2027.2 oz 15.84 Greens 132 2000 Banner 2 Yes 0.73 96 oz 0.75
294 Tees 121.4 2000 Banner 2 Yes 0.73 88.290909 oz 0.69 DR 176 2000 Banner 2 Yes 0.11 20.00 lbs n/a 20.00 Assumed semi- standard rate of .33 Greens 132 2000 Banner 2 Yes 0.33 43.2 oz 0.34 oz/1000 s.f. Assumed semi- standard rate of .33 Greens 14-16, Fairways 1,241 2000 Banner 2 Yes 0.33 406.08 oz 3.17 oz/1000 s.f. Greens 132 2000 Banner 2 Yes 0.01 0.75 gal 0.75 Fairways 1,241 2000 Banner GL 2 Yes 0.33 406.08 oz 3.17 Fairways 1-10 15.65 2000 Banner GL 2 Yes 0.33 5.1218182 oz 0.04 Assumed area = to tees; Assumed Banner Maxx is the DR - tees and fairways 58.67 2000 Banner Maxx 2 Yes 0.01 0.3333333 gal 0.33 same as Banner GL Greens 132 2000 Daconil 2 Yes 0.09 12.00 lbs n/a 12.00 Greens 132 2000 Daconil 2 Yes 0.11 15.00 lbs n/a 15.00 Tees 121.4 2000 Daconil 2 Yes 0.11 13.80 lbs n/a 13.80 Fairways 1,241 2000 Dimension 2 No 1.1 1364.88 oz 10.66 Greens 132 2000 Manicure 2 Yes 0.11 15.00 lbs n/a 15.00 Greens 132 2000 Scimitar 2 No 0.36 47.52 oz 0.37 Fairways 1,241 2000 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.02 28.20 lbs n/a 28.20 Fairways 1,241 2000 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.02 28.20 lbs n/a 28.20 Fairways 1,241 2000 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.06 77.55 lbs n/a 77.55 Assumed fairways = DR fairways and #10 gree 58.67 2000 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.06 3.67 lbs n/a 3.67 tees in area VTC 11 2000 Roundup 3 No 1 qt 0.25 Greens 132 2000 Touche 3 Yes 0.11 14.52 oz 0.11 Fairways 1,241 2000 Touche 3 Yes 1 1240.8 oz 9.69 Greens 132 2000 Turplex ? ? 1 132 oz 1.03 Total by Toxicity 49.40 401.08
Toxicity - 2000 Gallons Pounds Total - Toxicity 1 18.03 187.67 Total - Toxicity 2 20.28 75.80 Total - Toxicity 3 10.06 137.62 Total - Toxicity 4 0 0 Total - Unknown 1.03 0.00 49.40 401.08
295 2000 - By PAN Bad Actor Classification DR Tees 58.67 2000 Confront 1 Yes 1.4 82.133333 oz 0.64 Bunker banks 22 2000 Confront 1 Yes 1.4 30.8 oz 0.24 Assumed that Roughs - various 495 2000 Confront 1 Yes n/a 20 oz 0.16 "various" = 1/2 Roughs - various 495 2000 Confront 1 Yes n/a 20 oz 0.16 Greens 132 2000 Daconil 2 Yes 0.09 12.00 lbs n/a 12.00 Greens 132 2000 Daconil 2 Yes 0.11 15.00 lbs n/a 15.00 Tees 121.4 2000 Daconil 2 Yes 0.11 13.80 lbs n/a 13.80 DR - tees and fairways 58.67 2000 Daconil Ultrex 1 Yes n/a 0.11 6.67 lbs n/a 6.67 Assumed = to tees Assumed same area Roughs 5,6,11-14 - 2000 Three Way 1 Yes 1.4 0 oz 0.00 per rough Roughs (7 total) - 2000 Three Way 1 Yes 1.4 0 oz 0.00 Various 2000 Three Way 1 Yes 1.4 0 oz 0.00 Assumed total Rough Roughs - finish - 2000 Three Way 1 Yes 1.4 0 oz 0.00 area Fairways 1,241 2000 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.02 28.20 lbs n/a 28.20 Fairways 1,241 2000 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.02 28.20 lbs n/a 28.20 Fairways 1,241 2000 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.06 77.55 lbs n/a 77.55 Assumed fairways = DR fairways and #10 gree 58.67 2000 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.06 3.67 lbs n/a 3.67 tees in area Greens 132 2000 Touche 3 Yes 0.11 14.52 oz 0.11 Fairways 1,241 2000 Touche 3 Yes 1 1240.8 oz 9.69 Greens 132 2000 Banner 2 Yes 0.73 96 oz 0.75 Tees 121.4 2000 Banner 2 Yes 0.73 88.290909 oz 0.69 DR 176 2000 Banner 2 Yes 0.11 20.00 lbs n/a 20.00 Assumed semi- standard rate of .33 Greens 132 2000 Banner 2 Yes 0.33 43.2 oz 0.34 oz/1000 s.f. Assumed semi- standard rate of .33 Greens 14-16, Fairways 1,241 2000 Banner 2 Yes 0.33 406.08 oz 3.17 oz/1000 s.f. Greens 132 2000 Banner 2 Yes 0.01 0.75 gal 0.75 Fairways 1,241 2000 Banner GL 2 Yes 0.33 406.08 oz 3.17 Fairways 1-10 15.65 2000 Banner GL 2 Yes 0.33 5.1218182 oz 0.04 Assumed area = to tees; Assumed Banner Maxx is the DR - tees and fairways 58.67 2000 Banner Maxx 2 Yes 0.01 0.3333333 gal 0.33 same as Banner GL Greens 132 2000 Manicure 2 Yes 0.11 15.00 lbs n/a 15.00 DR 176 2000 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 0.11 20.00 lbs n/a 20.00 Greens 14-16, Fairways 1,241 2000 Manicure Ultrex 1 Yes 0.11 141.00 lbs n/a 141.00
296 Under trees / green and tee surrounds - 2000 Momentum 1 Yes 1.4 0 oz 0.00 Assumed Greens DR Tees 58.67 2000 Momentum 1 Yes 1.4 82.133333 oz 0.64 Bunker banks 22 2000 Momentum 1 Yes 1.4 30.8 oz 0.24 Pond perimeter 11 2000 Momentum 1 Yes 1.4 15.4 oz 0.12 DR 176 2000 Lesco 1 Yes 0.11 20.00 lbs n/a 20.00 Greens and tees 253 2000 Lesco Flo 1 Yes 8 2027.2 oz 15.84 Fairways 1,241 2000 Dimension 2 No 1.1 1364.88 oz 10.66 VTC 11 2000 Roundup 3 No 1 qt 0.25 Greens 132 2000 Scimitar 2 No 0.36 47.52 oz 0.37 Greens 132 2000 Turplex ? ? 1 132 oz 1.03 Total by PAN Bad Actor 49.40 401.08
PAN Bad Actor - 2000 Gallons Pounds Total PAN Bad Actor 37.09 401.08 Total Non-PAN Bad Actor 11.28 0.00 Total Unknown 1 - 49.40 401.08
2001 - By EPA Toxicity Ranking VTC 11 2001 Lesco Three Wa 1 Yes 1.5 16.5 oz 0.128906 Roughs 2001 Lesco Three Wa 1 Yes 1.4 0 oz 0 Greens except 15 132 2001 Lesco Manicure 1 Yes 0.11 15.00 lbs 15.00 Tees - DR tees 121.4 2001 Lesco Manicure 1 Yes 0.11 13.80 lbs 13.80 Roughs 13-17 275 2001 Lesco Momentu 1 Yes 0.45 125 oz 0.976563 Roughs 2001 Momentum 1 Yes 1.4 0 oz 0 Rough 990 2001 Momentum 1 Yes 7.27 7200 oz 56.25 Tees 121.4 2001 Daconil 2 Yes 0.11 13.80 lbs 13.80 Greens and tees 253.40 2001 Banner Maxx 2 Yes 1 253.4 oz 1.979688 Fairways 16-18 250.8 2001 Dimension 2 No 1.09 273.6 oz 2.1375 Fairways 1,240.8 2001 Dimension 2 No 1.09 1353.6 oz 10.575 Unable to include - don't know weight of VTC 2001 Dimension with 2 No 8 bags bags Unable to include - don't know weight of Roughs 2001 Dimension with 2No 10bags bags Greens 132 2001 Dylox 80 2 Yes 3 396 oz 3.09375 Fairways 1,240.8 2001 Dylox 80 2 Yes 3 3722.4 oz 29.08125
297 Greens and tees 253.40 2001 Chipco 26 GT 3 Yes 3 760.2 oz 5.939063 Greens and tees 253.40 2001 Chipco 26 GT 3 Yes 3 760.2 oz 5.939063 Tees 121.4 2001 Chipco 26 GT 3 Yes 4 485.6 oz 3.79375 Fairways 1,240.8 2001 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.06 77.55 lbs 77.55 DR-small 18 58.67 2001 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.06 3.67 lbs 3.67 DR 176 2001 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.06 11.00 lbs 11.00 Fairways 1,240.8 2001 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.06 77.55 lbs 77.55 Fairways 1,240.8 2001 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.06 77.55 lbs 77.55 Greens, tees, and fairways 1,494.2 2001 Lesco Revere 3 No 10 14942 oz 116.7344 Fairways 1,240.8 2001 Chipco Sevin ? ? 6 7444.8 oz 58.1625 DR 176 2001 Chipco Sevin ? ? 6 1056 oz 8.25 Fairways 1,240.8 2001 Chipco Sevin ? ? 6 7444.8 oz 58.1625 Fairways 1,240.8 2001 Chipco Sevin ? ? 6 7444.8 oz 58.1625 Total - 2001 419.3664 289.9076
Toxicity - 2001 Gallons Pounds Total - Toxicity 1 57.36 28.80 Total - Toxicity 2 46.87 13.80 Total - Toxicity 3 132.41 247.32 Total - Toxicity 4 0 0 Total - Unknown 182.74 0.00 419.37 289.91
2001 - By PAN Bad Actor Classification Greens and tees 253.40 2001 Chipco 26 GT 3 Yes 3 760.2 oz 5.939063 Greens and tees 253.40 2001 Chipco 26 GT 3 Yes 3 760.2 oz 5.939063 Tees 121.4 2001 Chipco 26 GT 3 Yes 4 485.6 oz 3.79375 Tees 121.4 2001 Daconil 2 Yes 0.11 13.80 lbs 13.80 VTC 11 2001 Lesco Three Wa 1 Yes 1.5 16.5 oz 0.128906 Roughs 2001 Lesco Three Wa 1 Yes 1.4 0 oz 0 Fairways 1,240.8 2001 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.06 77.55 lbs 77.55 DR-small 18 58.67 2001 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.06 3.67 lbs 3.67 DR 176 2001 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.06 11.00 lbs 11.00 Fairways 1,240.8 2001 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.06 77.55 lbs 77.55 Fairways 1,240.8 2001 Lesco Touche 3 Yes 0.06 77.55 lbs 77.55 Greens and tees 253.40 2001 Banner Maxx 2 Yes 1 253.4 oz 1.979688 Greens 132 2001 Dylox 80 2 Yes 3 396 oz 3.09375 Fairways 1,240.8 2001 Dylox 80 2 Yes 3 3722.4 oz 29.08125 Greens except 15 132 2001 Lesco Manicure 1 Yes 0.11 15.00 lbs 15.00 Tees - DR tees 121.4 2001 Lesco Manicure 1 Yes 0.11 13.80 lbs 13.80 Roughs 13-17 275 2001 Lesco Momentu 1 Yes 0.45 125 oz 0.976563
298 Roughs 2001 Momentum 1 Yes 1.4 0 oz 0 Rough 990 2001 Momentum 1 Yes 7.27 7200 oz 56.25 Fairways 16-18 250.8 2001 Dimension 2 No 1.09 273.6 oz 2.1375 Fairways 1,240.8 2001 Dimension 2 No 1.09 1353.6 oz 10.575 Unable to include - don't know weight of VTC 2001 Dimension with 2 No 8 bags bags Unable to include - don't know weight of Roughs 2001 Dimension with 2No 10bags bags Greens, tees, and fairways 1,494.2 2001 Lesco Revere 3 No 10 14942 oz 116.7344 Fairways 1,240.8 2001 Chipco Sevin ? ? 6 7444.8 oz 58.1625 DR 176 2001 Chipco Sevin ? ? 6 1056 oz 8.25 Fairways 1,240.8 2001 Chipco Sevin ? ? 6 7444.8 oz 58.1625 Fairways 1,240.8 2001 Chipco Sevin ? ? 6 7444.8 oz 58.1625 Total - 2001 419.3664 289.9076
PAN Bad Actor - 2001 Gallons Pounds Total PAN Bad Actor 107.18 289.91 Total Non-PAN Bad Actor 129.45 0.00 Total Unknown 183 - 419.37 289.91
299 APPENDIX M-5 : Materials Consumed - Pesticide Applications – Arboretum Conversions 1 pint = 0.125 gallons 1 tbs = 0.0039 gallons 1 oz = 0.0078 gallons 1 cup = 0.0625 gallons 1 lb = gallons
Rate Total Qty solution Units - Total Units - Total pesticide Total pesticide Level of PAN Bad Date Pesticide Qty pest units soln units used solution pesticide pesticide (gal) (lbs) Hazard Actor Total 1999 1.55 2000 - By EPA Toxicity Ranking and PAN Bad Actor Classification 1/8/00 Roundup 50% 1 pint 0.5 pint 0.0625 3No 2/7/00 Roundup 50% 0.5 cup 0.25 cup 0.015625 3No 3/11/00 Roundup 50% 1 pint 0.5 pint 0.0625 3No 3/25/00 Roundup 50% 1 cup 0.5 cup 0.03125 3No 4/8/00 Roundup 50% 1 cup 0.5 cup 0.03125 3No 5/3/00 Roundup 4 oz 3 gallon 6 gallon 8 oz 0.0625 3 No 5/5/00 Roundup 4 oz 1 gallon 6 gallon 24 oz 0.1875 3 No 5/13/00 Roundup 50% 1 cup 0.5 cup 0.03125 3No 5/17/00 Garlon 24 oz 1 gallon 1.5 gallon 36 oz 0.28125 3 No 5/15/00 Roundup 2 oz 1 gallon 15 gallon 30 oz 0.234375 3 No 5/18/00 Roundup 2 oz 1 gallon 9 gallon 18 oz 0.140625 3 No 5/22/00 Roundup 2 oz 1 gallon 6 gallon 12 oz 0.09375 3 No 5/23/00 Garlon 24 oz 1 gallon 0.125 gallon 3 oz 0.0234375 3 No 6/10/00 Garlon 24 oz 1 gallon 1 gallon 24 oz 0.1875 3 No 6/10/00 Roundup 50% 1 pint 0.5 pint 0.0625 3No 6/15/00 Garlon 24 oz 1 gallon 2 gallon 48 oz 0.375 3 No 6/16/00 Garlon 24 oz 1 gallon 0.125 gallon 3 oz 0.0234375 3 No 6/15/00 Garlon 24 oz 1 gallon 0.75 gallon 18 oz 0.140625 3 No 6/30/00 Garlon 24 oz 1 gallon 0.125 gallon 3 oz 0.0234375 3 No 6/29/00 Garlon 24 oz 1 gallon 1.5 gallon 36 oz 0.28125 3 No 6/28/00 Garlon 24 oz 1 gallon 0.5 gallon 12 oz 0.09375 3 No 7/26/00 Garlon 24 oz 1 gallon 0.333 gallon 7.992 oz 0.0624375 3 No 8/9/00 Garlon 24 oz 1 gallon 0.15625 gallon 3.75 oz 0.029296875 3 No 8/16/00 Garlon 24 oz 1 gallon 0.078125 gallon 1.875 oz 0.014648438 3 No
300 8/19/00 Roundup 50% 8 oz 4 oz 0.03125 3 No 9/9/00 Roundup 50% 52 oz 26 oz 0.203125 3 No 9/9/00 Garlon 20% 12 oz 2.4 oz 0.01875 3 No 9/9/00 Roundup 100% 3 oz 3 oz 0.0234375 3 No 10/6/00 Garlon 28 oz 1 gallon 0.65625 gallon 18.375 oz 0.143554688 3 No 10/13/00 Garlon 28 oz 1 gallon 0.65625 gallon 18.375 oz 0.143554688 3 No 10/18/00 Garlon 28 oz 1 gallon 0.65625 gallon 18.375 oz 0.143554688 3 No 10/25/00 Roundup 2 oz 1 gallon 3 gallon 6 oz 0.046875 3 No 11/1/00 Roundup 2 oz 1 gallon 3 gallon 6 oz 0.046875 3 No 12/9/00 Roundup 2 oz 1 gallon 0.15625 gallon 0.3125 oz 0.002441406 3 No Total 2000 3.36 0.00
Toxicity - 2000 Gallons Pounds Total - Toxicity 1 0.00 0.00 Total - Toxicity 2 0.00 0.00 Total - Toxicity 3 3.36 0.00 Total - Toxicity 4 0 0 Total - Unknown 0.00 0.00 3.36 0.00
PAN Bad Actor - 200Gallons Pounds Total PAN Bad Actor 0.00 0.00 Total Non-PAN Bad A 3.36 0.00 Total Unknown - - 3.36 0.00
2001 - By EPA Toxicity Ranking and PAN Bad Actor Classification 2/8/01 Garlon 24 oz 1 gallon 1 gallon 24 oz 0.1875 3 No 2/10/01 Garlon 1 gallon 5 gallon 0.5 gallon 0.1 gallon 0.1 3 No 2/17/01 Garlon 14 oz 0.5 gallon 0.5 gallon 14 oz 0.109375 3 No 3/24/01 Garlon 1 oz 5 oz 30 oz 6 oz 0.046875 3 No 7/11/01 Garlon 3 oz 16 oz 10 oz 1.875 oz 0.014648438 3 No 7/12/01 Garlon 3 oz 12 oz 24 oz 6 oz 0.046875 3 No 7/23/01 Garlon 24 oz 1 gallon 1 gallon 24 oz 0.1875 3 No
301 8/14/01 Garlon 1 oz 4 oz 4 oz 1 oz 0.0078125 3 No 10/2/01 Garlon 24 oz 1 gallon 1 gallon 24 oz 0.1875 3 No 11/21/01 Hinder 6 oz 1 gallon 3 gallon 18 oz 0.140625 3 No 1/13/01 Roundup 1 tbs 12 oz 16 oz 1.333333 tbs 0.005208333 3 No 1/27/01 Roundup 1 tbs 12 oz 12 oz 1 tbs 0.00390625 3 No 3/24/01 Roundup 1 tbs 12 oz 12 oz 1 tbs 0.00390625 3 No 5/7/01 Roundup 4 oz 3 gallon 18 gallon 24 oz 0.1875 3 No 5/14/01 Roundup 2 oz 1 gallon 19 gallon 38 oz 0.296875 3 No 5/14/01 Roundup 2 oz 1 gallon 3 gallon 6 oz 0.046875 3 No 5/14/01 Roundup 2 oz 1 gallon 2 gallon 4 oz 0.03125 3 No 6/21/01 Roundup 2 oz 1 gallon 3 gallon 6 oz 0.046875 3 No 7/11/01 Roundup 4 oz 3 gallon 1.5 gallon 2 oz 0.015625 3 No 8/11/01 Roundup 2.25 oz 1 gallon 1 gallon 2.25 oz 0.017578125 3 No 8/13/01 Roundup 2 oz 1 gallon 0.25 gallon 0.5 oz 0.00390625 3 No 9/6/01 Roundup 2 oz 1 gallon 3 gallon 6 oz 0.046875 3 No 10/19/01 Roundup 2 oz 1 gallon 2 gallon 4 oz 0.03125 3 No 4/10/01 Snapshot 3 lbs 1 bed 80 lbs 80 3 No 12/3/01 Treeguard RTU 2.5 gallon 2.5 3 No 12/5/01 Treeguard RTU 0.75 gallon 0.75 3 No Total 5.02 80.00
Toxicity - 2001 Gallons Pounds Total - Toxicity 1 0.00 0.00 Total - Toxicity 2 0.00 0.00 Total - Toxicity 3 5.02 80.00 Total - Toxicity 4 0 0 Total - Unknown 0.00 0.00 5.02 80.00
PAN Bad Actor - 200Gallons Pounds Total PAN Bad Actor 0.00 0.00 Total Non-PAN Bad A 5.02 80.00 Total Unknown - 5.02 80.00
302 APPENDIX M-6 : Materials Consumed - Pesticide Applications – Matthei
Level of PAN Bad Area Pesticide Date Amount Units Amount (gallons) Hazard Actor 2000 - By EPA Toxicity Ranking and PAN Bad Actor Classification Matthei Surflan 2000 0.26 gallons 0.26 3No Matthei Round-up 2000 0.17 gallons 0.17 3 No Total 0.43
Toxicity - 2000 Gallons Total - Toxicity 1 0.00 Total - Toxicity 2 0.00 Total - Toxicity 3 0.43 Total - Toxicity 4 0 Total - Unknown 0.00 0.43
PAN Bad Actor - 2000 Gallons Total PAN Bad Actor 0.00 Total Non-PAN Bad Actor 0.43 Total Unknown - 0.43
2001 - By EPA Toxicity Ranking and PAN Bad Actor Classification Matthei Triplet 2001 2.6 gallons 2.6 1Yes Matthei Roundup 2001 0.27 gallons 0.27 3 No Matthei Surflan 2001 0.19 gallons 0.19 3No Total 3.06
303 Toxicity - 2001 Gallons Total - Toxicity 1 2.60 Total - Toxicity 2 0.00 Total - Toxicity 3 0.46 Total - Toxicity 4 0 Total - Unknown 0.00 3.06
PAN Bad Actor - 2001 Gallons Total PAN Bad Actor 2.60 Total Non-PAN Bad Actor 0.46 Total Unknown - 3.06
Conversions 1 pint = 0.125 gallons 1 tbs = 0.003906 gallons 1 tsp = 0.001302 gallons 1 oz = 0.007813 gallons 1 cup = 0.0625 gallons
304 APPENDIX M-7 : Materials Consumed - Pesticide Product Information Summary Sheet
Pesticide PAN Product Name EPA Reg # EPA Reg # obtained from supplied data? EPA Acute Toxicity Rating PAN Bad Actor Product? Type PAN data in Listed base? Assumptions Notes Aquathol K 4581-204 x 1 Yes Herbicide x Arbotect Arbotect 20-s Fungicide 100-892 3 No Fungicide x Avid Avid 0.15 Ec Insecticide 2 Yes Insecticide x Banner Banner Gl 100-736 x 2 Yes Fungicide x Banner Maxx Alamo Fungicide 100-741 x 2 Yes Fungicide x Lesco systemic fungicide contains 50% Bayleton bayleton 3125-491 x 3 Yes Fungicide x Safer brand bioneem multi-purpose Bio-Neem insecticide & repellent concentrate 70051-6-42697 3 No Insecticide x Botanical insecticide Only found "2G and Ornamental Systemic Cavalier 3336 wp turf and ornamental fungicide 1001-63-10404 x 3 Yes Fungicide x Fungicide" All Chipco 26… products were PAN Bad Chipco 26 GT Chipco 26019 432-889 3 Yes Fungicide x Actors; some were EPA ranked 2, others 3 All sevins were PAN Bad Actors; Some were 2 Chipco Sevin any sevin-containing product ? ? Insecticide ? toxicity, others 3 Confront 62719-92 x 1 Yes Herbicide x Assumed that Grounds meant Conserve sc Conserve Conserve Sc Turf And Ornamental 62719-291 3 No Insecticide x turf and ornamental Most copper sulfate products were ranked 1 Copper Sulfate 1 Yes Fungicide x and Yes Daconil Daconil 2787 50534-9 x 2 Yes Fungicide x Daconil Ultrex Daconil Ultrex turf care 50534-202-10182 1 Yes Fungicide x Spectracidepro pre-emergent herbicide Dimension for turf and ornmentals 707-245 x 2 No Herbicide x Drive 7969-130-51036 x 3 No Herbicide x Dursban Pro Dursban Pro 62719-166 x 3 Yes Insecticide x Dylox 80 Turf And Ornamental Dylox Insecticide 3125-184 2 Yes Insecticide x All Dylox products are PAN Bad Actors Eagle Eagle Wsp Fungicide 707-232 ? Yes Fungicide Most Eagle products are PAN Bad Actors This was the only Enstar product listed in Insect growth Enstar Enstar 5e 2724-476 2 No Insecticide x database, so assumed it was the one meant regulator Fusilade 3 No Herbicide x Most Fusilade products are 3 and No Garlon Garlon 4 62719-40 x 3 No Herbicide x Biological Gnatrol ? ? Insecticide insecticide Heritage 10182-408 x 3 No Fungicide x
305 Hinder 64864-35-572 x 3 No Repellent x Iron Iron 69421-87 3 Yes Insecticide x All Iron products are 3 and Yes MSDS #4021 Lesco Agaecide Lescocide - Plus Algaecide (8959-10) x 1 Yes Algaecide x Lesco Flo ? MSDS #5007 x3Yes? Assumed this was Lesco 4 flowable Mach2 Mach 2 Liquid Turf Insecticide 69075-2 x 3 No Insecticide x Macrosorb (Minors) ?? Manicure 6 Flowable Turf and EPA # 50534-209- Manicure Ornamental 10182 x 2 Yes Fungicide x EPA # 50534-202- Manicure Ultrex Manicure Ultrex Turf and Ornamental 10182 x 1 Yes Fungicide x Mavrik Mavrik 3 Yes Insecticide x Only one active Mavrik product EPA # 34704-131- Mcpp Turfgo mcpp 4K Herbicide 65783 x 3 No Herbicide x Merit ??3 No Insecticide Many Merit products; most listed 3, No Millenium Ultra Millenium Ultra Selective Herbicide 228-322 1YesHerbicidexOnly Millenium Ultra listed Momentum 228-321-10404 x 1 Yes Herbicide x Oftanol Oftanol 2 Insecticide 3125-342 x 2 Yes Insecticide x Orthenex insect & disease control Orthenex formula 239-2594 1 Yes Insecticide x This was the only active product Pennant 100-691 x 3 Yes Herbicide x
Pentac ? ? Insecticide There were no active products called "Pentac" Primo 100-729 x2No x 2 active products listed: one 3, No; the other Prograss Prograss Flowable Herbicide ??Herbicide 1, Yes Proxol 45639-123 x 2 Yes Insecticide x Quelant ?? Revere 4000 Flowable MSDS # 3031 x 3 No Fungicide x Roundup Roundup Pro Concentrate 524-529 3 No Herbicide x Roundup Roundup Ultra 524-475 x 3 No Herbicide x Scimitar Wp Golf Course Turf Scimitar Insecticide 10182-401 2 No Insecticide x Snapshot 62719-175 x 3 No Herbicide x Subdue Subdue 2E 100-619 x 2 No Fungicide x Sun Spray Horticultural Oil 3 No Insecticide x All products beginning with Surflan were 3, Surflan Surflan 3No xNot Listed Systec 48234-13 x3Yes x There were many Talstar products; all were Talstar ? Yes Insecticide PAN Bad Actors All Three-Way products produced by Lesco Three Way 1YesHerbicide were 1, Yes Touche Lesco Touche EG 7969-62-10404 x 3 Yes Fungicide x
306 Treeguard Deer-b-gon 66676-1 x 3 No Repellent x Treflan 62719-98-10404 x3No x Two-thirds of all Triplet listings were 2, Yes; Triplet 1YesHerbicidex10 of 12 were PAN Bad Actors Triumph Triumph 4e Insecticide 100-643 x 2 Yes Insecticide x Turfcide Turfcide 4f 400-454 x 3 No Herbicide x Turplux ????? Two Plus Two Turf herbicide 22 2,4-d + mcpp 50534-11 x 3 No Herbicide x Could not find on PAN Twosome Lesco Twosome Flowable Fungicide 10404-60 x 1 Yes Fungicide x
Notes: (1) EPA Acute Toxicity Rating is based on substance's LD50. 1 = most acutely toxic; 4 = least acutely toxic (2) PAN Bad Actor Product means that the pesticide contains at least one chemical that is one of the following: known or probable carcinogen reproductive or developmental toxicant cholinesterase inhibitor known groundwater contaminant acutely toxic poison
307 APPENDIX N : Materials Consumed - Fertilizer Totals
1998 1999 2000
Composition Dept Units Total Nit (N) Phos (P) Potas (K) Total Nit (N) Phos (P) Potas (K) Total Nit (N) Phos (P) Potas (K) o 31-3-9 Matthei Lbs 32-3-6 Matthei Lbs 100 9 19 160 15 30 20-6-4 Matthei Lbs 27 1 6 17-3-17 Grounds - Turf Lbs - - - - - 72,000 12,240 2,160 12,240 28-3-10 Grounds - Turf Lbs 27,360 7,661 821 2,736 55,200 15,456 1,656 5,520 36,000 10,080 1,080 3,600 16-8-8 Grounds - Turf Lbs ------acted24-3-9 Grounds - Turf Lbs 33,400 8,016 1,002 3,006 600 144 18 54 - - - - 14-14-14 Grounds - CC Diag Lbs - - - - - 1,020 143 143 143 20-20-20 Grounds - CC Diag Lbs - 300 60 60 60 180 36 36 36 4-6-4 Grounds - CC Diag Lbs - 400 16 24 16 80 3 5 3 12-14-10 Grounds - CC Diag Lbs - 960 115 134 96 - - - - sheet Radrick Farms - all Lbs data not avail 3,931 705 3,459 est. 2,443 326 2,226 sheet Blue Course Lbs 4,782 133 18 9,014 2,127 4,445 sheet Athletics Lbs 1,727 1,701 2,200 1,882 649 2,225 15,777 1,832 5,761 26,391 4,447 11,453 35,867 6,526 24,924 as applied in the rate of 4 50-lb bags (200 lbs) per acre in 1998, 1999 and 5 50-lb bags (or 250 lbs) per acre in 2000, 2001 fertilizer is used inside; none used outside pplies Dispersal fertilizer to increase sulfur content (per Marvin Pettway). This application is not frequent and so is not included in above.
Units 1999 2000 2001 Lbs 26,391 35,867 22,720 us Lbs 4,447 6,526 4,965 Lbs 11,453 24,924 16,113
308 APPENDIX N-1 : Materials Consumed - Fertilizer Use - Radrick Farms Golf Course Conversions 1 acre = 44 thousand square feet
Notes: In 1999 and 2000, RF was trying to get areas back in shape, so those years had higher applications than usual (5lbs/1000sf as opposed to 2.5-3lbs/1000sf) Have 2000 data for greens only, not for rest
Fertilizer apps - fwys, tees, greens(1999)
Area (in Total N Total P Total K Site 1000 sq ft) Type Date N (lbs/1000) (Lbs) P (lbs/1000) (Lbs) K (lbs/1000) (Lbs) 1 132 4/15/99-S32-3-10 0.5 66.00 0.05 6.60 0.16 21.12 132 5/31/99-A18-6-15 0.5 66.00 0.17 22.44 0.42 55.44 132 8/12/99-L18-2-18 0.25 33.00 0.03 3.96 0.25 33.00 132 8/18/99-L18-2-18 0.125 16.50 0.01 1.32 0.125 16.50 132 12/15/99-A10-0-14pcnb 0.35 46.20 0 0.00 0.45 59.40 2 66 4/15/99-S32-3-10 0.5 33.00 0.05 3.30 0.16 10.56 66 5/7/99-L21-4-11 0.5 33.00 0.18 11.88 0.26 17.16 66 8/12/99-L18-2-18 0.25 16.50 0.03 1.98 0.25 16.50 66 8/18/99-L18-2-18 0.125 8.25 0.01 0.66 0.125 8.25 66 12/15/99-A10-0-14pcnb 0.35 23.10 0 0.00 0.45 29.70 3 88 4/15/99-S32-3-10 0.5 44.00 0.05 4.40 0.16 14.08 88 8/12/99-L18-2-18 0.25 22.00 0.03 2.64 0.25 22.00 88 8/18/99-L18-2-18 0.125 11.00 0.01 0.88 0.125 11.00 88 8/19/99-L18-2-18 0.3 26.40 0.03 2.64 0.3 26.40 88 12/15/99-A10-0-14pcnb 0.35 30.80 0 0.00 0.45 39.60 4 22 4/15/99-S32-3-10 0.5 11.00 0.05 1.10 0.16 3.52 22 5/24/99-A18-6-15 0.5 11.00 0.17 3.74 0.42 9.24 22 8/19/99-L18-2-18 0.25 5.50 0.03 0.66 0.25 5.50 22 12/15/99-A10-0-14pcnb 0.35 7.70 0 0.00 0.45 9.90 5 88 4/15/99-S32-3-10 0.5 44.00 0.05 4.40 0.16 14.08 88 5/24/99-A18-6-15 0.5 44.00 0.17 14.96 0.42 36.96 88 8/18/99-L18-2-18 0.125 11.00 0.01 0.88 0.125 11.00 88 8/19/99-L18-2-18 0.25 22.00 0.03 2.64 0.25 22.00 88 12/15/99-A10-0-14pcnb 0.35 30.80 0 0.00 0.45 39.60 6 88 4/15/99-S32-3-10 0.5 44.00 0.05 4.40 0.16 14.08 88 8/19/99-L18-2-18 0.3 26.40 0.03 2.64 0.3 26.40 88 12/15/99-A10-0-14pcnb 0.35 30.80 0 0.00 0.45 39.60 7 22 4/15/99-S32-3-10 0.5 11.00 0.05 1.10 0.16 3.52 22 8/18/99-L18-2-18 0.125 2.75 0.01 0.22 0.125 2.75 22 8/19/99-L18-2-18 0.25 5.50 0.03 0.66 0.25 5.50 22 12/15/99-A10-0-14pcnb 0.35 7.70 0 0.00 0.45 9.90 8 66 4/15/99-S32-3-10 0.5 33.00 0.05 3.30 0.16 10.56 66 8/18/99-L18-2-18 0.125 8.25 0.01 0.66 0.125 8.25 66 8/19/99-L18-2-18 0.25 16.50 0.03 1.98 0.25 16.50 66 12/15/99-A10-0-14pcnb 0.35 23.10 0 0.00 0.45 29.70 9 66 4/15/99-S32-3-10 0.5 33.00 0.05 3.30 0.16 10.56 66 5/7/99-L21-4-11 0.5 33.00 0.18 11.88 0.26 17.16 66 8/12/99-A18-2-18 0.25 16.50 0.03 1.98 0.25 16.50 66 12/15/99-A10-0-14pcnb 0.35 23.10 0 0.00 0.45 29.70 10 110 4/15/99-S32-3-10 0.5 55.00 0.05 5.50 0.16 17.60 110 5/31/99-A18-6-15 0.5 55.00 0.17 18.70 0.42 46.20 110 8/12/99-A18-2-18 0.25 27.50 0.03 3.30 0.25 27.50 110 8/18/99-L18-2-18 0.2 22.00 0.01 1.10 0.2 22.00 110 12/15/99-A10-0-14pcnb 0.35 38.50 0 0.00 0.45 49.50 11 22 4/15/99-S32-3-10 0.5 11.00 0.05 1.10 0.16 3.52 22 8/18/99-L18-2-18 0.125 2.75 0.01 0.22 0.125 2.75 22 8/19/99-L18-2-18 0.25 5.50 0.03 0.66 0.25 5.50 22 12/15/99-A10-0-14pcnb 0.35 7.70 0 0.00 0.45 9.90 12 88 4/15/99-S32-3-10 0.5 44.00 0.05 4.40 0.16 14.08 88 5/24/99-A18-6-15 0.5 44.00 0.17 14.96 0.42 36.96 13 66 4/15/99-S32-3-10 0.5 33.00 0.05 3.30 0.16 10.56 66 8/19/99-A18-2-18 0.3 19.80 0.03 1.98 0.3 19.80 14 110 4/15/99-S32-3-10 0.5 55.00 0.05 5.50 0.16 17.60 110 5/31/99-A18-6-15 0.5 55.00 0.17 18.70 0.42 46.20 110 8/12/99-A18-2-18 0.25 27.50 0.03 3.30 0.25 27.50 110 8/18/99-L18-2-18 0.25 27.50 0.03 3.30 0.25 27.50 15 22 4/15/99-S32-3-10 0.5 11.00 0.05 1.10 0.16 3.52 22 8/19/99-A18-2-18 0.3 6.60 0.03 0.66 0.3 6.60 16 88 4/15/99-S32-3-10 0.5 44.00 0.05 4.40 0.16 14.08 88 5/24/99-A18-6-15 0.5 44.00 0.17 14.96 0.42 36.96 17 88 4/15/99-S32-3-10 0.5 44.00 0.05 4.40 0.16 14.08 88 5/24/99-A18-6-15 0.5 44.00 0.17 14.96 0.42 36.96
309 Tees 176 L21-4-11 4/6/99 0.5 88.00 0.01 1.76 0.26 45.76 Tees 176 L21-4-11 5/6/99 0.5 88.00 0.01 1.76 0.26 45.76 Tees 176 A18-2-18 7/15/99 0.27 47.52 0.01 1.76 0.27 47.52 Tees 176 A18-2-18 9/7/99 0.5 88.00 0.01 1.76 0.5 88.00 Tees 176 L21-4-11 9/22/99 0.45 79.20 0.01 1.76 0.24 42.24 Tees 176 Milorganite 11/19/99 0.5 88.00 0.22 38.72 0 0.00 Greens 220 Andersons 18-6-15 4/8/99 0.35 77.00 0.14 30.80 0.34 74.80 Greens 220 Lesco 21-4-11 4/15/99 0.5 110.00 0.1 22.00 0.25 55.00 Greens 220 LescoWS 20-20-20 4/29/99 0.17 37.40 0.17 37.40 0.17 37.40 Greens 220 Andersons 18-6-15 5/5/99 0.48 105.60 0.16 35.20 0.45 99.00 Greens 220 CCWS 10-5-40 5/17/99 0.06 13.20 0.03 6.60 0.25 55.00 Greens 220 LescoWS 23-0-23 6/8/99 0.25 55.00 0 0.00 0.25 55.00 Greens 220 Andersons 13-2-13 6/17/99 0.4 88.00 0.06 13.20 0.4 88.00 Greens 220 Andersons 18-6-15 7/12/99 0.52 114.40 0.17 37.40 0.5 110.00 Greens 220 CCWS 10-5-40 8/3/99 0.06 13.20 0.03 6.60 0.25 55.00 Greens 220 Lesco 18-2-18 8/10/99 0.25 55.00 0.03 6.60 0.25 55.00 Greens 220 LescoWS 20-20-20 8/20/99 0.125 27.50 0.125 27.50 0.125 27.50 Greens 220 LescoWS 20-20-20 9/7/99 0.125 27.50 0.125 27.50 0.125 27.50 Greens 220 CCWS 10-5-40 9/7/99 0.06 13.20 0.03 6.60 0.25 55.00 Greens 220 LescoWS 20-20-20 9/20/99 0.125 27.50 0.125 27.50 0.125 27.50 Greens 220 CCWS 10-5-40 9/20/99 0.03 6.60 0.015 3.30 0.125 27.50 Greens 220 Andersons 18-2-18 9/21/99 0.5 110.00 0.06 13.20 0.5 110.00 Greens 220 Andersons 13-2-13 10/1/99 0.5 110.00 0.08 17.60 0.5 110.00 Greens 220 Andersons 18-6-15 11/2/99 0.5 110.00 0.17 37.40 0.42 92.40 Greens 220 Harmony 7-2-5 12/2/99 0.6 132.00 0.15 33.00 0.43 94.60 Greens don't need Andersons 10-0-14 pcnb 12/5/99 440.00 616.00 Total - 1999 3,930.5 704.9 3,459.1
Greens 220 A 13-2-13 4/18/00 0.52 114.40 0.08 17.60 0.52 114.40 Greens 220 L 23-0-23 5/1/00 0.2 44.00 0.00 0.2 44.00 Greens 220 CC 10-5-40 5/4/00 0.125 27.50 0.06 13.20 0.5 110.00 Greens 220 L 19-0-19 5/18/00 0.62 136.40 0.00 0.62 136.40 Greens 220 A 13-2-13 5/31/00 0.42 92.40 0.00 0.42 92.40 Greens 220 CC 10-5-40 6/30/00 0.125 27.50 0.06 13.20 0.5 110.00 Greens 220 L 23-0-23 8/11/00 0.15 33.00 0.00 0.15 33.00 Greens 220 A 18-6-15 9/5/00 0.54 118.80 0.18 39.60 0.45 99.00 Greens 220 A 13-2-13 9/25/00 0.4 88.00 0.06 13.20 0.4 88.00 Greens 220 A 18-6-15 10/2/00 0.56 123.20 0.19 41.80 0.47 103.40 Greens 35 A 13-2-13 11/2/00 0.8 28.00 0.12 4.20 0.8 28.00 Greens 220 A 18-6-15 11/9/00 0.5 110.00 0.17 37.40 0.5 110.00 Greens 220 A10-0-14 PCNB 11/30/00 0.44 96.80 0 0.00 0.62 136.40 Greens Total - 2000 1,040.0 180.2 1,205.0 Greens total - 1999 1,673.1 389.4 1,872.2 Ratio 2000:1999 62.16% 46.28% 64.36% Estimated Total - 2000 2,443.21 326.19 2,226.35
Greens 220 Andersons 18-6-15 5/7/01 0.49 107.80 0.14 30.80 0.4 88.00 Greens 220 Country Club 10-5-40 6/12/01 0.002 0.44 0.001 0.22 0.11 24.20 Greens 220 Andersons 13-2-13 11/8/01 0.3 66.00 0.05 11.00 0.3 66.00 Greens 220 Harmony 7-2-5 11/26/01 0.5 110.00 0.14 30.80 0.36 79.20 Greens 220 Andersons 10-0-14 (PCNB) 12/19/01 0.38 83.60 0 0.00 0.53 116.60 Greens 200 Andersons 18-6-15 (exept 1,2) 6/21/01 0.33 66.00 0.11 22.00 0.275 55.00 Greens 184 Andersons 18-6-15 (exept 1,2,3) 9/17/01 0.54 99.36 0.18 33.12 0.45 82.80 Greens 12 Andersons 18-6-15 (1,2,3) 5/1/01 0.76 9.12 0.25 3.00 0.63 7.56 Greens 12 Andersons 18-6-15 (1) 6/21/01 0.76 9.12 0.25 3.00 0.63 7.56 Greens 12 Andersons 18-6-15 (1,2,3) 9/17/01 0.875 10.50 0.29 3.48 0.72 8.64 Greens 12 Andersons 18-6-15 (2) 6/6/01 0.38 4.56 0.13 1.56 0.32 3.84 Greens 12 Andersons 18-6-15 (1,2,3) 5/1/01 0.76 9.12 0.25 3.00 0.63 7.56 Greens 12 Andersons 18-6-15 (2,3) 8/16/01 0.3 3.60 0.1 1.20 0.25 3.00 Greens 12 Andersons 18-6-15 (1,2,3) 5/1/01 0.76 9.12 0.25 3.00 0.63 7.56 Greens 12 Andersons 18-6-15 (2,3) 8/16/01 0.3 3.60 0.1 1.20 0.25 3.00 Greens Total - 2001 591.9 147.4 560.5 Greens total - 1999 1,673.1 389.4 1,872.2 Ratio 2001:1999 35.38% 37.85% 29.94% Estimated Total - 2001 1,390.61 266.78 1,035.61
310
APPENDIX N-2 : Materials Consumed - Fertilizer Use - Blue Golf Course
Lbs per Total Lbs Total N Total P Total K Size (in Size Year Type Area # Bags bag Applied (Lbs) (Lbs) (Lbs) Area 1,000 sq. ft.) (acres) 2001 0.7 0.1 0.4 121 Tees and surr n/a n/a 85 17 42 Tees 121.4 2.8 2001 21 4 11 14 50 700 147 5.88 0.6468 Fairways 1,240.8 28.2 2001620 45 502250 135 2.7 0 Greens 132 3 2001 14 0 21 4 50 200 28 0 0 Rough 990 22.5 2001 21 4 11 95 50 4750 997.5 39.9 4.389 Driving range (DR) 176 4 2001620 28 501400 84 1.68 0 - DR tees 58.67 2001 21 4 11 24 50 1200 252 10.08 1.1088 - DR roughs 117.33 2001 19 2 19 86 50 4300 817 16.34 3.1046 Bunker banks 22 0.5 2001 19 3 19 4 50 200 38 1.14 0.2166 VTC 11 0.25 2001620 34 501700 102 2.04 0 2001 19 2 19 26 50 1300 247 4.94 0.9386 1 acre = 44 thousand sq 2001 19 2 19 20 50 1000 190 3.8 0.722 2001 21 4 11 19 50 950 199.5 7.98 0.8778 2001 19 2 19 78 50 3900 741 14.82 2.8158 2001 19 2 19 3 50 150 28.5 0.57 0.1083 2001 14 3 6 21 50 1050 147 4.41 0.2646 2001 14 3 6 19 50 950 133 3.99 0.2394 Total - 2001 4,371.48 137.27 57.92
( Lbs / 1000 sq. ft ) 2000 0.3 0.1 0.2 191 DR tees and greens n/a 64 13 32 See assumption about DR tees size above 2000 4.7 1.2 2.4 1,241 Fairways n/a 5,832 1,458 2,916 2000 0.3 0.1 0.2 132 Greens n/a 44 9 22 2000 0.5 0.1 0.2 59 DR tees - public n/a 28 6 14 Assumed same as DR tees 2000 0.1 0.0 0.1 132 Greens n/a 14 5 11 2000 0.6 0.1 0.3 1,241 Fairways n/a 790 158 395 2000 0.6 0.1 0.3 176 DR n/a 104 21 52 2000 0.5 0.2 0.0 132 Greens n/a 66 22 0 2000 0.5 0.1 0.3 59 DR tees n/a 29 6 15 See assumption about DR tees size above 2000 0.5 0.1 0.3 121 Tees and surrounds n/a 61 12 30 2000 0.5 0.1 0.3 22 Bunker banks n/a 11 2 6 2000 0.5 0.1 0.4 132 Greens and tee banks n/a 66 18 59 Assumed just Greens 2000 0.8 0.2 0.4 1,241 Fairways n/a 993 199 496 2000 0.8 0.2 0.4 117 DR roughs n/a 94 19 47 2000 0.5 0.0 0.9 11 VTC n/a 6 0 10 2000 0.5 0.1 0.3 1,362 Tees and fairways n/a 681 136 341 2000 1.0 0.3 0 132 Greens n/a 132 44 0 Total - 2000 9,014 2,127 4,445
1999 21 4 11 13 50 650 136.5 5.46 0.6006 1999 16 4 8 44 50 2200 352 14.08 1.1264 1999 16 4 8 38 50 1900 304 12.16 0.9728 1999 13 3 26 56 50 2800 364 10.92 2.8392 1999 13 2 5 8 50 400 52 1.04 0.052 1999 5 5 25 73 50 3650 182.5 9.125 2.28125 1999 13 2 5 14 50 700 91 1.82 0.091
312 1999 21 4 11 7 50 350 73.5 2.94 0.3234 1999 5 5 25 22 50 1100 55 2.75 0.6875 1999 21 4 11 9.5 50 475 99.75 3.99 0.4389 1999 14 0 26 72 50 3600 504 0 0 1999 8 3 17 112 50 5600 448 13.44 2.2848 1999 21 4 11 19 50 950 199.5 7.98 0.8778 1999 13 3 26 32 50 1600 208 6.24 1.6224 1999 14 0 26 79 50 3950 553 0 0 1999 21 4 11 9 50 450 94.5 3.78 0.4158 1999 21 4 11 7 50 350 73.5 2.94 0.3234 1999 21 4 11 71 50 3550 745.5 29.82 3.2802 1999 14 2 14 n/a n/a 320 44.8 0.896 0.12544 1999620 n/a n/a2150 129 2.58 0 1999620 n/a n/a1200 72 1.44 0 Total - 1999 4782.05 133.401 18.34289
313 APPENDIX N-3 : Materials Consumed - Fertilizer Use - Athletics (not including golf courses)
Conversions 1 acre = 44 thousand square feet
Notes: Have 2000 and 2001 data also, just haven't entered yet
Fertilizer apps - Athletic fields
Area (in 1000 sq Total N Total P Total K Site ft) Type Date N (lbs/1000) (Lbs) P (lbs/1000) (Lbs) K (lbs/1000) (Lbs) Practice Football - all 215 4/8/99 0.47 101.05 0.12 25.80 0.24 51.60 Practice Football - 2&3 143.3333 4/20/99 0.33 47.30 0.08 11.47 0.17 24.37 Practice Football - 1 71.66667 4/20/99 0 0.00 0 0.00 2.47 177.02 Practice Football - all 215 5/6/99 0.52 111.80 0.87 187.05 0.35 75.25 Practice Football - all 215 5/18/99 0.52 111.80 0.87 187.05 0.35 75.25 Practice Football - all 215 6/28/99 0.84 180.60 1.04 223.60 0.56 120.40 Practice Football - 1 71.66667 6/30/99 0.63 45.15 0.17 12.18 0.63 45.15 Practice Football - all 215 8/9/99 0.69 148.35 0.08 17.20 0.39 83.85 Practice Football - 2&3 143.3333 9/7/99 0.7 100.33 1.17 167.70 0.47 67.37 Practice Football - all 215 9/28/99 0.28 60.20 0.46 98.90 0.13 27.95 Practice Football - all 215 10/13/99 0.31 66.65 0.52 111.80 0.21 45.15 Soccer 88 all 1999 2.76 242.88 2.05 180.40 7.5 660.00 Stadium 75 all 1999 6.81 510.75 6.37 477.75 9.95 746.25 Total - 1999 1,726.86 1,700.90 2,199.60
Stadium 75 2000 6.65 498.75 2.48 186.00 6.87 515.25 Soccer 88 2000 3.72 327.36 1.35 118.80 3.88 341.44 Practice Football - 1 71.66667 2000 4.18 299.57 1.5 107.50 4.77 341.85 Practice Football - 2&3 143.3333 2000 3.62 518.87 1.34 192.07 4.94 708.07 Elbel - all 88 2000 1.06 93.28 0.15 13.20 1.58 139.04 Elbel - Game Field 44 2000 3.27 143.88 0.71 31.24 4.07 179.08 Total - 2000 1,881.70 648.81 2,224.73
Stadium 75 2000 0.64 48.00 0.32 24.00 0 0.00 Stadium 75 2000 0.6 45.00 0.12 9.00 1.16 87.00 Stadium 75 2000 0.72 54.00 0.24 18.00 0.6 45.00 Stadium 75 2000 0.72 54.00 0.24 18.00 0.6 45.00 Stadium 75 2000 0.72 54.00 0.24 18.00 0.6 45.00 Stadium 75 2000 0.5 37.50 0.16 12.00 1.11 83.25 Stadium 75 2000 0.76 57.00 0.02 1.50 0.76 57.00 Stadium 75 2000 1.03 77.25 0.29 21.75 0.73 54.75 Practice Football - 1 71.66667 2000 1.75 125.42 0.18 12.90 1.75 125.42 Practice Football - 2&3 143.3333 2000 0.66 94.60 0.13 18.63 1.27 182.03 Practice Football - all 215 2000 0.68 146.20 0.22 47.30 0.56 120.40 Practice Football - all 215 2000 0.68 146.20 0.22 47.30 0.56 120.40 Practice Football - all 215 2000 0.48 103.20 0.1 21.50 0.94 202.10 Practice Football - all 215 2000 0.59 126.85 0.15 32.25 0.59 126.85 Soccer 88 2000 1.18 103.84 0.12 10.56 1.18 103.84 Soccer 88 2000 0.66 58.08 0.22 19.36 0.56 49.28 Soccer 88 2000 0.53 46.64 0.18 15.84 0.44 38.72 Soccer 88 2000 0.7 61.60 0.19 16.72 0.7 61.60 Elbel - all 88 2000 0.43 37.84 0.85 74.80 0.31 27.28 Elbel - all 88 2000 0.9 79.20 0 0.00 0.9 79.20 Elbel - all 88 2000 0.63 55.44 0.1 8.80 0.63 55.44 Total - 2001 1,611.86 448.21 1,709.56
314
APPENDIX O-1 : Food Consumption - Meat, Grains, Legumes Totals and Overall Summary Data
Conventions: 1. Months as follows: Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 65 4 3 2 11211109 8 7 2. For Feb. 2002, data was not available, so the qty ordered during Feb. 2001 was used. 3. Units = lbs except where indicated 4. Includes food for hospital and snackbars
Total other Mar. 2001 - Mar. 2000 - Mar. 1999 - ~ 1999 ~ 2000 ~ 2001 Total Category Style Product Lbs / Unit months) (Feb. 2001) Feb. 2002 Feb. 2001 Feb. 2000 Total Lbs Total Lbs Lbs Notes Beans Staples 26150 60 60 5 65 86 92 5,520 5,160 3,900 Beans Staples 38750 60 160 21 181 201 224 13,440 12,060 10,860 Beans Staples 15350 60 7 1 8 10 6 360 600 480 Beans Staples 44980 60 116 14 130 176 224 13,440 10,560 7,800 Beans Staples 36290 20 79 8 87 80 89 1,780 1,600 1,740 Beans Staples 69260 60 55 0 55 23 36 2,160 1,380 3,300 Beans Staples 16480 20 152 8 160 189 218 4,360 3,780 3,200 Beans Staples 46250 10 42 4 46 38 32 320 380 460 Beans Staples 23220 60 563 61 624 745 848 50,880 44,700 37,440 Beans Staples 47140 60 44 0 44 59 42 2,520 3,540 2,640 Beans Staples 26970 60 483 46 529 592 697 41,820 35,520 31,740 Beans Staples 19660 20 39 4 43 45 63 1,260 900 860 Beans Staples 26780 20 58 9 67 63 51 1,020 1,260 1,340 Beans Staples 11390 20 32 2 34 39 49 980 780 680 Beans Staples 34260 60 60 4 64 70 67 4,020 4,200 3,840 Beans Staples 13370 20 46 4 50 30 48 960 600 1,000 Beans Staples 17830 60 254 22 276 320 384 23,040 19,200 16,560 some data Beef Fresh 50260 1 10,088 0 10,088 0 0 0 0 10,088 missing Beef Fresh 42660 1 644 0 644 992 584 584 992 644 Beef Fresh 41280 1 481 0 481 288 18 18 288 481 Beef Fresh 44120 1 649 0 649 0 712 712 0 649 some data Beef Fresh 38430 1 0 0 0 544 0 0 544 0 missing Beef Fresh 41820 1 2,095 0 2,095 1,477 0 0 1,477 2,095 Beef Fresh 42240 1 967 143 1,110 3,653 5,603 5,603 3,653 1,110 Beef Fresh 29700 1 1,139 0 1,139 509 700 700 509 1,139 Beef Fresh 29720 1 4,034 203 4,237 4,286 16,145 16,145 4,286 4,237 Beef Fresh 42050 1 364 0 364 469 692 692 469 364 Beef Fresh 29730 1 3,747 419 4,166 3,321 2,056 2,056 3,321 4,166 Beef Fresh 38970 1 360 74 434 1,230 1,241 1,241 1,230 434 Beef Fresh 34070 1 244 54 298 915 130 130 915 298 Beef Fresh 29660 1 122 0 122 533 1,137 1,137 533 122
316 Beef Fresh 29670 1 971 248 1,219 850 1,237 1,237 850 1,219 Beef Fresh 29770 1 2,316 358 2,674 2,471 2,521 2,521 2,471 2,674 Beef Frozen 30350 10 4 0 4 12 7 70 120 40 Beef Frozen 44790 13.125 140 10 150 155 110 1,444 2,034 1,969 Beef Frozen 29710 1 4,405 493 4,898 9,701 9,197 9,197 9,701 4,898 Beef Frozen 30390 1 395 20 415 730 988 988 730 415 Beef Frozen 38560 1 40 0 40 20 37 37 20 40 Beef Frozen 30410 1 571 160 731 881 356 356 881 731 Beef Frozen 31300 10 122 4 126 20 0 0 200 1,260 Beef Frozen 41790 1 4,780 740 5,520 7,671 4,505 4,505 7,671 5,520 Beef Frozen 40570 10 181 0 181 186 187 1,870 1,860 1,810 some data Beef Frozen 53500 0.4 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 6 missing Beef Processed 48930 1 132 106 238 959 693 693 959 238 Beef Processed 28550 1 308 47 355 237 674 674 237 355 Beef Processed 28560 1 20,643 2,000 22,643 22,299 19,219 19,219 22,299 22,643 Beef Processed 36370 1 99 0 99 0 114 114 0 99 Beef Processed 33230 1 3,121 325 3,446 4,790 4,973 4,973 4,790 3,446 Beef Processed 28410 1 65,962 7,000 72,962 87,199 80,757 80,757 87,199 72,962 Beef Processed 41880 1 1,759 75 1,834 844 656 656 844 1,834 Beef Processed 42020 1 606 51 657 619 489 489 619 657 Beef Processed 37530 1 1,559 0 1,559 1,347 1,163 1,163 1,347 1,559 Beef Processed 37370 1 1,893 0 1,893 120 0 0 120 1,893 Beef Processed 37630 1 16,409 2,275 18,684 26,288 21,219 21,219 26,288 18,684 Beef Processed 39640 1 4,182 612 4,794 3,213 3,777 3,777 3,213 4,794 Beef Processed 35670 1 1,862 340 2,202 442 180 180 442 2,202 Beef Processed 47100 1 500 0 500 382 405 405 382 500 Beef Processed 39460 1 240 0 240 656 195 195 656 240 Beef Processed 28610 1 1,053 208 1,261 1,991 1,632 1,632 1,991 1,261 Beef Processed 28660 1 1,237 52 1,289 3,025 1,595 1,595 3,025 1,289 Beef Processed 28660 1 1,237 52 1,289 3,025 1,595 1,595 3,025 1,289 Beef Processed 28670 1 1,535 96 1,631 2,413 1,352 1,352 2,413 1,631 Beef Processed 41700 1 540 35 575 693 3,317 3,317 693 575 Beef Processed 41060 1 936 128 1,064 1,415 1,071 1,071 1,415 1,064 Beef Processed 33420 1 4,997 892 5,889 15,968 14,818 14,818 15,968 5,889 Beef Processed 45110 1 391 98 489 347 491 491 347 489 Beef Processed 28690 1 33,725 2,753 36,478 27,854 25,884 25,884 27,854 36,478 Beef Processed 28710 1 825 81 906 1,133 2,718 2,718 1,133 906 Beef Processed 28720 1 1,907 302 2,209 3,013 3,367 3,367 3,013 2,209 Beef Processed 42880 1 1,176 51 1,227 289 524 524 289 1,227 Beef Processed 28750 1 736 0 736 78 105 105 78 736 Beef Processed 28760 1 881 204 1,085 1,338 993 993 1,338 1,085 Beef Processed 28820 1 752 73 825 1,100 775 775 1,100 825
317 Beef Processed 28800 1 784 56 840 509 469 469 509 840 Beef Processed 28850 1 696 9 705 726 967 967 726 705 Beef Processed 28880 1 604 0 604 353 1,000 1,000 353 604 Beef Processed 28790 1 704 63 767 1,174 500 500 1,174 767 Beef Processed 28940 1 5,393 1,014 6,407 8,577 6,585 6,585 8,577 6,407 Beef Processed 40580 1 311 19 330 154 25 25 154 330 Beef Processed 46710 1 52 0 52 214 422 422 214 52 Beef (Variety - Bologna) Fresh 29740 1 585 88 673 894 1,182 1,182 894 673 Beef (Variety - Pastrami) Fresh 29820 1 123 10 133 101 227 227 101 133 Beef (Variety - Pastrami) Processed 29550 1 177 17 194 330 180 180 330 194 Beef (Veal) Fresh 38890 1 20 0 20 0 0 0 0 20 some data Beef (Veal) Processed 40290 1 103 12 115 348 0 0 348 115 missing Bread Bread 16670 1 1,034 142 1,176 1,003 888 888 1,003 1,176 Bread Bread 15210 1.625 3,714 393 4,107 3,287 2,842 4,618 5,341 6,674 Bread Bread 40300 1.5 843 100 943 3,141 3,982 5,973 4,712 1,415 Bread Bread 22830 1.5 2,209 312 2,521 3,390 4,088 6,132 5,085 3,782 Bread Bread 40240 1.5 2,062 231 2,293 3,698 4,903 7,355 5,547 3,440 Bread Bread 22670 1 9,560 1,711 11,271 15,000 14,630 14,630 15,000 11,271 Bread Bread 25820 1 685 203 888 2,016 2,835 2,835 2,016 888 Bread Bread 42530 1.625 8,304 811 9,115 11,382 15,476 25,149 18,496 14,812 Bread Bread 56760 1.25 20 0 20 1 56 70 1 25 Bread Bread 41310 0.75 373 63 436 592 632 474 444 327 Bread Bread 50250 0.75 123 0 123 37 15 11 28 92 Bread Bread 14730 2 299 22 321 1,113 2,182 4,364 2,226 642 Bread Bread 58560 2 62 28 90 184 168 336 368 180 Bread Bread 40800 2 60 22 82 212 170 340 424 164 Bread Bread 20880 1 528 96 624 878 1,064 1,064 878 624 Bread Bread 40310 1.6875 7 0 7 76 1,422 2,400 128 12 Bread Bread 40060 1.625 6,450 828 7,278 8,868 8,865 14,406 14,411 11,827 Bread Bread 53510 1.25 361 53 414 272 98 123 340 518 Bread Bread 51920 1.25 56 0 56 2 276 345 3 70 Bread Bread 10630 1.25 32,043 3,699 35,742 35,297 37,238 46,548 44,121 44,678 Bread Bread 53800 18 5 1 6 4 5 90 72 108 Bread Bread 42080 1.5 196 14 210 755 1,745 2,618 1,133 315 Bread Bread 24420 3 1,131 135 1,266 2,632 3,400 10,200 7,896 3,798 Bread Bread 17650 12 667 87 754 621 896 10,752 7,452 9,048 Bread Bread 16180 1.5 199 123 322 924 786 1,179 1,386 483 Bread Bread 54830 3 199 5 204 183 54 162 549 612 Bread Bread 19350 3 22,487 3,065 25,552 31,120 35,240 105,720 93,360 76,656 Bread Bread 24280 3 4,820 607 5,427 4,580 5,923 17,769 13,740 16,281 Bread Bread 27080 3 6,864 892 7,756 9,380 9,660 28,980 28,140 23,268 Bread Bread 11950 2 293 151 444 1,321 1,987 3,974 2,642 888
318 Bread Bread 43100 1.5 4,586 732 5,318 7,092 7,450 11,175 10,638 7,977 Bread Bread 55870 0.45 0 0 0 30 9 4 14 0 Bread Bread 13960 0.9 2,801 236 3,037 2,508 3,175 2,858 2,257 2,733 Bread Bread 18350 0.9 286 29 315 307 284 256 276 284 Bread Bread 25130 0.9 390 66 456 492 329 296 443 410 Bread Bread 42400 0.9 2,076 304 2,380 3,188 2,732 2,459 2,869 2,142 Bread Bread 14250 0.45 1,158 36 1,194 470 558 251 212 537 Cereal Cereal 40170 4.5 32 6 38 54 45 203 243 171 Cereal Cereal 22840 13.125 107 17 124 133 129 1,693 1,746 1,628 Cereal Cereal 21150 4.375 377 33 410 435 453 1,982 1,903 1,794 Cereal Cereal 46280 10.5 605 72 677 484 410 4,305 5,082 7,109 Cereal Cereal 56080 9.375 136 9 145 23 0 0 216 1,359 Cereal Cereal 25590 17.5 107 26 133 167 100 1,750 2,923 2,328 Cereal Cereal 10600 4.5 693 57 750 777 798 3,591 3,497 3,375 Cereal Cereal 11330 6 55 0 55 5 6 36 30 330 Cereal Cereal 18390 21 91 7 98 104 106 2,226 2,184 2,058 Cereal Cereal 52150 13.5 138 15 153 131 129 1,742 1,769 2,066 Cereal Cereal 19520 18.75 193 26 219 206 201 3,769 3,863 4,106 Cereal Cereal 21610 4.5 433 37 470 442 456 2,052 1,989 2,115 Cereal Cereal 34170 9.75 480 73 553 472 390 3,803 4,602 5,392 Cereal Cereal 14120 12 99 16 115 140 139 1,668 1,680 1,380 Cereal Cereal 69380 40 19 1 20 7 12 480 280 800 Cereal Cereal 35490 14 216 28 244 197 191 2,674 2,758 3,416 Cereal Cereal 52690 4.5 5 0 5 17 76 342 77 23 Cereal Cereal 29830 14 421 53 474 389 345 4,830 5,446 6,636 Cereal Cereal 54500 2.85 10 2 12 44 0 0 125 34 Cereal Cereal 52920 2.85 22 3 25 61 0 0 174 71 Cereal Cereal 52910 2.85 0 0 0 32 0 0 91 0 Cereal Cereal 12920 3 103 2 105 46 35 105 138 315 Cereal Cereal 69470 4.5 11 0 11 21 12 54 95 50 Cereal Cereal 68910 31.5 44 6 50 28 16 504 882 1,575 Cereal Cereal 17240 50 49 5 54 57 73 3,650 2,850 2,700 Cereal Cereal 25480 22.3125 178 24 202 192 186 4,150 4,284 4,507 Cereal Cereal 23090 4.5 249 21 270 264 270 1,215 1,188 1,215 Cereal Cereal 49180 6.75 261 37 298 319 407 2,747 2,153 2,012 Cereal Cereal 12450 4.5 214 19 233 256 273 1,229 1,152 1,049 Cereal Cereal 16690 4.5 120 12 132 117 98 441 527 594 Cereal Cereal 52710 13.125 42 7 49 26 0 0 341 643 Cereal Cereal 20030 13.5 83 14 97 104 112 1,512 1,404 1,310 Cereal Cereal 61490 12 96 15 111 53 0 0 636 1,332 Cheese Cheese 14820 30 96 14 110 212 208 6,240 6,360 3,300 Cheese Cheese 17110 9 59 2 61 66 45 405 594 549 Cheese Cheese 19450 20 1,082 118 1,200 1,338 1,147 22,940 26,760 24,000
319 Cheese Cheese 23680 5.5 23 3 26 25 10 55 138 143 Cheese Cheese 11800 2.2 254 15 269 410 245 539 902 592 Cheese Cheese 37050 10 65 9 74 186 758 7,580 1,860 740 Cheese Cheese 22660 10 72 7 79 102 499 4,990 1,020 790 Cheese Cheese 11360 10 1,088 163 1,251 1,663 1,436 14,360 16,630 12,510 Cheese Cheese 49220 20 96 22 118 164 126 2,520 3,280 2,360 Cheese Cheese 38090 20 1,803 185 1,988 1,971 1,876 37,520 39,420 39,760 Cheese Cheese 42950 9 79 5 84 76 39 351 684 756 Cheese Cheese 12980 4.5 153 10 163 506 430 1,935 2,277 734 Cheese Cheese 15860 13 102 17 119 483 1,875 24,375 6,279 1,547 Cheese Cheese 13830 8 615 59 674 771 799 6,392 6,168 5,392 Cheese Cheese 23040 7 24 2 26 75 169 1,183 525 182 Cheese Cheese 25550 10 4 3 7 64 201 2,010 640 70 Cheese Cheese 39320 9 27 0 27 119 312 2,808 1,071 243 Cheese Cheese 49790 10 546 72 618 798 813 8,130 7,980 6,180 Cheese Cheese 19090 48 54 6 60 229 249 11,952 10,992 2,880 Cheese Cheese 33950 20 1,478 155 1,633 1,514 1,299 25,980 30,280 32,660 Cheese Cheese 23000 6 386 34 420 785 2,117 12,702 4,710 2,520 Cheese Cheese 69890 30 66 0 66 0 0 0 0 1,980 Cheese Cheese 66930 10 15 2 17 19 0 0 190 170 Cheese Cheese 25850 5 1,248 150 1,398 1,567 1,504 7,520 7,835 6,990 Cheese Cheese 52680 20 40 4 44 40 3 60 800 880 Cheese Cheese 23310 22 16 2 18 113 743 16,346 2,486 396 Cheese Cheese 16070 12 87 12 99 797 2,463 29,556 9,564 1,188 Cheese Cheese 18030 5 1,229 80 1,309 1,241 1,084 5,420 6,205 6,545 Cheese Cheese 55380 4.5 27 0 27 62 0 0 279 122 Cheese Cheese 24150 9 5 0 5 24 183 1,647 216 45 Cheese Cheese 26040 8 1,192 139 1,331 3,210 8,412 67,296 25,680 10,648 Cheese Cheese 16570 20 139 12 151 177 182 3,640 3,540 3,020 Lamb Frozen 49810 10 12 0 12 48 153 1,530 480 120 Lamb Frozen 30490 6 277 26 303 330 284 1,704 1,980 1,818 Lamb Frozen 30510 1 113 30 143 206 203 203 206 143 Lamb Frozen 38830 1 68 0 68 0 0 0 0 68 Lamb Frozen 35700 1 79 0 79 117 173 173 117 79 Lamb Processed 29270 1 243 46 289 593 273 273 593 289 Lamb Processed 29300 1 90 0 90 140 70 70 140 90 Lamb Processed 33370 1 297 16 313 97 42 42 97 313 Lamb Processed 29360 1 509 31 540 566 447 447 566 540 Pasta Staples 36500 10 369 35 404 493 499 4,990 4,930 4,040 Pasta Staples 24590 10 794 116 910 1,145 1,165 11,650 11,450 9,100 Pasta Staples 27700 10 55 4 59 62 66 660 620 590 Pasta Staples 12870 10 241 12 253 188 200 2,000 1,880 2,530 Pasta Staples 36680 20 10 3 13 45 93 1,860 900 260
320 Pasta Staples 11090 10 169 24 193 220 211 2,110 2,200 1,930 Pasta Staples 13230 10 168 14 182 213 200 2,000 2,130 1,820 Pasta Staples 31660 20 144 8 152 145 162 3,240 2,900 3,040 Pasta Staples 14890 20 408 55 463 553 617 12,340 11,060 9,260 Pasta Staples 14510 20 248 15 263 285 299 5,980 5,700 5,260 Pasta Staples 17860 20 212 35 247 305 362 7,240 6,100 4,940 Pasta Staples 21800 60 63 10 73 142 164 9,840 8,520 4,380 Pasta Staples 35440 10 42 3 45 34 30 300 340 450 Pasta Staples 18730 20 6 1 7 20 14 280 400 140 Pasta Staples 20190 20 376 23 399 399 497 9,940 7,980 7,980 Pasta Staples 38860 20 215 30 245 360 773 15,460 7,200 4,900 Pasta Staples 46360 10 16 0 16 11 7 70 110 160 Pasta Staples 21780 20 807 73 880 945 1,054 21,080 18,900 17,600 Pasta Staples 39080 20 87 3 90 57 91 1,820 1,140 1,800 Pasta Staples 38280 20 214 25 239 266 307 6,140 5,320 4,780 Pork Fresh 46910 0.8 7 0 7 160 298 238 128 6 Pork Fresh 29910 1 595 228 823 2,827 2,118 2,118 2,827 823 Pork Fresh 41900 1 19,051 2,521 21,572 29,354 24,513 24,513 29,354 21,572 Pork Fresh 45360 15 354 31 385 408 472 7,080 6,120 5,775 Pork Fresh 44170 1 0 0 0 0 218 218 0 0 Pork Fresh 29960 1 19,450 1,631 21,081 21,467 20,577 20,577 21,467 21,081 Pork Fresh 33900 1 158 0 158 36 22 22 36 158 Pork Fresh 41570 1 1,788 173 1,961 1,821 1,017 1,017 1,821 1,961 Pork Fresh 29990 1 72 0 72 68 39 39 68 72 Pork Fresh 30010 1 1,124 63 1,187 1,020 1,309 1,309 1,020 1,187 Pork Fresh 34150 1 2,083 175 2,258 1,033 2,610 2,610 1,033 2,258 Pork Fresh 35840 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pork Fresh 40450 1 136 9 145 475 1,639 1,639 475 145 Pork Fresh 29160 1 141 0 141 134 294 294 134 141 Pork Fresh 29210 1 932 65 997 558 708 708 558 997 Pork Fresh 37750 1 0 0 0 0 319 319 0 0 Pork Fresh 44160 1 244 10 254 268 120 120 268 254 some data Pork Frozen 57380 1 3,761 3,761 0 0 3,761 missing assumed same lbs/case as sausage Pork Frozen 51650 10 294 12 306 283 237 2,370 2,830 3,060 links Pork Frozen 29070 1 563 20 583 256 187 187 256 583 some data Pork Frozen 56090 1 13 18 31 59 19 19 59 31 missing Pork Frozen 30540 1 35 47 82 195 175 175 195 82
321 Pork Frozen 33690 10 102 11 113 144 149 1,490 1,440 1,130 Pork Frozen 29100 1 1,913 552 2,465 3,330 3,396 3,396 3,330 2,465 Pork Frozen 30550 1 10 0 10 1 36 36 1 10 Pork Frozen 29250 1 461 0 461 251 171 171 251 461 Pork Frozen 41730 10 194 26 220 300 186 1,860 3,000 2,200 Pork Frozen 42410 1 390 0 390 418 363 363 418 390 Pork Frozen 40870 1 70 0 70 490 170 170 490 70 Pork Frozen 41420 10 153 15 168 73 9 90 730 1,680 Pork Frozen 31130 10 71 21 92 246 195 1,950 2,460 920 Pork Frozen 30080 10 20 13 33 99 72 720 990 330 Pork Frozen 30110 1 1,520 241 1,761 2,390 2,402 2,402 2,390 1,761 Pork Frozen 42350 1 397 0 397 618 366 366 618 397 Pork Frozen 42630 1 666 60 726 1,229 1,172 1,172 1,229 726 Pork Frozen 30150 10 26 3 29 34 24 240 340 290 Pork Frozen 31180 10 9 0 9 44 81 810 440 90 Pork Frozen 31200 10 193 58 251 377 353 3,530 3,770 2,510 Pork Frozen 31240 10 9 1 10 23 29 290 230 100 Pork Frozen 31250 10 472 31 503 528 359 3,590 5,280 5,030 Pork Frozen 41030 12 68 5 73 63 100 1,200 756 876 Pork Frozen 31260 10 670 68 738 815 969 9,690 8,150 7,380 Pork Frozen 31280 1 2,625 275 2,900 2,402 1,659 1,659 2,402 2,900 Pork Frozen 31290 12 98 12 110 124 74 888 1,488 1,320 Pork Processed 58200 1 659 55 714 941 449 449 941 714 Pork Processed 29580 1 72 6 78 118 47 47 118 78 Pork Processed 29010 1 48 4 52 33 0 0 33 52 Pork Processed 28970 1 273 23 296 564 501 501 564 296 Pork Processed 28960 1 2,701 225 2,926 6,197 6,901 6,901 6,197 2,926 Pork Processed 28990 1 147 12 159 431 70 70 431 159 Pork Processed 29000 1 652 54 706 321 80 80 321 706 Pork Processed 29030 1 387 32 419 283 99 99 283 419 Pork Processed 29060 1 728 61 789 1,327 1,649 1,649 1,327 789 Pork Processed 30530 1 293 24 317 263 125 125 263 317 Pork Processed 29600 1 709 59 768 3,017 3,646 3,646 3,017 768 Pork Processed 29590 1 487 41 528 941 1,272 1,272 941 528 Pork Processed 51090 1 2,115 176 2,291 6,257 4,833 4,833 6,257 2,291 Pork Processed 33720 1 1,835 153 1,988 6,291 5,635 5,635 6,291 1,988 Pork Processed 29110 1 3,232 269 3,501 1,580 744 744 1,580 3,501 Pork Processed 29130 1 88 7 95 807 138 138 807 95 Pork Processed 15270 1 321 27 348 368 485 485 368 348 Pork Processed 29150 1 171 14 185 379 466 466 379 185 some data Pork Processed 29170 1 249 21 270 181 181 181 181 270 missing Pork Processed 29180 1 1,260 105 1,365 4,200 4,279 4,279 4,200 1,365
322 Pork Processed 29240 1 1,172 98 1,270 561 74 74 561 1,270 Pork Processed 31160 1 818 68 886 1,151 1,442 1,442 1,151 886 Pork Processed 31170 1 780 65 845 131 84 84 131 845 Pork (Variety - Salami) Fresh 29870 1 372 111 483 1,091 966 966 1,091 483 Pork (Variety - Salami) Fresh 29840 1 102 12 114 115 168 168 115 114 Pork (Variety - Salami) Fresh 29850 1 338 37 375 510 1,284 1,284 510 375 Pork (Variety - Salami) Processed 29570 1 90 0 90 56 46 46 56 90 Pork (Variety - Salami) Processed 29560 1 409 77 486 506 189 189 506 486 Pork (Variety) Fresh 30000 1 4,056 527 4,583 5,897 4,166 4,166 5,897 4,583 Pork (Variety) Processed 46700 1 571 32 603 695 1,470 1,470 695 603 Pork (Variety) Processed 47740 1 738 30 768 694 563 563 694 768 Pork (Variety) Processed 29620 1 481 40 521 1,031 480 480 1,031 521 Poultry Fresh 50150 1 3,280 80 3,360 3,800 3,860 3,860 3,800 3,360 some data Poultry Fresh 50350 1 610 0 610 120 0 120 610 missing Poultry Fresh 34490 1 240 0 240 362 4,607 4,607 362 240 Poultry Frozen 36300 10.5 17 5 22 38 62 651 399 231 Poultry Frozen 32150 10 1,305 136 1,441 1,149 722 7,220 11,490 14,410 Poultry Frozen 45720 6 9,677 865 10,542 10,388 9,439 56,634 62,328 63,252 Poultry Frozen 33820 9 1,178 141 1,319 1,515 1,111 9,999 13,635 11,871 Poultry Frozen 33600 12 899 71 970 1,246 769 9,228 14,952 11,640 some data Poultry Frozen 30600 12 28 28 0 0 336 missing Poultry Frozen 30570 1 2,102 185 2,287 2,280 6,166 6,166 2,280 2,287 Poultry Frozen 30590 9 123 22 145 177 110 990 1,593 1,305 Poultry Frozen 30640 10.5 33 5 38 37 32 336 389 399 Poultry Frozen 32240 10 751 63 814 937 822 8,220 9,370 8,140 Poultry Frozen 30670 16 296 11 307 504 992 15,872 8,064 4,912 Poultry Frozen 30720 6.5625 9 0 9 44 137 899 289 59 Poultry Frozen 30750 20 1,713 100 1,813 1,048 397 7,940 20,960 36,260 * Poultry Frozen 30760 1 400 0 400 636 1,508 1,508 636 400 Poultry Frozen 30770 11.25 209 11 220 277 859 9,664 3,116 2,475 Poultry Frozen 30780 3 47 6 53 30 23 69 90 159 Poultry Frozen 43540 1 5,509 250 5,759 4,053 4,492 4,492 4,053 5,759 Poultry Frozen 30810 10 51 2 53 48 103 1,030 480 530 Poultry Frozen 33250 1 2,788 660 3,448 3,416 8,461 8,461 3,416 3,448 Poultry Frozen 50630 1 6,912 815 6,270 6,017 6,017 6,270 0 Poultry Frozen 45960 10 54 2 56 222 141 1,410 2,220 560 Poultry Frozen 49130 12 133 6 139 311 229 2,748 3,732 1,668 Poultry Frozen 40100 10 230 4 234 265 610 6,100 2,650 2,340 Poultry Frozen 30870 33 7 0 7 3 1 33 99 231 Poultry Frozen 46040 7.125 13 0 13 29 50 356 207 93 Poultry Frozen 30880 1 1,001 91 1,092 842 478 478 842 1,092
323 some data Poultry Frozen 50880 1 42 0 42 124 145 145 124 42 missing Poultry Frozen 30900 1 32 0 32 53 33 33 53 32 Poultry Frozen 30910 1 777 117 894 1,023 1,541 1,541 1,023 894 Poultry Frozen 30930 4.5 12 0 12 0 3 14 0 54 Poultry Frozen 40730 1 2,712 368 3,080 2,933 3,433 3,433 2,933 3,080 Poultry Frozen 39130 1 964 82 1,046 2,006 2,659 2,659 2,006 1,046 Poultry Frozen 49960 5 287 83 370 1,174 930 4,650 5,870 1,850 Poultry Frozen 30980 1 6,536 809 7,345 6,970 5,729 5,729 6,970 7,345 Poultry Frozen 30970 1 22,261 2,049 24,310 25,383 70,647 70,647 25,383 24,310 Poultry Frozen 30960 1 2,749 244 2,993 3,510 2,682 2,682 3,510 2,993 Poultry Frozen 40210 10 167 0 167 30 0 0 300 1,670 Poultry Frozen 45300 9 9 2 11 18 29 261 162 99 Poultry Frozen 35800 1 165 0 165 85 11 11 85 165 Poultry Frozen 35830 10 266 30 296 243 234 2,340 2,430 2,960 Poultry Frozen 36320 12 78 1 79 32 67 804 384 948 some data Poultry Frozen 55580 1 105 0 105 447 340 340 447 105 missing Poultry Frozen 31070 1 2,613 42 2,655 1,334 1,158 1,158 1,334 2,655 some data Poultry Frozen 30990 1 0 0 0 0 missing Poultry Processed 36620 1 8,322 694 9,016 12,268 10,451 10,451 12,268 9,016 Poultry Processed 49270 1 107 9 116 481 604 604 481 116 Poultry Processed 38670 1 56,329 4,694 61,023 67,750 54,989 54,989 67,750 61,023 Poultry Processed 38710 1 5,542 461 6,003 87 17 17 87 6,003 Poultry Processed 44560 1 3,954 329 4,283 4,553 3,573 3,573 4,553 4,283 Poultry Processed 29390 1 25,781 2,148 27,929 27,428 26,240 26,240 27,428 27,929 Poultry Processed 57180 1 4,135 345 4,480 3,133 3,616 3,616 3,133 4,480 Poultry Processed 62740 1 8,926 744 9,670 8,782 8,916 8,916 8,782 9,670 Poultry Processed 52560 1 2,753 229 2,982 975 982 982 975 2,982 Units = cases of 24 Poultry Processed 30860 13.5 0 0 0 40 20 270 540 0 each Poultry Processed 49950 1 2,171 181 2,352 4,643 4,159 4,159 4,643 2,352 Poultry Processed 51350 1 182 15 197 0 113 113 0 197 Poultry Processed 52270 1 1,256 105 1,361 1,312 128 128 1,312 1,361 Poultry Processed 35690 1 736 61 797 1,175 684 684 1,175 797 some data Poultry Processed 69960 1 414 414 0 0 414 missing some data Poultry (Chicken) Frozen 61480 10 172 12 184 144 84 840 1,440 1,840 missing some data Poultry (Chicken) Frozen 58000 10 291 125 416 1,033 197 1,970 10,330 4,160 missing
324 some data Poultry (Chicken) Frozen 69170 13.125 26 0 26 0 0 0 0 341 missing some data Poultry (Chicken) Frozen 56110 26.5 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 239 missing some data Poultry (Chicken) Frozen 69550 11.25 150 0 150 0 0 0 0 1,688 missing some data Poultry (Chicken) Frozen 55530 1 1,209 0 1,209 320 160 160 320 1,209 missing some data Poultry (Turkey) Frozen 53160 1 44,885 5,828 50,713 54,588 0 54,588 50,713 missing Poultry (Variety) Processed 42150 1 5,968 883 6,851 6,263 4,002 4,002 6,263 6,851 Poultry (Variety) Processed 52500 1 1,218 91 1,309 1,841 4,805 4,805 1,841 1,309 Rice Staples 48400 20 7 0 7 8 12 240 160 140 Rice Staples 36530 10 279 27 306 225 146 1,460 2,250 3,060 Rice Staples 20320 25 114 9 123 121 112 2,800 3,025 3,075 Rice Staples 24300 25 1,639 195 1,834 1,980 2,246 56,150 49,500 45,850 Rice Staples 52090 25 11 1 12 13 33 825 325 300 Rice Staples 51840 13.5 15 4 19 25 1 14 338 257 Rice Staples 27340 13.5 73 5 78 60 99 1,337 810 1,053 Rice Staples 41120 50 262 30 292 216 302 15,100 10,800 14,600 Rice Staples 53080 12.375 24 4 28 28 2 25 347 347 Rice Staples 44050 13.5 23 5 28 30 9 122 405 378 Rice Staples 44270 5 50 4 54 51 22 110 255 270 Seafood Frozen 31390 10 86 15 101 118 362 3,620 1,180 1,010 Seafood Frozen 31400 1 2,475 360 2,835 2,729 1,703 1,703 2,729 2,835 Seafood Frozen 31410 6 114 24 138 325 355 2,130 1,950 828 Seafood Frozen 57170 10 5 6 11 73 223 2,230 730 110 Seafood Frozen 42980 10 375 46 421 443 333 3,330 4,430 4,210 Seafood Frozen 38690 1 1,050 170 1,220 1,025 870 870 1,025 1,220 Seafood Frozen 45630 10 89 15 104 99 65 650 990 1,040 Seafood Frozen 31600 10 224 29 253 497 295 2,950 4,970 2,530 Seafood Frozen 46470 10 76 6 82 322 446 4,460 3,220 820 Seafood Frozen 31340 1 3,413 360 3,773 4,299 3,176 3,176 4,299 3,773 Seafood Frozen 31440 5 6 0 6 4 0 0 20 30 Seafood Frozen 31450 1 404 5 409 424 468 468 424 409 Seafood Frozen 31470 9 9 0 9 7 6 54 63 81 Seafood Frozen 31530 10 9 0 9 3 5 50 30 90 Seafood Frozen 31580 1 338 40 378 463 465 465 463 378 Seafood Frozen 31620 1 220 0 220 2,440 1,900 1,900 2,440 220 Seafood Frozen 31610 1 500 30 530 527 596 596 527 530 Seafood Frozen 33400 22.05 26 4 30 32 11 243 706 662 Seafood Frozen 31640 22 15 0 15 10 10 220 220 330 Seafood Frozen 31670 10 44 4 48 54 23 230 540 480
325 Seafood Frozen 31740 1 9 0 9 65 12 12 65 9 Seafood Frozen 41870 1 62 0 62 100 53 53 100 62 Seafood Frozen 31710 10 28 4 32 34 57 570 340 320 Seafood Frozen 31790 3 41 0 41 25 24 72 75 123 Seafood Frozen 31820 5 14 2 16 17 18 90 85 80 Seafood Frozen 52860 10 677 52 729 753 384 3,840 7,530 7,290 Seafood Frozen 31880 1 416 66 482 612 583 583 612 482 Seafood Frozen 55890 1 239 62 301 699 312 312 699 301 Seafood Frozen 31860 1 483 36 519 576 448 448 576 519 Seafood Frozen 31910 1 420 0 420 817 790 790 817 420 Seafood Frozen 30940 1 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 15 Seafood Frozen 31920 1 470 60 530 640 410 410 640 530 Seafood Frozen 31960 1 498 72 570 450 413 413 450 570 Seafood Frozen 33540 1 67 6 73 111 288 288 111 73 Seafood Frozen 32020 1 33 0 33 165 0 0 165 33 Seafood Frozen 32050 10 45 3 48 57 79 790 570 480 Seafood Frozen 32080 10 6 0 6 2 2 20 20 60 Seafood Frozen 32090 1 315 0 315 385 365 365 385 315 Seafood Frozen 32130 1 303 22 325 398 296 296 398 325 Sugar Staples 53790 24 13 0 13 17 9 216 408 312 Sugar Staples 18560 25 236 32 268 271 241 6,025 6,775 6,700 Sugar Staples 16490 50 133 6 139 127 206 10,300 6,350 6,950 Sugar Staples 58610 12 28 2 30 24 34 408 288 360 Sugar Staples 51370 24 17 3 20 21 25 600 504 480 Sugar Staples 23700 5 155 16 171 198 310 1,550 990 855 Sugar Staples 11340 50 797 69 866 944 1,139 56,950 47,200 43,300 Assume .13 Sugar Staples 12580 16.25 890 101 991 1,165 1,256 20,410 18,931 16,104 oz/packet Sugar Staples 14440 25 20 1 21 23 26 650 575 525 Sugar Staples 17660 50 268 27 295 236 281 14,050 11,800 14,750 Sugar Staples 22120 20.3125 74 5 79 88 136 2,763 1,788 1,605 Sugar Staples 19910 16.25 157 16 173 172 170 2,763 2,795 2,811 Sugar Staples 56370 9.75 18 1 19 21 21 205 205 185 Sugar Staples 52390 4.875 60 7 67 51 52 254 249 327
2,041,037 1,902,948 1,695,376
326 Totals: 2000 % of 2001 % of Non- Non- produce produce Increase / Produce % Change % Change Consumpti Consumpti Decrease in Food Categories 1999 (Excl. 2000 (Excl. 2001 (Excl. P (2001) ('99 - '00) ('00 - '01) on on share Food Categories Produce 0 0 0 1,204,190 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Produce Bread 336,800 293,649 248,155 -13% -15% 15% 15% same Bread Rice, cereals, pasta 249,932 224,319 217,778 -10% -3% 12% 13% increase Rice, cereals, pasta Beans 167,880 146,220 127,840 -13% -13% 8% 8% same Beans Cheese 326,452 225,365 169,891 -31% -25% 12% 10% decrease Cheese Pork 144,187 155,789 125,802 8% -19% 8% 7% decrease Pork Poultry (Chicken, Turkey) 397,954 438,764 427,287 10% -3% 23% 25% increase Poultry (Chicken, Turkey) Beef 257,551 271,212 246,307 5% -9% 14% 15% increase Beef Fish 38,697 44,594 33,593 15% -25% 2% 2% same Fish Sugar 117,142 98,857 95,264 -16% -4% 5% 6% increase Sugar Eggs Information not available Eggs Milk and yogurt Information not available Milk and yogurt Ice cream, sour cream Information not available Ice cream, sour cream
Total (not incl. Produce) 2,036,595 1,898,769 1,691,916 (Does not include Lamb)
Total Dining Population 1999 2000 2001 Notes Entrée Plus program (Res. Halls) 12,213 13,375 14,450 Hospital cafeterias 3,500 3,600 3,700 From Kent Seckinger 647-1866 Total 15,713 16,975 18,150
327 APPENDIX O-2 : Food Consumption - Produce Data - 6-Month Quantity
Weight Weight Standard Weights (lbs) (g) Source apple 154 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide avocado 150 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide banana 126 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide bok choy 2.063 936 weight of 1 medium broccoli 148 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide cabbage - green, red, celery 2.125 964 weight of 1 medium cantelope 3.500 1588 weight of 1 medium, including husk and interior cauliflower 594 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide celery 55 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide corn 90 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide cucumber 297 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide eggplant 1 454 weight of 1 medium grapefruit 308 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide green onions 0.125 57 per bunch honeydew 5.875 2665 weight of 1 medium, including husk and interior kiwi 74 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide lemon, lime 58 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide lettuce - iceburg 534 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide lettuce - green leaf, romaine 1.313 595 weight of 1 medium mango 208 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide onion 148 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide orange 154 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide papaya 280 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide pear 166 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide pepper - bell 148 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide pineapple 3.875 1758 weight of 1 medium, including husk and interior potato 148 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide radishes 0 per bunch of 7, from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide squash - acorn, butternut 1.563 709 weight of 1 medium, including husk and interior squash - spaghetti 3.188 1446 weight of 1 medium, including husk and interior tangerine 109 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide tomato 148 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide watermelon 25.000 11,340 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide yam 0.688 312 weight of 1 medium zucchini 196 from The Packer's 2001 Availability and Merchandising Guide Text in red = organic produce Text highlighted = weight data not available
328 Wt. Per Med. TOTAL Unit of Items per Size UNIT Descripto QTY Measure Unit of Thing Total Amt Total Amt ORDERING r 1 DESCRIPTION ORDERED Sold As Measure (g) Ordered Units Ordered (Lbs) Notes HOUSING TRA apple APPLES FUJI ORGANIC Total 2 case 88 154 154 27104 g 60 HOUSING TRA apple APPLES RED DEL ORGANIC Total 1 case 100 154 154 15400 34 Assume case count of 125 HOUSING TRA apple ORGANIC APPLES Total 3 case 125 154 154 57750 g 127 if not specified HOUSING TRA apple APPLES EMPIRE Total 36 case 100 154 154 554400 g 1,222 HOUSING CONapple APPLES GOLDEN DELICIOUS DZ Total 5 dz 12 154 154 9240 g 20 MISCELLANEOapple APPLES GOLDEN DELICIOUS DZ Total 9 dz 12 154 154 16632 g 37 CATERING apple APPLES GOLDEN DELICIOUS EACH Total 12 each 1 154 154 1848 g 4 HOUSING CONapple APPLES GOLDEN DELICIOUS EACH Total 164 each 1 154 154 25256 g 56 MISCELLANEOapple APPLES GOLDEN DELICIOUS EACH Total 647 each 1 154 154 99638 g 220 HOUSING CONapple APPLES GRANNY SMITH DZ. Total 6 dz 12 154 154 11088 g 24 HOUSING TRA apple APPLES GRANNY SMITH DZ. Total 2 dz 12 154 154 3696 g 8 MISCELLANEOapple APPLES GRANNY SMITH DZ. Total 21 dz 12 154 154 38808 g 86 CATERING apple APPLES GRANNY SMITH EACH Total 168 each 1 154 154 25872 g 57 HOUSING CONapple APPLES GRANNY SMITH EACH Total 84 each 1 154 154 12936 g 29 HOUSING TRA apple APPLES GRANNY SMITH EACH Total 12 each 1 154 154 1848 g 4 MISCELLANEOapple APPLES GRANNY SMITH EACH Total 598 each 1 154 154 92092 g 203 HOUSING TRA apple Apples IDA RED Total 3 case 125 154 154 57750 127 HOUSING TRA apple Apples Red Delicious 100 ct Total 1 case 100 154 154 15400 g 34 HOUSING TRA apple APPLES YELLOW DEL 100 CT Total 1 case 100 154 154 15400 g 34 HOUSING CONapple BRAEBURN APPLES Total 3 case 125 154 154 57750 g 127 HOUSING TRA apple FUJI APPLES cs Total 20 case 88 154 154 271040 g 598 HOUSING CONapple FUJI APPLES Total 5 case 88 154 154 67760 g 149 HOUSING TRA apple GALA APPLES cs Total 77 case 88 154 154 1043504 g 2,301 CATERING apple GALA APPLES Total 1 case 88 154 154 13552 g 30 HOUSING CONapple GALA APPLES Total 3 case 88 154 154 40656 g 90 Assume 60 CT per half HOUSING TRA apple GOLDEN DELICIOUS APPLES 1/2C Total 3 case 60 154 154 27720 g 61 case Assume 60 CT per half MISCELLANEOapple GOLDEN DELICIOUS APPLES 1/2C Total 1 case 60 154 154 9240 g 20 case CATERING apple GOLDEN DELICIOUS APPLES 100C Total 2 case 100 154 154 30800 g 68 HOUSING CONapple GOLDEN DELICIOUS APPLES 100C Total 2 case 100 154 154 30800 g 68 HOUSING TRA apple GOLDEN DELICIOUS APPLES 100C Total 1 case 100 154 154 15400 g 34 HOSPITAL apple GOLDEN DELICIOUS APPLES 125 Total 15 case 125 154 154 288750 g 637 HOUSING CONapple GOLDEN DELICIOUS APPLES 125 Total 2 case 125 154 154 38500 g 85 HOUSING TRA apple GOLDEN DELICIOUS APPLES 125 Total 97 case 125 154 154 1867250 g 4,117
329 MISCELLANEOapple GOLDEN DELICIOUS APPLES 125 Total 1 case 125 154 154 19250 g 42 CATERING apple GOLDEN DELICIOUS APPLES 88 C Total 4 case 88 154 154 54208 g 120 HOUSING CONapple GOLDEN DELICIOUS APPLES 88 C Total 8 case 88 154 154 108416 g 239 HOUSING TRA apple GOLDEN DELICIOUS APPLES 88 C Total 4 case 88 154 154 54208 g 120 MISCELLANEOapple GOLDEN DELICIOUS APPLES 88 C Total 3 case 88 154 154 40656 g 90 Assume 60 CT per half CATERING apple GRANNY SMITH APPLES 1/2CS Total 1 case 60 154 154 9240 g 20 case Assume 60 CT per half HOUSING TRA apple GRANNY SMITH APPLES 1/2CS Total 2 case 60 154 154 18480 g 41 case Assume 60 CT per half MISCELLANEOapple GRANNY SMITH APPLES 1/2CS Total 1 case 60 154 154 9240 g 20 case CATERING apple GRANNY SMITH APPLES 100 CT Total 23 case 100 154 154 354200 g 781 HOUSING CONapple GRANNY SMITH APPLES 100 CT Total 10 case 100 154 154 154000 g 340 HOUSING TRA apple GRANNY SMITH APPLES 100 CT Total 92 case 100 154 154 1416800 g 3,124 CATERING apple GRANNY SMITH APPLES 125 CT Total 3 case 125 154 154 57750 g 127 HOSPITAL apple GRANNY SMITH APPLES 125 CT Total 2 case 125 154 154 38500 g 85 HOUSING CONapple GRANNY SMITH APPLES 125 CT Total 4 case 125 154 154 77000 g 170 HOUSING TRA apple GRANNY SMITH APPLES 125 CT Total 79 case 125 154 154 1520750 g 3,353 CATERING apple GRANNY SMITH APPLES 88 CT Total 9 case 88 154 154 121968 g 269 HOUSING CONapple GRANNY SMITH APPLES 88 CT Total 4 case 88 154 154 54208 g 120 HOUSING TRA apple GRANNY SMITH APPLES 88 CT Total 3 case 88 154 154 40656 g 90 HOUSING TRA apple RED DELICIOUS APPLES 100 CT Total 55 case 100 154 154 847000 g 1,867 CATERING apple RED DELICIOUS APPLES 125 CT Total 3 case 125 154 154 57750 g 127 HOSPITAL apple RED DELICIOUS APPLES 125 CT Total 131 case 125 154 154 2521750 g 5,560 HOUSING CONapple RED DELICIOUS APPLES 125 CT Total 3 case 125 154 154 57750 g 127 HOUSING TRA apple RED DELICIOUS APPLES 125 CT Total 157 case 125 154 154 3022250 g 6,663 MISCELLANEOapple RED DELICIOUS APPLES 125 CT Total 7 case 125 154 154 134750 g 297 HOUSING TRA apple RED DELICIOUS APPLES 88 CT Total 2 case 88 154 154 27104 g 60 CATERING apple RED DELICIOUS APPLES 88 CT Total 52 case 88 154 154 704704 g 1,554 HOSPITAL apple RED DELICIOUS APPLES 88 CT Total 8 case 88 154 154 108416 g 239 HOUSING CONapple RED DELICIOUS APPLES 88 CT Total 18 case 88 154 154 243936 g 538 HOUSING SNAapple RED DELICIOUS APPLES 88 CT Total 2 case 88 154 154 27104 g 60 HOUSING TRA apple RED DELICIOUS APPLES 88 CT Total 5 case 88 154 154 67760 g 149 MISCELLANEOapple RED DELICIOUS APPLES 88 CT Total 49 case 88 154 154 664048 g 1,464 HOUSING CONapple RED DELICIOUS APPLES DZ. Total 3 case 12 154 154 5544 g 12 HOUSING TRA apple RED DELICIOUS APPLES DZ. Total 1 case 12 154 154 1848 g 4 MISCELLANEOapple RED DELICIOUS APPLES DZ. Total 24 case 12 154 154 44352 g 98 CATERING apple RED DELICIOUS APPLES EACH Total 140 each 1 154 154 21560 g 48 HOUSING CONapple RED DELICIOUS APPLES EACH Total 72 each 1 154 154 11088 g 24 MISCELLANEOapple RED DELICIOUS APPLES EACH Total 906 each 1 154 154 139524 g 308 CATERING apple RED DELICIOUS HALF CASE Total 7 case 44 154 154 47432 g 105 HOUSING CONapple RED DELICIOUS HALF CASE Total 1 case 44 154 154 6776 g 15
330 HOUSING TRA apple RED DELICIOUS HALF CASE Total 2 case 44 154 154 13552 g 30 MISCELLANEOapple RED DELICIOUS HALF CASE Total 1 case 44 154 154 6776 g 15 CATERING apples MACINTOSH APPLES TRAY PACK Total 3 case 100 154 154 46200 g 102 HOUSING CONapples MACINTOSH APPLES TRAY PACK Total 22 case 100 154 154 338800 g 747 HOUSING TRA apples MACINTOSH APPLES TRAY PACK Total 44 case 100 154 154 677600 g 1,494 HOUSING CONapples MICHIGAN APPLES EACH Total 72 each 1 154 154 11088 g 24 CATERING apples MICHIGAN APPLES Total 81 case 100 154 154 1247400 g 2,750 HOUSING CONapples MICHIGAN APPLES Total 60 case 100 154 154 924000 g 2,037 CATERING bean 4 BEAN SALAD Total 20 case 15 n/a 300 lbs 300 CATERING potato B RED DICED POTATOES Total 25 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 25 HOUSING TRA potato B RED DICED POTATOES Total 6 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 6 CATERING potato B RED POTATOES 50 # Total 106 sack 50 n/a 5300 lbs 5,300 HOUSING CONpotato B RED POTATOES 50 # Total 16 sack 50 n/a 800 lbs 800 HOUSING TRA potato B RED POTATOES 50 # Total 167 sack 50 n/a 8350 lbs 8,350 HOUSING CONpotato BAKER POTATOES 100 CT Total 1 case 100 148 14800 g 33 HOUSING TRA potato BAKER POTATOES 100 CT Total 237 case 100 148 3507600 g 7,733 CATERING potato BAKER POTATOES 60 CT Total 4 case 60 148 35520 g 78 CATERING potato BAKER POTATOES 70 CT Total 2 case 70 148 20720 g 46 HOUSING CONpotato BAKER POTATOES 70 CT Total 10 case 70 148 103600 g 228 HOUSING TRA potato BAKER POTATOES 70 CT Total 6 case 70 148 62160 g 137 MISCELLANEOpotato BAKER POTATOES 70 CT Total 2 case 70 148 20720 g 46 CATERING potato BAKER POTATOES 80 CT Total 39 case 80 148 461760 g 1,018 HOSPITAL potato BAKER POTATOES 80 CT Total 2 case 80 148 23680 g 52 CATERING potato BAKER POTATOES 90 CT Total 18 case 90 148 239760 g 529 HOSPITAL potato BAKER POTATOES 90 CT Total 35 case 90 148 466200 g 1,028 HOUSING CONpotato BAKER POTATOES 90 CT Total 12 case 90 148 159840 g 352 HOUSING TRA potato BAKER POTATOES 90 CT Total 94 case 90 148 1252080 g 2,760 CATERING potato CREAMER POTATOES RED/WHITE Total 20 case 20 n/a 400 lbs 400 CATERING potato GERMAN POTATO SALAD Total 6 case 10 n/a 60 lbs 60 CATERING potato POTATO SALAD Total 58 case 15 n/a 870 lbs 870 HOUSING CONpotato POTATO SALAD Total 6 case 15 n/a 90 lbs 90 HOUSING TRA potato POTATO SALAD Total 8 case 15 n/a 120 lbs 120 CATERING potato POTATO SALAD-REDSKIN Total 7 case 15 n/a 105 lbs 105 HOUSING TRA potato POTATOES B RED Total 41 case 50 n/a 2050 lbs 2,050 HOUSING TRA potato Potatoes Diced cs Total 69 case 20 n/a 1380 lbs 1,380 HOUSING TRA potato Potatoes Red B Total 2 case 50 n/a 100 lbs 100 HOUSING TRA potato POTATOES SHREDDED Total 4 case 20 n/a 80 lbs 80 CATERING potato PRECOOKED DICED POTATOES Total 8 case 20 n/a 160 lbs 160 HOUSING CONpotato PRECOOKED DICED POTATOES Total 13 case 20 n/a 260 lbs 260 HOUSING TRA potato PRECOOKED DICED POTATOES Total 248 case 20 n/a 4960 lbs 4,960 HOUSING CONpotato PRECOOKED MASHED POTATOES Total 1 case 20 n/a 20 lbs 20 HOUSING CONpotato PRECOOKED SHREDDED POTATOES Tot 3 case 20 n/a 60 lbs 60
331 HOUSING TRA potato PRECOOKED SHREDDED POTATOES Tot 112 case 20 n/a 2240 lbs 2,240 CATERING potato PRE-COOKED SLICED POTATOES Total 1 case 20 n/a 20 lbs 20 HOUSING CONpotato PRE-COOKED SLICED POTATOES Total 7 case 20 n/a 140 lbs 140 HOUSING TRA potato PRE-COOKED SLICED POTATOES Total 62 case 20 n/a 1240 lbs 1,240 HOUSING CONpotato PURPLE POTATOES Total 5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 CATERING potato RED A POTATOES Total 38 case 50 n/a 1900 lbs 1,900 HOUSING CONpotato RED A POTATOES Total 3 case 50 n/a 150 lbs 150 HOUSING TRA potato RED A POTATOES Total 15 case 50 n/a 750 lbs 750 CATERING potato RED B POTATOES # Total 20 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 HOUSING CONpotato RED B POTATOES # Total 223 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 223 HOUSING TRA potato RED B POTATOES # Total 15 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 15 MISCELLANEOpotato RED B POTATOES # Total 8 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 8 Assume same weight as Waterpack Potatoes CATERING potato WATER PACK POTATOES-DICED Total 5 case 25 n/a 125 lbs 125 Yukon Assume same weight as Waterpack Potatoes HOUSING CONpotato WATER PACK POTATOES-DICED Total 13 case 25 n/a 325 lbs 325 Yukon Assume same weight as Waterpack Potatoes HOUSING TRA potato WATER PACK POTATOES-DICED Total 11 case 25 n/a 275 lbs 275 Yukon Assume same weight as Waterpack Potatoes HOUSING CONpotato WATER PACK POTATOES-QUARTERE To 45 case 25 n/a 1125 lbs 1,125 Yukon Assume same weight as Waterpack Potatoes HOUSING TRA potato WATER PACK POTATOES-QUARTERE To 317 case 25 n/a 7925 lbs 7,925 Yukon Assume same weight as Waterpack Potatoes HOUSING CONpotato WATER PACK POTATOES-SLICED Total 15 case 25 n/a 375 lbs 375 Yukon Assume same weight as Waterpack Potatoes HOUSING TRA potato WATER PACK POTATOES-SLICED Total 1 case 25 n/a 25 lbs 25 Yukon Assume same weight as Waterpack Potatoes CATERING potato WATER PACKED POTATOES "A" Total 51 case 25 n/a 1275 lbs 1,275 Yukon Assume same weight as Waterpack Potatoes HOUSING CONpotato WATER PACKED POTATOES "A" Total 2 case 25 n/a 50 lbs 50 Yukon Assume same weight as Waterpack Potatoes HOUSING TRA potato WATER PACKED POTATOES "A" Total 8 case 25 n/a 200 lbs 200 Yukon
332 CATERING potato YAMS/SWEET POTATOES # Total 260 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 260 HOUSING CONpotato YAMS/SWEET POTATOES # Total 180 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 180 HOUSING TRA potato YAMS/SWEET POTATOES # Total 294 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 294 MISCELLANEOpotato YAMS/SWEET POTATOES # Total 21 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 21 CATERING potato YAMS/SWEET POTATOES Total 9 case 40 n/a 360 lbs 360 HOSPITAL potato YAMS/SWEET POTATOES Total 2 case 40 n/a 80 lbs 80 HOUSING CONpotato YAMS/SWEET POTATOES Total 3 case 40 n/a 120 lbs 120 HOUSING TRA potato YAMS/SWEET POTATOES Total 35 case 40 n/a 1400 lbs 1,400 CATERING potato YUKON GOLD C POTATOES Total 11 case 50 n/a 550 lbs 550 CATERING potato YUKON GOLD POTATOES # Total 15 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 15 CATERING potato YUKON GOLD POTATOES Total 2 case 50 n/a 100 lbs 100 CATERING potatoes IDAHO POTATOES # Total 30 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 30 HOUSING CONpotatoes IDAHO POTATOES # Total 105 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 105 HOUSING TRA potatoes IDAHO POTATOES # Total 10 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 MISCELLANEOpotatoes IDAHO POTATOES # Total 65 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 65 HOUSING CONpotatoes IDAHO POTATOES Total 30 each 1 148 4440 g 10 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBROCCOLI ORGANIC Total 1 case 5 n/a 5 lbs 5 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBROCCOLI ORGANIC Total 1 case 5 n/a 5 lbs 5 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCARROT ORGANIC MINI Total 2 case 5 n/a 10 lbs 10 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCARROTS ORGANIC BABY Total 3 case 5 n/a 15 lbs 15
Assumed same weight per HOUSING TRADITIONAL HORGAINIC CARROTS Total 1 case 25 n/a 25 lbs 25 case as Jumbo California Assumed same weight as HOUSING TRADITIONAL HORGANIC BROCCOLI Total 2 case 10 n/a 20 lbs 20 Broccoli Florets
Assumed same weight per HOUSING TRADITIONAL HORGANIC CARROTS Total 1 case 25 n/a 25 lbs 25 case as Jumbo California CATERING 10 PINTS RED TEARDROP Total 1 case 10 n/a 10 pints 6 CATERING 10# tomatoes Total 1 case 10 n/a 10 lbs 10 CATERING 3/4 DICED REDSKIN POTATOES Total 16 case CATERING 5 # SPINACH Total 54 case 5 n/a 270 lbs 270 HOUSING CONTRACT 5 # SPINACH Total 7 case 5 n/a 35 lbs 35 HOUSING TRADITIONAL H5 # SPINACH Total 77 case 5 n/a 385 lbs 385 MISCELLANEOUS 5 # SPINACH Total 3 case 5 n/a 15 lbs 15 HOUSING CONTRACT 5X6 TOMATOES # Total 56 lbs n/a n/a 56 lbs 56 HOUSING SNACK BAR 5X6 TOMATOES # Total 20 lbs n/a n/a 20 lbs 20 HOUSING TRADITIONAL H5X6 TOMATOES # Total 18 lbs n/a n/a 18 lbs 18 MISCELLANEOUS 5X6 TOMATOES # Total 94 lbs n/a n/a 94 lbs 94 CATERING 5x6 TOMATOES 18/20# Total 403 case 19 n/a 7657 lbs 7,657 HOSPITAL 5x6 TOMATOES 18/20# Total 197 case 19 n/a 3743 lbs 3,743 HOUSING CONTRACT 5x6 TOMATOES 18/20# Total 96 case 19 n/a 1824 lbs 1,824
333 HOUSING SNACK BAR 5x6 TOMATOES 18/20# Total 22 case 19 n/a 418 lbs 418 HOUSING TRADITIONAL H5x6 TOMATOES 18/20# Total 823 case 19 n/a 15637 lbs 15,637 MISCELLANEOUS 5x6 TOMATOES 18/20# Total 5 case 19 n/a 95 lbs 95 HOUSING TRADITIONAL H6X6 TOMATOES Total 26 case 20 148 520 lbs 520 HOUSING TRADITIONAL H6X7 TOMATOES Total 25 case 20 148 500 lbs 500
Assumed 4# case as unit CATERING ARRUGALA Total 1 case 4 n/a 4 lbs 4 of sale, rather than Lbs
Assumed 4# case as unit HOUSING CONTRACT ARRUGALA Total 5 case 4 n/a 20 lbs 20 of sale, rather than Lbs Assumed same count as whole artichokes, and CATERING ARTICHOKE BOTTOMS Total 1 case 24 40 960 g 2 slightly less weight CATERING ARTICHOKES Total 1 case 24 56 1344 g 3 HOUSING CONTRACT ASIAN PEARS Total 1 case 18 166 2988 g 7 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HASIAN PEARS Total 1 case 18 166 2988 g 7 CATERING ASPARAGUS # Total 2 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 HOUSING CONTRACT ASPARAGUS # Total 34 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 34 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HASPARAGUS # Total 4 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 4 CATERING ASPARAGUS 11/13 # Total 199 case 12 n/a 2388 lbs 2,388 HOUSING CONTRACT ASPARAGUS 11/13 # Total 13 case 12 n/a 156 lbs 156 CATERING ASPARAGUS 11/13 #DEL 1/13/01 Total 1 case 12 n/a 12 lbs 12 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HAVOCADO Total 5 case 60 150 45000 g 99 CATERING AVOCADOES 48/60 CT Total 6 case 55 150 49500 g 109 CATERING AVOCADOES EA Total 151 each 1 150 22650 g 50 HOUSING CONTRACT AVOCADOES EA Total 6 each 1 150 900 g 2 HOUSING SNACK BAR AVOCADOES EA Total 12 each 1 150 1800 g 4 MISCELLANEOUS AVOCADOES EA Total 24 each 1 150 3600 g 8 MISCELLANEOUS AVOCADOS DOZEN Total 2 dz 12 150 3600 g 8 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBABY BOK CHOY Total 7 case 10 n/a 70 lbs 70 CATERING BABY EGGPLANT Total 1 case 113 CATERING BABY LETTUCE/SPRING MIX Total 325 case 3 n/a 975 lbs 975 Assume 3# case HOUSING CONTRACT BABY LETTUCE/SPRING MIX Total 77 case 3 n/a 231 lbs 231 Assume 3# case CATERING BABY SPINACH Total 7 case 4 n/a 28 lbs 28 HOUSING CONTRACT BABY SPINACH Total 1 case 4 n/a 4 lbs 4 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBABY SPINACH Total 54 case 4 n/a 216 lbs 216 MISCELLANEOUS BABY SPINACH Total 1 case 4 n/a 4 lbs 4
Assume 10# case, as with CATERING BAKED BEANS Total 1 case 10 n/a 10 lbs 10 other Homestyle products CATERING BANANA CHIPS Total 5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5
334 CATERING BANANAS # Total 2835 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 2,835 HOUSING CONTRACT BANANAS # Total 506 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 506 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBANANAS # Total 650 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 650 MISCELLANEOUS BANANAS # Total 719 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 719 HOUSING CONTRACT BANANAS BANACOL Total 48 case 45 n/a 2160 lbs 2,160 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBANANAS BANACOL Total 296 case 45 n/a 13320 lbs 13,320 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBANANAS BUNCH Total 5 bunch 5 630 15750 g 35 CATERING BANANAS PLANTIAN Total 1 case 50 n/a 50 lbs 50 HOUSING CONTRACT BANANAS PLANTIAN Total 1 case 50 n/a 50 lbs 50 CATERING BANANAS Total 153 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 153 HOSPITAL BANANAS Total 445 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 445 HOUSING CONTRACT BANANAS Total 39 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 39 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBANANAS Total 714 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 714 MISCELLANEOUS BANANAS Total 53 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 53 CATERING BASIL 1# Total 97 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 97 HOUSING CONTRACT BASIL 1# Total 7 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 7 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBASIL 1# Total 42 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 42 MISCELLANEOUS BASIL 1# Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 CATERING BASIL 1/2 # Total 11 each 1 n/a 5.5 lbs 6 HOUSING CONTRACT BASIL 1/2 # Total 13 each 1 n/a 6.5 lbs 7 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBASIL 1/2 # Total 7 each 1 n/a 3.5 lbs 4 MISCELLANEOUS BASIL 1/2 # Total 1 each 1 n/a 0.5 lbs 1 HOUSING CONTRACT BASIL 3/4 # Total 1 each 1 n/a 0.75 lbs 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBasil LB Total 30 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 30 CATERING BASIL Total 4 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 4 HOUSING CONTRACT BASIL Total 26 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 26 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBASIL Total 12 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 12 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBEANS GREEN CLIPPED CA Total 1 case 26 n/a 13 lbs 13 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBEANS GREEN CLIPPED LB Total 4 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 4 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBEANS GREEN CLIPPED Total 0.5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 CATERING BELGIAN ENDIVE Total 4 case 8 n/a 32 lbs 32 HOUSING CONTRACT BELGIAN ENDIVE Total 1 case 8 n/a 8 lbs 8 HOUSING CONTRACT BLACK EYE PEAS Total 9 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 9 CATERING BLACK GRAPES Total 4 case 20 n/a 80 lbs 80 HOUSING CONTRACT BLACK GRAPES Total 25 case 20 n/a 500 lbs 500 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBLACK GRAPES Total 1 case 20 n/a 20 lbs 20 CATERING BLACKBERRIES Total 6 case 6 pints 36 pints 23 HOUSING CONTRACT BLACKBERRIES Total 2 case 6 pints 12 pints 8 CATERING BLOOD ORANGES Total 2 case 44 109 9592 g 21 HOUSING CONTRACT BLOOD ORANGES Total 5 case 44 109 23980 g 53 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBLUEBERRIES 1/2CS Total 2 case 3 pints 6 pints 4 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBLUEBERRIES EACH Total 14 case 6 pints 84 pints 53
335 CATERING BLUEBERRIES Total 23 case 6 pints 138 pints 86 HOUSING CONTRACT BLUEBERRIES Total 3 case 6 pints 18 pints 11 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBLUEBERRIES Total 2 case 6 pints 12 pints 8 CATERING BOK CHOY EA. Total 121 case 60 n/a 7260 lbs 7,260 HOUSING CONTRACT BOK CHOY EA. Total 24 case 60 n/a 1440 lbs 1,440 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBOK CHOY EA. Total 13 case 60 n/a 780 lbs 780 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBOK CHOY LB Total 20 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 CATERING BOK CHOY Total 20 case 60 n/a 1200 lbs 1,200 HOUSING CONTRACT BOK CHOY Total 1 case 60 n/a 60 lbs 60 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBOK CHOY Total 3 case 60 n/a 150 lbs 150 CATERING BOSC PEARS Total 1 case 90 166 14940 g 33 HOUSING CONTRACT BOSC PEARS Total 11 case 90 166 164340 g 362 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBOSC PEARS Total 1 case 90 166 14940 g 33 CATERING BOSTON LETTUCE Total 1 case 24 595 14288.177 g 32 HOUSING CONTRACT BOSTON LETTUCE Total 6 case 24 595 85729.06 g 189 CATERING BROCCOFLOWER Total 1 case 12 148 1776 4 CATERING BROCCOLI EACH Total 225 each 1 148 33300 g 73 HOUSING CONTRACT BROCCOLI EACH Total 60 each 1 148 8880 g 20 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBROCCOLI EACH Total 29 each 1 148 4292 g 9 MISCELLANEOUS BROCCOLI EACH Total 74 each 1 148 10952 g 24 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBROCCOLI OREGANO Total 4 case 5 n/a 20 lbs 20 CATERING BROCCOLI 14 CT Total 170 case 14 148 352240 g 777 HOSPITAL BROCCOLI 14 CT Total 26 case 14 148 53872 g 119 HOUSING CONTRACT BROCCOLI 14 CT Total 49 case 14 148 101528 g 224 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBROCCOLI 14 CT Total 490 case 14 148 1015280 g 2,238 CATERING BROCCOLI FLORETS Total 590 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 590 HOUSING CONTRACT BROCCOLI FLORETS Total 130 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 130 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBROCCOLI FLORETS Total 290 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 290 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBROCCOLI Total 225 case 5 n/a 1125 lbs 1,125 CATERING BRUSSEL SPROUTS Total 5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 CATERING BUTTERNUT SQUASH # Total 25 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 25 CATERING BUTTERNUT SQUASH EACH Total 29 each 1 709 20553.429 g 45 HOUSING CONTRACT BUTTERNUT SQUASH EACH Total 29 each 1 709 20553.429 g 45 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBUTTERNUT SQUASH EACH Total 48 each 1 709 34019.468 g 75 CATERING BUTTERNUT SQUASH Total 1 each 1 709 708.73892 g 2 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HBUTTERNUT SQUASH Total 1 each 1 709 708.73892 g 2 CATERING BUTTON MUSHROOMS Total 94 case 10 n/a 940 lbs 940 HOUSING CONTRACT BUTTON MUSHROOMS Total 1 case 10 n/a 10 lbs 10 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCabbage Green Total 1 case 50 n/a 50 lbs 50 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCABBAGE RED SAVOY EA Total 8 each 1 964 7711.0795 g 17 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCABBAGE RED SAVOY Total 1 case 50 n/a 25 lbs 25 CATERING CANTALOPE CUTS REDI CUT Total 20 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 20
336 HOSPITAL CANTALOPE CUTS REDI CUT Total 2620 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 2,620 HOUSING CONTRACT CANTALOPE CUTS REDI CUT Total 165 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 165 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCANTALOPE CUTS REDI CUT Total 45 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 45 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCANTALOUPES Total 13 case 16 1588 330215.64 g 728 CATERING CANTALOUPES 15/18 CT Total 201 case 16 1588 5105641.8 g 11,256 HOUSING CONTRACT CANTALOUPES 15/18 CT Total 20 case 16 1588 508024.06 g 1,120 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCANTALOUPES 15/18 CT Total 81 case 16 1588 2057497.4 g 4,536 HOUSING CONTRACT CANTALOUPES EA Total 39 each 1 1588 61915.432 g 137 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCANTALOUPES EA Total 35 each 1 1588 55565.131 g 123 MISCELLANEOUS CANTALOUPES EA Total 15 each 1 1588 23813.628 g 53 HOSPITAL CARROT STICKS Total 260 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 260 HOUSING CONTRACT CARROT STICKS Total 35 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 35 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCARROT STICKS Total 140 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 140 CATERING CARROTS 1 # CELLO Total 15 each 1 n/a 15 lbs 15 HOUSING CONTRACT CARROTS 1 # CELLO Total 37 each 1 n/a 37 lbs 37 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCARROTS 1 # CELLO Total 16 each 1 n/a 16 lbs 16 MISCELLANEOUS CARROTS 1 # CELLO Total 73 each 1 n/a 73 lbs 73 Assume same as CATERING CARROTS 16X3 Total 1 case 25 n/a 25 lbs 25 CARROTS 25# Total CATERING CARROTS 25 # Total 83 case 25 n/a 2075 lbs 2,075 HOSPITAL CARROTS 25 # Total 2 case 25 n/a 50 lbs 50 HOUSING CONTRACT CARROTS 25 # Total 2 case 25 n/a 50 lbs 50 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCARROTS 25 # Total 348 case 25 n/a 8700 lbs 8,700 CATERING CARROTS 3 # CELLO Total 1 case 3 n/a 3 lbs 3 CATERING CARROTS 48 # CELLO Total 8 case 48 n/a 384 lbs 384 CATERING CARROTS BABY CELLO Total 100 case 5 n/a 500 lbs 500 HOUSING CONTRACT CARROTS BABY CELLO Total 7 case 5 n/a 35 lbs 35 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCARROTS BABY CELLO Total 65 case 5 n/a 322.5 lbs 323 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCARROTS BABY EA Total 6 case 5 n/a 30 lbs 30 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCARROTS BABY LB Total 10 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCarrots Baby Peeled 25 lb Total 2 case 25 n/a 50 lbs 50 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCARROTS MINI Total 2 case 5 n/a 10 lbs 10 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCarrots Peeled 25 lb Total 96 case 25 n/a 2387.5 lbs 2,388 CATERING CASHEWS Total 10 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 CATERING CAULIFLOWER 12 CT Total 83 case 12 594 591624 g 1,304 HOUSING CONTRACT CAULIFLOWER 12 CT Total 15 case 12 594 106920 g 236 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCAULIFLOWER 12 CT Total 2 case 12 594 14256 g 31 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCAULIFLOWER EA Total 1 each 1 594 594 g 1 CATERING CAULIFLOWER EACH Total 195 each 1 594 115830 g 255 HOUSING CONTRACT CAULIFLOWER EACH Total 32 each 1 594 19008 g 42 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCAULIFLOWER EACH Total 132 each 1 594 78408 g 173 MISCELLANEOUS CAULIFLOWER EACH Total 11 each 1 594 6534 g 14
337 CATERING CAULIFLOWER FLORETTES Total 650 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 650 HOUSING CONTRACT CAULIFLOWER FLORETTES Total 30 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 30 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCAULIFLOWER FLORETTES Total 40 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 40 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCAULIFLOWER Total 3 case 12 594 21384 g 47 Assume 10 stalks per HOUSING CONTRACT CELERY 1/2 CS Total 2 case 12 550 13200 g 29 bunch Assume 10 stalks per HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCELERY 1/2 CS Total 17 case 12 550 112200 g 247 bunch HOUSING CONTRACT CELERY CABBAGE 1/2CS Total 2 case 20 n/a 40 lbs 40 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCELERY CABBAGE 1/2CS Total 12 case 20 n/a 240 lbs 240 HOUSING CONTRACT CELERY CABBAGE EA Total 11 each 21 n/a 231 lbs 231 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCELERY CABBAGE EA Total 65 each 1 964 62652.521 g 138 MISCELLANEOUS CELERY CABBAGE EA Total 2 each 1 964 1927.7699 g 4 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCELERY CABBAGE Total 27 each 1 964 26024.893 g 57 Assume 10 stalks per HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCELERY cs Total 68 case 24 550 891000 g 1,964 bunch Assume 10 stalks per CATERING CELERY EACH Total 153 each 1 550 84150 g 186 bunch Assume 10 stalks per HOSPITAL CELERY EACH Total 2 each 1 550 1100 g 2 bunch Assume 10 stalks per HOUSING CONTRACT CELERY EACH Total 132 each 1 550 72600 g 160 bunch Assume 10 stalks per HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCELERY EACH Total 86 each 1 550 47300 g 104 bunch Assume 10 stalks per MISCELLANEOUS CELERY EACH Total 84 each 1 550 46200 g 102 bunch Assume 10 stalks per CATERING CELERY HEARTS EA Total 23 each 1 550 12650 g 28 bunch Assume 10 stalks per HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCELERY HEARTS EA Total 1 each 1 550 550 g 1 bunch Assume 10 stalks per MISCELLANEOUS CELERY HEARTS EA Total 6 each 1 550 3300 g 7 bunch CATERING CELERY ROOT # Total 10 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCELERY ROOT # Total 6 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 6 CATERING CELERY ROOT Total 17 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 17 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCELERY ROOT Total 6 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 6 CATERING CELERY STICKS Total 10 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 HOSPITAL CELERY STICKS Total 210 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 210 HOUSING CONTRACT CELERY STICKS Total 35 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 35 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCELERY STICKS Total 125 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 125 Assume 10 stalks per CATERING CELERY Total 57 case 24 550 752400 g 1,659 bunch
338 Assume 10 stalks per HOSPITAL CELERY Total 113 case 24 550 1491600 g 3,288 bunch Assume 10 stalks per HOUSING CONTRACT CELERY Total 15 case 24 550 198000 g 437 bunch Assume 10 stalks per HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCELERY Total 122 case 24 550 1610400 g 3,550 bunch CATERING CELLO BABY CARROTS 1# Total 194 each 1 n/a 194 lbs 194 HOUSING CONTRACT CELLO BABY CARROTS 1# Total 109 each 1 n/a 109 lbs 109 HOUSING SNACK BAR CELLO BABY CARROTS 1# Total 1 each 1 n/a 1 lbs 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCELLO BABY CARROTS 1# Total 324 each 1 n/a 324 lbs 324 MISCELLANEOUS CELLO BABY CARROTS 1# Total 14 each 1 n/a 14 lbs 14 CATERING CELLO RADISHES Total 1 case 180 n/a 180 oz 11 HOUSING CONTRACT CELLO RADISHES Total 1 case 180 n/a 180 oz 11 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCELLO SPINACH 5# pkg Total 54 lbs 5 n/a 267.5 lbs 268 CATERING CELLO SPINACH Total 12 case 4 n/a 48 lbs 48 HOUSING CONTRACT CELLO SPINACH Total 19 case 4 n/a 76 lbs 76 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCELLO SPINACH Total 19 case 4 n/a 76 lbs 76 MISCELLANEOUS CELLO SPINACH Total 1 case 4 n/a 4 lbs 4 CATERING CHEF'S SALAD MIX LETTUCE Total 20 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 HOSPITAL CHEF'S SALAD MIX LETTUCE Total 12180 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 12,180 HOUSING CONTRACT CHEF'S SALAD MIX LETTUCE Total 190 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 190 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCHEF'S SALAD MIX LETTUCE Total 11080 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 11,080 CATERING CHERRY TOMATOES EACH Total 24 each 12 n/a 288 pints 180 HOUSING CONTRACT CHERRY TOMATOES EACH Total 49 each 12 n/a 588 pints 368 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCHERRY TOMATOES EACH Total 7 each 12 n/a 84 pints 53 CATERING CHERRY TOMATOES Total 256 case 12 n/a 3072 pints 1,920 HOUSING CONTRACT CHERRY TOMATOES Total 3 case 12 n/a 36 pints 23 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCHERRY TOMATOES Total 142 case 12 n/a 1704 pints 1,065 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCHILE PEPPERS # Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 CATERING CHIPOLTE PEPPERS Total 1 case 10 n/a 10 lbs 10 CATERING CHIPOTLE PEPPERS Total 1 case 10 n/a 10 lbs 10 CATERING CHIVES 1 # Total 12 each 1 n/a 12 lbs 12 CATERING CHIVES 1/2 # Total 36 each 1 n/a 18 lbs 18 HOUSING CONTRACT CHIVES 1/2 # Total 1 each 1 n/a 0.5 lbs 1 CATERING CHIVES 1/4 # Total 11 each 0 n/a 2.75 lbs 3 HOUSING CONTRACT CHIVES 1/4 # Total 2 each 0 n/a 0.5 lbs 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCHIVES 1/4 # Total 3 each 0 n/a 0.75 lbs 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCHIVES EA Total 5 each 1 n/a 5 lbs 5 CATERING CHOPPED ROMAINE Total 1900 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,900 HOUSING CONTRACT CHOPPED ROMAINE Total 140 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 140 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCHOPPED ROMAINE Total 5322 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5,322 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCilantro ea Total 144 each 1 20 2880 g 6
339 CATERING CILANTRO Total 313 each 1 20 6260 g 14 HOUSING CONTRACT CILANTRO Total 51 each 1 20 1020 g 2 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCILANTRO Total 489 each 1 20 9780 g 22 Assume same count as Tangerines; estimated HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCLEMENTINES Total 2 case 120 109 26160 g 58 weight Assume same count as Tangerines; estimated HOUSING CONTRACT CLEMINTINES Total 2 case 120 109 26160 g 58 weight CATERING CLIPPED GREEN BEANS Total 1490 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,490 HOUSING CONTRACT CLIPPED GREEN BEANS Total 110 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 110 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCLIPPED GREEN BEANS Total 120 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 120 CATERING COLE SLAW Total 26 case 15 n/a 390 lbs 390 HOUSING CONTRACT COLE SLAW Total 3 case 15 n/a 45 lbs 45 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCOLE SLAW Total 8 case 15 n/a 120 lbs 120 Assume same # per case CATERING COLLARD GREENS Total 10 case 20 n/a 200 lbs 200 as swiss chard Assume same # per case HOUSING CONTRACT COLLARD GREENS Total 2 case 20 n/a 40 lbs 40 as swiss chard Assume same # per case HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCOLLARD GREENS Total 3 case 20 n/a 60 lbs 60 as swiss chard CATERING CORN EA Total 34 each 1 90 3060 g 7 CATERING CORN Total 2 case 48 90 8640 g 19 HOUSING CONTRACT CORN Total 1 case 48 90 4320 g 10 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCORN Total 9 case 48 90 38880 g 86 CATERING CRANBERRIES EACH Total 1 pkg 12 n/a 12 oz 1 CATERING CRANBERRIES Total 1 case 288 n/a 288 oz 18 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCRANBERRIES Total 1 case 288 n/a 288 oz 18 CATERING CREMINI MUSHROOMS Total 2 case 5 n/a 10 lbs 10 HOUSING CONTRACT CREMINI MUSHROOMS Total 1 case 5 n/a 5 lbs 5 CATERING CUCUMBER 1/2CS Total 1 case 6 297 1782 g 4 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCUCUMBER 1/2CS Total 1 case 6 297 1782 g 4 CATERING CUCUMBERS EACH Total 306 each 1 297 90882 g 200 HOUSING CONTRACT CUCUMBERS EACH Total 327 each 1 297 97119 g 214 HOUSING SNACK BAR CUCUMBERS EACH Total 30 each 1 297 8910 g 20 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCUCUMBERS EACH Total 203 each 1 297 60291 g 133 MISCELLANEOUS CUCUMBERS EACH Total 239 each 1 297 70983 g 156 CATERING CUCUMBERS DOZEN Total 21 dz 12 297 74844 g 165 HOUSING CONTRACT CUCUMBERS DOZEN Total 37 dz 12 297 131868 g 291 HOUSING SNACK BAR CUCUMBERS DOZEN Total 11 dz 12 297 39204 g 86 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCUCUMBERS DOZEN Total 90 dz 12 297 320760 g 707 MISCELLANEOUS CUCUMBERS DOZEN Total 7 dz 12 297 24948 g 55
340 HOUSING CONTRACT CUCUMBERS EACH Total 2 each 1 297 594 g 1 MISCELLANEOUS CUCUMBERS EACH Total 4 each 1 297 1188 g 3 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCUCUMBERS SEEDLESS Total 1 case 12 297 3564 g 8 CATERING CUCUMBERS Total 62 case 12 297 220968 g 487 HOSPITAL CUCUMBERS Total 68 case 12 297 242352 g 534 HOUSING CONTRACT CUCUMBERS Total 6 case 12 297 21384 g 47 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCUCUMBERS Total 205 case 12 297 728838 g 1,607 HOUSING CONTRACT CURLY PARSLEY 60 CT Total 2 case 60 5 600 g 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCURLY PARSLEY 60 CT Total 1 case 60 5 300 g 1 CATERING CURLY PARSLEY EA Total 432 each 1 5 2160 g 5 HOUSING CONTRACT CURLY PARSLEY EA Total 188 each 1 5 940 g 2 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HCURLY PARSLEY EA Total 767 each 1 5 3832.5 g 8 MISCELLANEOUS CURLY PARSLEY EA Total 5 each 1 5 25 g 0 CATERING DICED CARROTS Total 260 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 260 CATERING DICED CELERY Total 430 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 430 CATERING DICED ONIONS Total 590 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 590 HOSPITAL DICED ONIONS Total 5990 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5,990 HOUSING CONTRACT DICED ONIONS Total 30 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 30 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HDICED ONIONS Total 10 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 MISCELLANEOUS DICED ONIONS Total 25 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 25 HOSPITAL DICED PEPPERS Total 3280 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 3,280 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HDICED PEPPERS Total 10 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 CATERING DICED TOMATOES Total 275 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 275 HOUSING CONTRACT DICED TOMATOES Total 80 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 80 HOSPITAL DICED/SLICED RED PEPPERS Total 105 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 105 CATERING DICON ROOT # Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 CATERING DICON ROOT Total 5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HDICON ROOT Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HDILL EA Total 5 each 1 5 25 g 0 CATERING DILL Total 20 each 1 5 100 g 0 HOUSING CONTRACT DILL Total 12 each 1 5 60 g 0 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HDILL Total 37 each 1 5 185 g 0 CATERING DRIED ANCHO PEPPERS Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 CATERING DRIED APRICOTS Total 25 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 25 CATERING DRIED CHANTRELL MUSHROOMS Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 CATERING DRIED CHANTRELLS Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 CATERING DRIED CHERRIES Total 130 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 130 CATERING DRIED CRANBERRIES Total 7 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 7 CATERING DRIED CURRENTS Total 5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 CATERING DRIED MINT Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 CATERING DRIED MUSHROOM-MORELS Total 4 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 4 CATERING DRIED MUSHROOMS-CEPES Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1
341 CATERING DRIED MUSHROOM-WOODEAR Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1
CATERING DRIED PORCINI Total 2 case 5 n/a 10 lbs 10 Estimated weight per case CATERING DRIED TOMATOES Total 80 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 80 CATERING DRIED WOODEAR MUSHROOMS Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 CATERING DRIED WOODEAR MUSHROOMS Total 2 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 CATERING DRIED WOODEAR Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 CATERING DRIED WOODEARS Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 CATERING EDIBLE ORCHIDS Total 99 case 100 10 99000 g 218 HOUSING CONTRACT EDIBLE ORCHIDS Total 4 case 100 10 4000 g 9 HOUSING CONTRACT EGGPLANT 1/2CS Total 2 case 11 454 9979.044 g 22 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HEGGPLANT 1/2CS Total 11 case 11 454 54884.742 g 121 MISCELLANEOUS EGGPLANT 1/2CS Total 1 case 11 454 4989.522 g 11 CATERING EGGPLANT EA Total 228 each 1 454 103419.18 g 228 HOUSING CONTRACT EGGPLANT EA Total 53 each 1 454 24040.424 g 53 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HEGGPLANT EA Total 92 each 1 454 41730.548 g 92 CATERING EGGPLANT JAPANESE Total 3 case 10 n/a 30 lbs 30 CATERING EGGPLANT Total 18 case 21 454 171458.12 g 378 HOUSING CONTRACT EGGPLANT Total 3 case 21 454 28576.353 g 63 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HEGGPLANT Total 63 case 21 454 595340.69 g 1,313 CATERING ENDIVE EA Total 3 each 1 150 450 g 1 HOUSING CONTRACT ENDIVE EA Total 7 each 1 150 1050 g 2 MISCELLANEOUS ENDIVE EA Total 7 each 1 150 1050 g 2 CATERING ENDIVE Total 2 case 18 n/a 36 lbs 36 CATERING ENOKI MUSROOMS EA Total 2 each 36 n/a 72 oz 5 CATERING ESCAROLE Total 1 case 18 n/a 18 lbs 18 CATERING EUROPEAN CUCUMBERS EA Total 13 each 1 297 3861 g 9 HOUSING CONTRACT EUROPEAN CUCUMBERS EA Total 3 each 1 297 891 g 2 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HEUROPEAN CUCUMBERS EA Total 3 each 1 297 891 g 2 MISCELLANEOUS EUROPEAN CUCUMBERS EA Total 2 each 1 297 594 g 1 CATERING EUROPEAN CUCUMBERS Total 119 case 12 297 424116 g 935 HOUSING CONTRACT EUROPEAN CUCUMBERS Total 5 case 12 297 17820 g 39 CATERING FOREST BLEND MUSHROOMS Total 12 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 12 CATERING GARLIC # Total 2 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGARLIC # Total 7 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 7 HOUSING CONTRACT GARLIC Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 CATERING GINGER ROOT # Total 55 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 55 HOUSING CONTRACT GINGER ROOT # Total 7 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 7 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGINGER ROOT # Total 160 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 160 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGINGER ROOT Total 9 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 9 HOUSING CONTRACT GRAPE TOMATOES 1/2 CS Total 1 case 6 n/a 6 pints 4 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGRAPE TOMATOES 1/2 CS Total 2 case 6 n/a 12 pints 8
342 HOUSING CONTRACT GRAPE TOMATOES EACH Total 18 case 6 n/a 108 pints 68 HOUSING SNACK BAR GRAPE TOMATOES EACH Total 1 case 6 n/a 6 pints 4 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGRAPE TOMATOES EACH Total 21 case 6 n/a 126 pints 79 CATERING GRAPE TOMATOES Total 30 case 6 n/a 180 pints 113 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGRAPE TOMATOES Total 16 case 6 n/a 96 pints 60 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGRAPEFRUIT Pink Total 35 case 36 308 388080 g 856 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGRAPEFRUIT Pink Fla Total 3 case 36 308 33264 g 73 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGRAPEFRUIT Pink Texas Total 2 case 36 308 22176 g 49 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGRAPES GREEN Total 8 case 20 n/a 150 lbs 150 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGRAPES RED LB Total 10 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGRAPES RED Total 23 case 20 n/a 450 lbs 450 HOSPITAL GRATED LEMON PEEL Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 CATERING GREEN BEANS # Total 216 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 216 HOUSING CONTRACT GREEN BEANS # Total 47 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 47 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN BEANS # Total 29 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 29 CATERING GREEN BEANS Total 11 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 11 CATERING GREEN CABBAGE # Total 25 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 25 HOUSING CONTRACT GREEN CABBAGE # Total 12 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 12 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN CABBAGE # Total 50 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 50 CATERING GREEN CABBAGE 1/2CS Total 1 case 25 n/a 25 lbs 25 HOUSING CONTRACT GREEN CABBAGE 1/2CS Total 2 case 25 n/a 50 lbs 50 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN CABBAGE 1/2CS Total 25 case 25 n/a 625 lbs 625 CATERING GREEN CABBAGE EA Total 162 each 1 964 156149.36 g 344 HOUSING CONTRACT GREEN CABBAGE EA Total 44 each 1 964 42410.937 g 94 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN CABBAGE EA Total 111 each 1 964 106991.23 g 236 MISCELLANEOUS GREEN CABBAGE EA Total 11 each 1 964 10602.734 g 23 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN CABBAGE LB Total 20 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 CATERING GREEN CABBAGE Total 1 case 25 n/a 25 lbs 25 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN CABBAGE Total 56 case 25 n/a 1387.5 lbs 1,388 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN LEAF LETTUCE Total 56 case 18 n/a 1008 lbs 1,008 CATERING GREEN LEAF LETTUCE 10 # Total 3 lbs 10 n/a 30 lbs 30 HOUSING CONTRACT GREEN LEAF LETTUCE 10 # Total 10 lbs 10 n/a 100 lbs 100 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN LEAF LETTUCE 10 # Total 142 lbs 10 n/a 1420 lbs 1,420 CATERING GREEN LEAF LETTUCE 24 CT Total 242 case 24 595 3457738.7 g 7,623 HOSPITAL GREEN LEAF LETTUCE 24 CT Total 56 case 24 595 800137.89 g 1,764 HOUSING CONTRACT GREEN LEAF LETTUCE 24 CT Total 9 case 24 595 128593.59 g 284 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN LEAF LETTUCE 24 CT Total 122 case 24 595 1743157.6 g 3,843 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN ONIONS EA Total 14 each 1 57 793.78759 g 2 CATERING GREEN ONIONS EA Total 1742 each 1 57 98769.856 g 218 HOUSING CONTRACT GREEN ONIONS EA Total 333 each 1 57 18880.805 g 42 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN ONIONS EA Total 796 each 1 57 45132.494 g 100 CATERING GREEN ONIONS Total 3 case 48 57 8164.6724 g 18
343 HOSPITAL GREEN ONIONS Total 14 case 48 57 38101.804 g 84 HOUSING CONTRACT GREEN ONIONS Total 8 case 48 57 21772.46 g 48 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN ONIONS Total 71 case 48 57 193230.58 g 426 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN PEPPERS med Total 4 case 26 n/a 104 lbs 104 CATERING GREEN PEPPERS 1/2CS Total 5 case 13 n/a 65 lbs 65 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN PEPPERS 1/2CS Total 29 case 13 n/a 377 lbs 377 HOUSING CONTRACT GREEN PEPPERS DZ Total 1 dz 12 148 1776 g 4 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN PEPPERS DZ Total 10 dz 12 148 17760 g 39 CATERING GREEN PEPPERS EACH Total 171 each 1 148 25308 g 56 HOUSING CONTRACT GREEN PEPPERS EACH Total 63 each 1 148 9324 g 21 HOUSING SNACK BAR GREEN PEPPERS EACH Total 6 each 1 148 888 g 2 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN PEPPERS EACH Total 367 each 1 148 54316 g 120 MISCELLANEOUS GREEN PEPPERS EACH Total 134 each 1 148 19832 g 44 CATERING GREEN PEPPERS GONE 1/29/01 Total 1 case 26 n/a 26 lbs 26 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN PEPPERS LG Total 109 case 26 n/a 2834 lbs 2,834 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN PEPPERS MED Total 51 case 26 n/a 1313 lbs 1,313 CATERING GREEN PEPPERS Total 103 case 26 n/a 2678 lbs 2,678 HOSPITAL GREEN PEPPERS Total 18 case 26 n/a 468 lbs 468 HOUSING CONTRACT GREEN PEPPERS Total 43 case 26 n/a 1118 lbs 1,118 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN PEPPERS Total 371 case 26 n/a 9646 lbs 9,646 CATERING GREEN SEEDLESS GRAPES # Total 5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 HOUSING CONTRACT GREEN SEEDLESS GRAPES # Total 24 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 24 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN SEEDLESS GRAPES # Total 19 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 19 MISCELLANEOUS GREEN SEEDLESS GRAPES # Total 22 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 22 CATERING GREEN SEEDLESS GRAPES Total 9 case 20 n/a 180 lbs 180 HOUSING CONTRACT GREEN SEEDLESS GRAPES Total 27 case 20 n/a 540 lbs 540 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREEN SEEDLESS GRAPES Total 13 case 20 n/a 260 lbs 260 Assumed this was Collard HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGREENS C Total 3 case 20 n/a 60 lbs 60 Greens HOSPITAL GROUND LEMON PEEL Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGROUND PARSLEY Total 2 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGROUND ROSEMARY Total 2 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HGROUND SAVORY Total 2 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 CATERING HABANERO CHILE Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 CATERING HABANERO PEPPERS Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 Assumed 10# / case, as HOUSING TRADITIONAL HHash Browns Diced Total 18 case 10 n/a 180 lbs 180 with other potatoes Assumed 10# / case, as HOUSING TRADITIONAL HHash Browns Total 118 case 10 n/a 1180 lbs 1,180 with other potatoes CATERING HAWAIIAN GOLDEN PINEAPPLE Total 342 case 5 1758 3005620 g 6,626 HOUSING CONTRACT HAWAIIAN GOLDEN PINEAPPLE Total 15 case 5 1758 131825.44 g 291 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HHAWAIIAN GOLDEN PINEAPPLE Total 43 case 5 1758 377899.59 g 833
344 CATERING HAWAIIAN JET FRESH PINEAPPLE Total 45 case 5 1758 395476.32 g 872 HOUSING CONTRACT HAWAIIAN JET FRESH PINEAPPLE Total 2 case 5 1758 17576.725 g 39 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HHAWAIIAN JET FRESH PINEAPPLE Total 16 case 5 1758 140613.8 g 310 HOUSING CONTRACT HAWAIIAN PINEAPPLE EACH Total 3 each 1 1758 5273.0176 g 12 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HHAWAIIAN PINEAPPLE EACH Total 12 each 1 1758 21092.07 g 47 MISCELLANEOUS HAWAIIAN PINEAPPLE EACH Total 1 each 1 1758 1757.6725 g 4 CATERING HAZELNUTS Total 25 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 25 CATERING HERCOT VERTS Total 55 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 55 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HHERCOT VERTS Total 15 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 15 CATERING HONEYDEW CUTS REDI CUT Total 20 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 HOUSING CONTRACT HONEYDEW CUTS REDI CUT Total 165 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 165 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HHONEYDEW CUTS REDI CUT Total 35 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 35 HOUSING CONTRACT HONEYDEWS EACH Total 31 each 1 2665 82610.609 g 182 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HHONEYDEWS EACH Total 14 each 1 2665 37308.017 g 82 MISCELLANEOUS HONEYDEWS EACH Total 4 each 1 2665 10659.433 g 24 CATERING HONEYDEWS Total 311 case 6 2665 4972625.7 g 10,963 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HHONEYDEWS Total 68 case 6 2665 1087262.2 g 2,397 CATERING HOT CHILE PEPPERS Total 1 case 10 n/a 10 lbs 10 CATERING HUMMUS Total 9 case 192 n/a 1728 oz 108 CATERING HYDRO BIBB LETTUCE Total 5 case 2 n/a 7.5 lbs 8 HOUSING CONTRACT HYDRO BIBB LETTUCE Total 10 case 2 n/a 15 lbs 15 CATERING ITALIAN PASTA SALAD Total 6 case 15 n/a 90 lbs 90 CATERING JALAPENO PEPPERS # Total 23 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 23 HOUSING CONTRACT JALAPENO PEPPERS # Total 2 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HJALAPENO PEPPERS # Total 52 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 52 CATERING JAPELENO PEPPERS Total 2 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 HOUSING CONTRACT JAPELENO PEPPERS Total 2 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HJAPELENO PEPPERS Total 4 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 4 CATERING JAPELENOS Total 6 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 6 CATERING JICAMA Total 54 case 20 n/a 1080 lbs 1,080 CATERING JULIENNE CARROTS Total 20 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 HOSPITAL JULIENNE GEEN PEPPERS Total 320 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 320 HOSPITAL JULIENNE RED PEPPERS Total 280 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 280 CATERING KALAMATA OLIVES Total 4 case CATERING KALE EA Total 95 each 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HKALE EA Total 17 each 1 CATERING KALE FLOWERING EA Total 3 each 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HKALE FLOWERING EA Total 21 each 1 CATERING KALE FLOWERING Total 1 case HOUSING TRADITIONAL HKALE FLOWERING Total 2 case CATERING KALE Total 56 case
345 CATERING KIWI 33/39 CT Total 20 case 36 74 53280 g 117 Assume 36 kiwis per case HOUSING CONTRACT KIWI 33/39 CT Total 6 case 36 74 15984 g 35 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HKIWI 33/39 CT Total 17 case 36 74 45288 g 100 CATERING KIWI EA Total 58 each 1 74 4292 g 9 HOUSING CONTRACT KIWI EA Total 124 each 1 74 9176 g 20 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HKIWI EA Total 99 each 1 74 7326 g 16 MISCELLANEOUS KIWI EA Total 60 each 1 74 4440 g 10 CATERING LEAF LETTUCE EACH Total 66 each 1 595 39292.486 g 87 HOUSING CONTRACT LEAF LETTUCE EACH Total 58 each 1 595 34529.76 g 76 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLEAF LETTUCE EACH Total 17 each 1 595 10120.792 g 22 MISCELLANEOUS LEAF LETTUCE EACH Total 10 each 1 595 5953.4069 g 13 HOUSING CONTRACT LEAF LETTUCE FILLETS Total 5 case 10 n/a 50 lbs 50 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLEAF LETTUCE FILLETS Total 1 case 10 n/a 10 lbs 10 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLEEKS CA Total 3 case 30 n/a 90 lbs 90 CATERING LEEKS EA Total 67 each 1 2.5 167.5 lbs 168 HOUSING CONTRACT LEEKS EA Total 11 each 1 2.5 27.5 lbs 28 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLEEKS EA Total 57 each 1 2.5 142.5 lbs 143 HOUSING CONTRACT LEEKS Total 4 case 30 n/a 120 lbs 120 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLEEKS Total 6 case 30 n/a 180 lbs 180 CATERING LEMON GRASS Total 2 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 CATERING LEMONS- 1/2 CASE Total 8 case 57 58 26448 g 58 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLEMONS 115 CT Total 1 case 115 58 6670 g 15 CATERING LEMONS 140 CT Total 55 case 140 58 446600 g 985 HOUSING CONTRACT LEMONS 140 CT Total 15 case 140 58 121800 g 269 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLEMONS 140 CT Total 45 case 140 58 365400 g 806 HOUSING CONTRACT LEMONS DZ Total 9 dz 12 58 6264 g 14 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLEMONS DZ Total 49 dz 12 58 34104 g 75 CATERING LEMONS EA Total 12 each 1 58 696 g 2 HOUSING CONTRACT LEMONS EA Total 141 each 1 58 8178 g 18 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLEMONS EA Total 424 each 1 58 24592 g 54 MISCELLANEOUS LEMONS EA Total 36 each 1 58 2088 g 5 Assumed same as lettuce HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLettuce Chopped Total 290 case 20 n/a 5805 lbs 5,805 shredded HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLETTUCE GREEN LEAF EA Total 8 each 1 595 4762.7255 g 11 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLETTUCE Head CELLO Total 78 case 24 595 1107333.7 g 2,441 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLETTUCE HEAD Total 2 case 24 595 28576.353 g 63 CATERING LETTUCE HYDRO EA Total 20 each 1 595 11906.814 g 26 Assume same CT per CATERING LETTUCE ICEBERG CELLO Total 102 case 24 534 1307232 g 2,882 case as LETTUCE HEAD Assume same CT per HOUSING CONTRACT LETTUCE ICEBERG CELLO Total 14 case 24 534 179424 g 396 case as LETTUCE HEAD
346 Assume same CT per HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLETTUCE ICEBERG CELLO Total 412 case 24 534 5280192 g 11,641 case as LETTUCE HEAD CATERING LETTUCE ICEBERG EACH Total 190 each 1 534 101460 g 224 HOUSING CONTRACT LETTUCE ICEBERG EACH Total 143 each 1 534 76362 g 168 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLETTUCE ICEBERG EACH Total 12 each 1 534 6408 g 14 MISCELLANEOUS LETTUCE ICEBERG EACH Total 106 each 1 534 56604 g 125 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLETTUCE SHREDDED CA Total 1 case 20 n/a 20 lbs 20 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLETTUCE SHREDDED Total 2 case 20 n/a 40 lbs 40 CATERING LIMES 54/63 CT Total 33 case 58 58 111012 g 245 Assume 58 limes HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLIMES DZ Total 1 dz 12 58 696 g 2 HOUSING CONTRACT LIMES EA Total 101 each 1 58 5858 g 13 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HLIMES EA Total 82 each 1 58 4756 g 10 MISCELLANEOUS LIMES EA Total 7 each 1 58 406 g 1 HOUSING CONTRACT MAC APPLES Total 12 each 1 58 696 g 2 CATERING MACADAMIA NUTS Total 15 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 15 CATERING MACADMAIA NUTS Total 5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 CATERING MACARONI SALAD Total 1 case 15 n/a 15 lbs 15 CATERING MANGOS EA Total 55 each 1 208 11440 g 25 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HMANGOS EA Total 5 each 1 208 1040 g 2 CATERING MANGOS Total 15 case 10 208 31200 g 69 HOUSING CONTRACT MANGOS Total 4 case 10 208 8320 g 18 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HMANGOS Total 8 case 10 208 16640 g 37 MISCELLANEOUS MANGOS Total 1 case 10 208 2080 g 5 Average weight of CATERING MEDUIM LARGE MUSHROOMS Total 6 case 8 n/a 48 lbs 48 mushroom cases HOUSING TRADITIONAL HMELONS CANTALOUPES Total 54 case 15 1588 1285935.9 g 2,835 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HMELONS CANTALOUPES EA Total 9 each 1 1588 14288.177 g 32 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HMELONS HONEYDEWS EA Total 16 each 1 2665 42637.733 g 94 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HMELONS HONEYDEWS Total 9 case 6 2665 143902.35 g 317 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HMINT 1/2# Total 1 lbs 1 n/a 0.5 lbs 1 CATERING MINT 1/4 # Total 11 lbs 0 n/a 2.75 lbs 3 HOUSING CONTRACT MINT 1/4 # Total 3 lbs 0 n/a 0.75 lbs 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HMINT 1/4 # Total 5 lbs 0 n/a 1.25 lbs 1 CATERING MINT Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 HOUSING CONTRACT MINT Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 HOUSING CONTRACT MIXED CUT FRUIT Total 440 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 440 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HMIXED CUT FRUIT Total 50 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 50 CATERING MUSHROOMS 1 # Total 10 lbs 1 n/a 10 lbs 10 HOUSING CONTRACT MUSHROOMS 1 # Total 51 lbs 1 n/a 51 lbs 51 HOUSING SNACK BAR MUSHROOMS 1 # Total 1 lbs 1 n/a 1 lbs 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HMUSHROOMS 1 # Total 323 lbs 1 n/a 323 lbs 323 MISCELLANEOUS MUSHROOMS 1 # Total 63 lbs 1 n/a 63 lbs 63
347 CATERING MUSHROOMS 10# Total 137 lbs 10 n/a 1370 lbs 1,370 HOSPITAL MUSHROOMS 10# Total 15 lbs 10 n/a 150 lbs 150 HOUSING CONTRACT MUSHROOMS 10# Total 22 lbs 10 n/a 220 lbs 220 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HMUSHROOMS 10# Total 568 lbs 10 n/a 5680 lbs 5,680 HOUSING CONTRACT MUSHROOMS 8/1 # Total 42 lbs 8 n/a 336 lbs 336 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HMUSHROOMS 8/1 # Total 26 lbs 8 n/a 206.64 lbs 207 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HMUSHROOMS OYSTER SL Total 152 case 3 n/a 456 lbs 456 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HMUSHROOMS PORTOBELLA Total 3 case 3 n/a 9 lbs 9 CATERING MUSHROOMS SLICED # Total 275 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 275 CATERING MUSTARD GREENS Total 4 case 20 n/a 80 lbs 80 CATERING MUSTARD POTATO SALAD Total 10 case 10 n/a 100 lbs 100 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HNAPA lb Total 227 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 227 CATERING NAPA EA Total 112 each 1 420 47040 g 104 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HNAPA EA Total 1 each 1 420 420 g 1 CATERING NAPA Total 21 case 60 n/a 1260 lbs 1,260 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HNAPA Total 2 case 60 n/a 90 lbs 90 CATERING NECTARINES Total 4 case 48 140 26880 g 59 HOUSING CONTRACT NECTARINES Total 9 case 48 140 60480 g 133 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HNECTARINES TRAY Total 5 case 48 140 33600 g 74 CATERING OKRA # Total 15 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 15 CATERING OKRA Total 5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 CATERING ONIONS GREEN DZ Total 1 dz 12 57 680.38936 g 2 HOUSING CONTRACT ONIONS GREEN DZ Total 6 dz 12 57 4082.3362 g 9 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HONIONS GREEN DZ Total 58 dz 12 57 39462.583 g 87 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HONIONS SPANISH LB Total 10 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HORANGE PEPPERS Total 2 case 11 n/a 22 lbs 22 CATERING ORANGES 1/2CS Total 11 case 40 154 67760 g 149 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HORANGES 1/2CS Total 3 case 40 154 18480 g 41 MISCELLANEOUS ORANGES 1/2CS Total 8 case 40 154 49280 g 109 HOUSING CONTRACT ORANGES 113 CT Total 2 case 113 154 34804 g 77 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HORANGES 113 CT Total 188 case 113 154 3271576 g 7,213 MISCELLANEOUS ORANGES 113 CT Total 2 case 113 154 34804 g 77 HOSPITAL ORANGES 72 CT Total 312 case 72 154 3459456 g 7,627 HOUSING CONTRACT ORANGES 72 CT Total 27 case 72 154 299376 g 660 CATERING ORANGES 88 CT Total 62 case 88 154 840224 g 1,852 HOSPITAL ORANGES 88 CT Total 6 case 88 154 81312 g 179 HOUSING CONTRACT ORANGES 88 CT Total 20 case 88 154 271040 g 598 HOUSING SNACK BAR ORANGES 88 CT Total 2 case 88 154 27104 g 60 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HORANGES 88 CT Total 434 case 88 154 5874792 g 12,952 MISCELLANEOUS ORANGES 88 CT Total 1 case 88 154 13552 g 30 HOUSING CONTRACT ORANGES DZ Total 11 dz 12 154 20328 g 45 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HORANGES DZ Total 4 dz 12 154 7392 g 16
348 MISCELLANEOUS ORANGES DZ Total 14 dz 12 154 25872 g 57 CATERING ORANGES EA Total 574 each 1 154 88396 g 195 HOUSING CONTRACT ORANGES EA Total 170 each 1 154 26180 g 58 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HORANGES EA Total 80 each 1 154 12320 g 27 MISCELLANEOUS ORANGES EA Total 864 each 1 154 133056 g 293 CATERING OREGANO 1/2 # Total 1 lbs 1 n/a 1 lbs 1 HOUSING CONTRACT OREGANO 1/4 # Total 9 lbs 0 n/a 2 lbs 2 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HOREGANO 1/4 # Total 6 lbs 0 n/a 2 lbs 2 CATERING OYSTER MUSHROOMS Total 15 case 3 n/a 45 lbs 45 CATERING OYSTER MUSHROOMS-SLICED Total 1 case 3 n/a 3 lbs 3 CATERING PABLANO PEPPERS Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 CATERING PAPAYA EA Total 2 each 1 280 560 g 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPAPAYA EA Total 20 each 1 280 5600 g 12 MISCELLANEOUS PAPAYA EA Total 12 each 1 280 3360 g 7 CATERING PAPAYA Total 10 case 9 280 25200 g 56 HOUSING CONTRACT PAPAYA Total 2 case 9 280 5040 g 11 CATERING PARSNIP # Total 39 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 39 HOUSING CONTRACT PARSNIP # Total 28 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 28 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPARSNIP # Total 36 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 36 MISCELLANEOUS PARSNIP # Total 3 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPARSNIPS PKG Total 40 pkg 1 n/a 40 lbs 40 CATERING PARSNIPS Total 1 case 12 n/a 12 lbs 12 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPARSNIPS Total 8 case 12 n/a 96 lbs 96 CATERING PEA PODS # Total 88 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 88 HOUSING CONTRACT PEA PODS # Total 33 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 33 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPEA PODS # Total 80 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 80 MISCELLANEOUS PEA PODS # Total 2 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 CATERING PEA PODS Total 27 case 10 n/a 270 lbs 270 HOUSING CONTRACT PEA PODS Total 9 case 10 n/a 90 lbs 90 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPEA PODS Total 10 case 10 n/a 100 lbs 100 CATERING PEACHES-EACH Total 12 each 1 98 1176 g 3 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPEANUTS Total 25 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 25 CATERING PEARL ONIONS RED OR WHITE Total 1 each 12 148 1776 g 3.9 CATERING PEARS EACH Total 12 each 1 166 1992 g 4.4 HOUSING CONTRACT PEARS EACH Total 216 each 1 166 35856 g 79 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPEARS EACH Total 180 each 1 166 29880 g 66 MISCELLANEOUS PEARS EACH Total 567 each 1 166 94122 g 208 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPEARS Total 11 case 100 166 182600 g 403 CATERING PEARS 100 CT Total 2 case 100 166 33200 g 73 HOUSING CONTRACT PEARS 100 CT Total 2 case 100 166 33200 g 73 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPEARS 100 CT Total 64 case 100 166 1062400 g 2,342 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPears Bosc Total 1 case 90 166 14940 g 33
349 HOUSING CONTRACT PEARS DOZEN Total 2 dz 12 166 3984 g 9 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPEARS DOZEN Total 8 dz 12 166 15936 g 35 MISCELLANEOUS PEARS DOZEN Total 1 dz 12 166 1992 g 4 HOUSING CONTRACT PEARS EACH Total 12 each 1 166 1992 g 4 CATERING PEELED CARROTS Total 66 sk 25 n/a 1650 lbs 1,650 HOSPITAL PEELED CARROTS Total 22 sk 25 n/a 550 lbs 550 HOUSING CONTRACT PEELED CARROTS Total 54 sk 25 n/a 1350 lbs 1,350 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPEELED CARROTS Total 98 sk 25 n/a 2450 lbs 2,450 HOUSING CONTRACT PEELED ONIONS Total 38 sk 25 n/a 950 lbs 950 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPEELED ONIONS Total 30 sk 25 n/a 750 lbs 750 CATERING PEELED PEARL ONION Total 1 sk 25 n/a 25 lbs 25
Assumed same case CATERING PEPPER SQUASH Total 1 case 50 709 35436.946 g 78 count as butternut squash
Assumed same case HOUSING CONTRACT PEPPER SQUASH Total 1 case 50 709 35436.946 g 78 count as butternut squash
Assumed same case HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPEPPER SQUASH Total 10 case 50 709 354369.46 g 781 count as butternut squash HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPEPPERS GREEN EA Total 8 each 1 148 1184 g 3 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPeppers Jalapeno LB Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPeppers Jalapeno Total 7 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 7 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPEPPERS POBLANO EA Total 2 each 1 10 20 g 0 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPEPPERS RED EA Total 8 each 1 148 1184 g 3 CATERING PICKLED JALAPENO Total 1 gal CATERING PICKLED JALAPENOS Total 1 gal CATERING PICKLES SPEARS/CHIPS/WHOLE Total 25 case HOUSING CONTRACT PICKLES SPEARS/CHIPS/WHOLE Total 1 case HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPICKLES SPEARS/CHIPS/WHOLE Total 16 case CATERING PICO DE GALLO Total 48 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 48 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPINEAPPLE CORED ca Total 3 case 5 1258 18865.088 g 42 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPINEAPPLE CORED EA Total 10 each 1 1258 12576.725 g 28 CATERING PINEAPPLE CUTS REDI CUT Total 10 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 HOSPITAL PINEAPPLE CUTS REDI CUT Total 20 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 HOUSING CONTRACT PINEAPPLE CUTS REDI CUT Total 285 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 285 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPINEAPPLE CUTS REDI CUT Total 45 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 45 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPINEAPPLE GOLD CA Total 12 case 5 1758 105460.35 g 233 CATERING PINENUTS Total 25 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 25 CATERING PIPINOS Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 CATERING PISTACHIOS Total 10 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 CATERING PITTED LKALAMATA OLIVES Total 1 case
350 CATERING PLABLANO PEPPERS Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 CATERING PLAIN PARSLEY EACH Total 127 each 1 10 1270 g 3 HOUSING CONTRACT PLAIN PARSLEY EACH Total 4 each 1 10 40 g 0 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPLAIN PARSLEY EACH Total 14 each 1 10 140 g 0 MISCELLANEOUS PLAIN PARSLEY EACH Total 1 each 1 10 10 g 0 CATERING PLAIN/FLAT LEAF PARSLEY Total 38 each 1 10 380 g 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPLAIN/FLAT LEAF PARSLEY Total 3 each 1 10 30 g 0 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPLAINTAINS LB Total 35 lbs n/a n/a n/a lbs 35 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPLANTAIN CA Total 3 case 50 n/a 150 n/a 150 CATERING PLUMS Total 2 case 28 n/a 56 lbs 56 HOUSING CONTRACT PLUMS Total 1 case 28 n/a 28 lbs 28 CATERING PORTABELLO MUSHROOMS Total 160 case 3 n/a 480 lbs 480 HOUSING CONTRACT PORTABELLO MUSHROOMS Total 23 case 3 n/a 69 lbs 69 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HPORTABELLO MUSHROOMS Total 51 case 3 n/a 153 lbs 153 CATERING RADICCHIO EACH Total 12 each 5 n/a 60 lbs 60 HOUSING CONTRACT RADICCHIO EACH Total 1 each 5 n/a 5 lbs 5 MISCELLANEOUS RADICCHIO EACH Total 3 each 5 n/a 15 lbs 15 CATERING RADICCIO Total 10 case 5 n/a 50 lbs 50 HOUSING CONTRACT RADICCIO Total 1 case 5 n/a 5 lbs 5 CATERING RADISH EACH Total 96 each 0 n/a 36 lbs 36 HOUSING CONTRACT RADISH EACH Total 34 each 0 n/a 12.75 lbs 13 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRADISH EACH Total 9 each 0 n/a 3.375 lbs 3 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRADISHES EA Total 12 each 0 n/a 4.5 lbs 5 CATERING RAISINS Total 251 case CATERING RASPBERRIES 1/2 CS Total 1 case 3 n/a 3 pints 2 CATERING RASPBERRIES Total 11 case 6 n/a 66 pints 41 HOUSING CONTRACT RASPBERRIES Total 7 case 6 n/a 42 pints 26 CATERING RED BELGIAN ENDIVE Total 1 case 8 n/a 8 lbs 8 HOUSING CONTRACT RED CABBAGE # Total 20 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRED CABBAGE # Total 13 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 13 MISCELLANEOUS RED CABBAGE # Total 20 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRED CABBAGE 1/2CS Total 2 case 25 n/a 50 lbs 50 CATERING RED CABBAGE EA Total 312 each 25 n/a 7800 lbs 7,800 HOUSING CONTRACT RED CABBAGE EA Total 2 each 25 n/a 50 lbs 50 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRED CABBAGE EA Total 70 each 25 n/a 1750 lbs 1,750 MISCELLANEOUS RED CABBAGE EA Total 1 each 25 n/a 25 lbs 25 CATERING RED CABBAGE Total 4 each 25 n/a 100 lbs 100 CATERING RED GRAPEFRIUT EA Total 40 each 1 308 12320 g 27 HOUSING CONTRACT RED GRAPEFRIUT EA Total 46 each 1 308 14168 g 31 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRED GRAPEFRIUT EA Total 92 each 1 308 28336 g 62 CATERING RED GRAPEFRUIT 32 CT Total 3 case 32 308 29568 g 65 HOUSING CONTRACT RED GRAPEFRUIT 32 CT Total 14 case 32 308 137984 g 304
351 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRED GRAPEFRUIT 32 CT Total 58 case 32 308 571648 g 1,260 HOUSING CONTRACT RED GRAPEFRUIT 36/40 CT Total 2 case 38 308 23408 g 52 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRED GRAPEFRUIT 36/40 CT Total 85 case 38 308 994840 g 2,193 HOUSING CONTRACT RED GRAPEFRUIT 40 CT Total 1 case 40 308 12320 g 27 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRED GRAPEFRUIT 40 CT Total 63 case 40 308 776160 g 1,711 HOUSING CONTRACT RED LEAF LETTUCE 10 # Total 6 lbs 10 n/a 60 lbs 60 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRED LEAF LETTUCE 10 # Total 6 lbs 10 n/a 60 lbs 60 CATERING RED LEAF LETTUCE EA Total 2 each 1 545 1090.6814 g 2 HOUSING CONTRACT RED LEAF LETTUCE EA Total 85 each 1 545 46353.959 g 102 CATERING RED LEAF LETTUCE Total 17 case 18 n/a 306 lbs 306 HOUSING CONTRACT RED LEAF LETTUCE Total 4 case 18 n/a 72 lbs 72 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRED LEAF LETTUCE Total 2 case 18 n/a 36 lbs 36 CATERING RED LENTILS Total 8 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 8 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRED LENTILS Total 35 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 35 CATERING RED ONIONS # Total 147 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 147 HOSPITAL RED ONIONS # Total 21 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 21 HOUSING CONTRACT RED ONIONS # Total 51 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 51 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRED ONIONS # Total 110 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 110 CATERING RED ONIONS 25 # Total 84 lbs 25 n/a 2100 lbs 2,100 HOUSING CONTRACT RED ONIONS 25 # Total 4 lbs 25 n/a 100 lbs 100 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRED ONIONS 25 # Total 78 lbs 25 n/a 1950 lbs 1,950 CATERING RED PEARS Total 2 case 44 166 14608 g 32 HOUSING CONTRACT RED PEARS Total 11 case 44 166 80344 g 177 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRED PEARS Total 1 case 44 166 7304 g 16 CATERING RED PEPPERS EACH Total 119 each 1 148 17612 g 39 HOUSING CONTRACT RED PEPPERS EACH Total 87 each 1 148 12876 g 28 HOUSING SNACK BAR RED PEPPERS EACH Total 3 each 1 148 444 g 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRED PEPPERS EACH Total 45 each 1 148 6660 g 15 MISCELLANEOUS RED PEPPERS EACH Total 51 each 1 148 7548 g 17 CATERING RED PEPPERS Total 210 case 11 n/a 2310 lbs 2,310 HOSPITAL RED PEPPERS Total 19 case 11 n/a 209 lbs 209 HOUSING CONTRACT RED PEPPERS Total 39 case 11 n/a 429 lbs 429 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRED PEPPERS Total 156 case 11 n/a 1711 lbs 1,711 CATERING RED SEEDLESS GRAPES # Total 61 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 61 HOUSING CONTRACT RED SEEDLESS GRAPES # Total 62 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 62 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRED SEEDLESS GRAPES # Total 5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 MISCELLANEOUS RED SEEDLESS GRAPES # Total 68 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 68 CATERING RED SEEDLESS GRAPES Total 78 case 20 n/a 1560 lbs 1,560 HOUSING CONTRACT RED SEEDLESS GRAPES Total 30 case 20 n/a 600 lbs 600 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRED SEEDLESS GRAPES Total 7 case 20 n/a 140 lbs 140 Assumed 20 #/case - CATERING RED TEAR Total 1 case 20 n/a 20 lbs 20 same as other tomatoes
352 Assumed 20 #/case - CATERING RED TEARDROP TOMATOES Total 6 case 20 n/a 120 lbs 120 same as other tomatoes Assumed 20 #/case - CATERING ROMA TOMATOES Total 55 case 20 n/a 1100 lbs 1,100 same as other tomatoes Assumed 20 #/case - HOUSING CONTRACT ROMA TOMATOES Total 9 case 20 n/a 180 lbs 180 same as other tomatoes Assumed 20 #/case - HOUSING TRADITIONAL HROMA TOMATOES Total 1 case 20 n/a 20 lbs 20 same as other tomatoes CATERING ROMAINE EACH Total 198 each 1 595 117877.46 g 260 HOUSING CONTRACT ROMAINE EACH Total 52 each 1 595 30957.716 g 68 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HROMAINE EACH Total 84 each 1 595 50008.618 g 110 MISCELLANEOUS ROMAINE EACH Total 32 each 1 595 19050.902 g 42 CATERING ROMAINE 24 CT Total 162 case 24 595 2314684.6 g 5,103 HOUSING CONTRACT ROMAINE 24 CT Total 41 case 24 595 585815.24 g 1,292 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HROMAINE 24 CT Total 218 case 24 595 3114822.5 g 6,867 CATERING ROMAINE BLEND MIX LETTUCE Total 3840 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 3,840 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HROMAINE BLEND MIX LETTUCE Total 20 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HROMAINE HEART Total 1 case 12 500 6004.0883 g 13 CATERING ROSEMARY 1 # Total 24 lbs 1 n/a 24 lbs 24 CATERING ROSEMARY 1/2 # Total 15 lbs 1 n/a 8 lbs 8 CATERING ROSEMARY 1/4 # Total 12 lbs 0 n/a 3 lbs 3 HOUSING CONTRACT ROSEMARY 1/4 # Total 4 lbs 0 n/a 1 lbs 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HROSEMARY 1/4 # Total 4 lbs 0 n/a 1 lbs 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HROSEMARY EA Total 4 each 1 10 40 g 0 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRUTABAGA lb Total 92 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 92 CATERING RUTABAGAS EACH Total 3 each 1 280 840 g 2 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRUTABAGAS Total 8 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 8 CATERING RUTABEGAS # Total 53 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 53 HOUSING CONTRACT RUTABEGAS # Total 16 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 16 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HRUTABEGAS # Total 97 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 97 CATERING SAFFRON Total 2 each 1 10 20 g 0 CATERING SAGE 1 # Total 4 lbs 1 n/a 4 lbs 4 CATERING SAGE 1/2 # Total 5 lbs 1 n/a 3 lbs 3 HOUSING CONTRACT SAGE 1/4 # Total 4 lbs 0 n/a 1 lbs 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSAGE 1/4 # Total 1 lbs 0 n/a 0 lbs 0 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSAGE EA Total 1 each 1 10 10 g 0 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSAVOY CABBAGE Total 2 each 1 148 296 g 1 CATERING SEEDLESS WATERMELON Total 164 each 1 11340 1859730.9 g 4,100 HOUSING CONTRACT SEEDLESS WATERMELON Total 9 each 1 11340 102058.4 g 225 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSEEDLESS WATERMELON Total 66 each 1 11340 748428.3 g 1,650 MISCELLANEOUS SEEDLESS WATERMELON Total 2 each 1 11340 22679.645 g 50 HOUSING CONTRACT SHALLOTS DRY # Total 5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5
353 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSHALLOTS DRY # Total 5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 CATERING SHALLOTS Total 6 sk 25 n/a 150 lbs 150 HOUSING CONTRACT SHALLOTS Total 1 sk 25 n/a 25 lbs 25 MISCELLANEOUS SHALLOTS Total 1 sk 25 n/a 25 lbs 25 Assumed 3 lbs / case - CATERING SHITTAKI MUSHROOMS Total 41 case 3 n/a 123 lbs 123 average for mushrooms HOUSING CONTRACT SHITTAKI MUSHROOMS Total 2 case 3 n/a 6 lbs 6 CATERING SHREDDED CABBAGE Total 515 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 515 HOSPITAL SHREDDED CABBAGE Total 6600 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 6,600 HOUSING CONTRACT SHREDDED CABBAGE Total 40 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 40 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSHREDDED CABBAGE Total 120 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 120 CATERING SHREDDED CARROTS Total 605 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 605 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSHREDDED CARROTS Total 465 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 465 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HShredded Lettuce lb Total 10 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 CATERING SHREDDED LETTUCE Total 35 case 20 n/a 700 lbs 700 HOSPITAL SHREDDED LETTUCE Total 40 case 20 n/a 800 lbs 800 HOUSING CONTRACT SHREDDED LETTUCE Total 165 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 165 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSHREDDED LETTUCE Total 977 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 977 CATERING SILVER DOLLAR MUSHROOMS Total 1 case 10 n/a 10 lbs 10 CATERING SLICED CREMINI MUSHROOMS Total 2 case 5 n/a 10 lbs 10 CATERING SLICED MUSHROOMS Total 125 case 10 n/a 1250 lbs 1,250 HOSPITAL SLICED MUSHROOMS Total 43 case 10 n/a 430 lbs 430 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSLICED MUSHROOMS Total 6 case 10 n/a 60 lbs 60 HOSPITAL SLICED ONION RINGS Total 20 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 HOSPITAL SLICED ONIONS Total 590 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 590 HOUSING CONTRACT SLICED ONIONS Total 10 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 CATERING SLICED OYSTER MUSHROOM Total 4 case 5 n/a 20 lbs 20 HOSPITAL SLICED PEPPERS Total 430 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 430 HOUSING CONTRACT SLICED PORTABELLO MUSHROOMS Tota 2 case 3 n/a 6 lbs 6 HOSPITAL SLICED RED ONION RINGS Total 10 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 CATERING SLICED SHITTAKI MUSHROOMS Total 19 case 5 n/a 95 lbs 95 CATERING SLICED TOMATOES Total 1 case 5 n/a 5 lbs 5 CATERING SPANISH ONIONS # Total 236 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 236 HOUSING CONTRACT SPANISH ONIONS # Total 60 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 60 HOUSING SNACK BAR SPANISH ONIONS # Total 2 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSPANISH ONIONS # Total 55 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 55 MISCELLANEOUS SPANISH ONIONS # Total 90 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 90 CATERING SPANISH ONIONS Total 67 case 50 n/a 3350 lbs 3,350 HOUSING CONTRACT SPANISH ONIONS Total 14 case 50 n/a 700 lbs 700 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSPANISH ONIONS Total 448 case 50 n/a 22400 lbs 22,400 CATERING SPINACH CELLO EACH Total 69 each 5 n/a 345 lbs 345 HOUSING CONTRACT SPINACH CELLO EACH Total 86 each 5 n/a 430 lbs 430
354 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSPINACH CELLO EACH Total 252 each 5 n/a 1260 lbs 1,260 HOUSING CONTRACT SPINACH CELLO EACH Total 2 each 5 n/a 10 lbs 10 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSQUASH ACORN Total 14 case 24 709 229631.41 g 506 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSQUASH BUTTERNUT ca Total 2 case 50 n/a 75 lbs 75 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSQUASH BUTTERNUT EA Total 2 each 1 709 1417.4778 g 3 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSQUASH BUTTERNUT LB Total 59 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 59 Assume same as HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSquash Green cs Total 43 case 50 n/a 2150 lbs 2,150 Butternut squash CATERING SQUASH PEPPER EACH Total 8 each 1 709 5669.9114 g 13 HOUSING CONTRACT SQUASH PEPPER EACH Total 46 each 1 709 32601.99 g 72 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSQUASH PEPPER EACH Total 1 each 1 709 708.73892 g 2 CATERING SQUASH SPAGHETTI EACH Total 7 each 1 1446 10120.792 g 22 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSQUASH YELLOW LB Total 15 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 15 CATERING STAR ANISE Total 1 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 HOUSING CONTRACT STARFRUIT EACH Total 6 each 1 100 600 g 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSTARFRUIT EACH Total 7 each 1 100 700 g 2 CATERING STARFRUIT Total 1 case 25 100 2500 g 6 HOUSING CONTRACT STARFRUIT Total 10 case 25 100 25000 g 55 CATERING STIR FRY VEGETABLES Total 390 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 390 HOUSING CONTRACT STRAWBERRIES 1/2CS Total 1 case 6 n/a 6 pints 4 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSTRAWBERRIES 1/2CS Total 1 case 6 n/a 6 pints 4 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSTRAWBERRIES CA Total 24 case 12 n/a 288 pints 180 CATERING STRAWBERRIES CALIFORNIA Total 205 case 12 n/a 2460 pints 1,538 HOUSING CONTRACT STRAWBERRIES CALIFORNIA Total 26 case 12 n/a 312 pints 195 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSTRAWBERRIES CALIFORNIA Total 40 case 12 n/a 480 pints 300 CATERING STRAWBERRIES EA Total 182 each 1 n/a 182 pints 114 HOUSING CONTRACT STRAWBERRIES EA Total 79 each 1 n/a 79 pints 49 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSTRAWBERRIES EA Total 113 each 1 n/a 113 pints 71 MISCELLANEOUS STRAWBERRIES EA Total 24 each 1 n/a 24 pints 15 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSTRAWBERRIES Total 13 case 12 n/a 156 pints 98 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSUGAR SNAP PEAS CA Total 10 case 10 n/a 100 lbs 100 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSUGAR SNAP PEAS CS Total 1 case 10 n/a 10 lbs 10 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSUGAR SNAP PEAS lb Total 21 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 21 CATERING SUGAR SNAP PEAS Total 34 case 10 n/a 340 lbs 340 HOUSING CONTRACT SUGAR SNAP PEAS Total 12 case 10 n/a 120 lbs 120 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSUGAR SNAP PEAS Total 43 case 10 n/a 430 lbs 430 CATERING SUNFLOWER SEEDS Total 20 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSWEET POTATOES LB Total 20 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSWEET POTATOES Total 18 case 40 n/a 700 lbs 700 CATERING SWISS CHARD EACH Total 5 each 20 n/a 100 lbs 100 HOUSING CONTRACT SWISS CHARD EACH Total 5 each 20 n/a 100 lbs 100 CATERING SWISS CHARD Total 2 case 20 n/a 40 lbs 40
355 HOUSING CONTRACT SWISS CHARD Total 1 case 20 n/a 20 lbs 20 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HSWISS CHARD Total 1 case 20 n/a 20 lbs 20 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HTANGERINE CA Total 2 case 120 109 26160 g 58 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HTANGERINES CA Total 2 case 120 109 26160 g 58 HOUSING CONTRACT TANGERINES Total 21 case 120 109 274680 g 606 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HTANGERINES Total 32 case 120 109 418560 g 923 MISCELLANEOUS TANGERINES Total 1 case 120 109 13080 g 29 CATERING TARRAGON 1/2 # Total 1 lbs 1 n/a 1 lbs 1 HOUSING CONTRACT TARRAGON 1/2 # Total 1 lbs 1 n/a 1 lbs 1 CATERING TARRAGON 1/4 # Total 4 lbs 0 n/a 1 lbs 1 HOUSING CONTRACT TARRAGON 1/4 # Total 4 lbs 0 n/a 1 lbs 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HTARRAGON 1/4 # Total 1 lbs 0 n/a 0 lbs 0 CATERING THYME 1 # Total 2 lbs 1 n/a 2 lbs 2 CATERING THYME 1/2 # Total 5 lbs 1 n/a 3 lbs 3 CATERING THYME 1/4 # Total 9 lbs 0 n/a 2 lbs 2 HOUSING CONTRACT THYME 1/4 # Total 6 lbs 0 n/a 2 lbs 2 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HTHYME 1/4 # Total 3 lbs 0 n/a 1 lbs 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HTHYME EA Total 1 each 1 10 10 g 0 CATERING TOMATILLO Total 5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 CATERING TOMATO SLICED Total 175 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 175 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HTOMATOE 4X4/4X5 Total 4 case 20 n/a 80 lbs 80 HOUSING CONTRACT TOMATOES 10# Total 1 lbs 10 n/a 10 lbs 10 HOUSING SNACK BAR TOMATOES 10# Total 3 lbs 10 n/a 30 lbs 30 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HTOMATOES 10# Total 1 lbs 10 n/a 10 lbs 10 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HTOMATOES 20 lb Total 197 lbs 25 n/a 4913 lbs 4,913 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HTOMATOES 25 lb Total 105 lbs 25 n/a 2625 lbs 2,625 HOUSING CONTRACT TOMATOES CHERRY 1/2 CS Total 1 case 6 n/a 6 pints 4 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HTOMATOES CHERRY 1/2 Cs Total 1 case 6 n/a 6 pints 4 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HTOMATOES LB Total 5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 HOUSING CONTRACT TOMATOES POUND Total 146 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 146 HOUSING SNACK BAR TOMATOES POUND Total 24 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 24 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HTOMATOES POUND Total 47 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 47 MISCELLANEOUS TOMATOES POUND Total 154 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 154 CATERING TOMATOES ROMA # Total 50 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 50 HOUSING CONTRACT TOMATOES ROMA # Total 30 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 30 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HTOMATOES ROMA # Total 5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 MISCELLANEOUS TOMATOES ROMA # Total 7 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 7 CATERING TOMATOES SLICED Total 35 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 35 CATERING TOMATOES Total 2 case 20 n/a 40 lbs 40 HOUSING CONTRACT TOMATOES Total 1 case 20 n/a 20 lbs 20 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HTOMATOES Total 6 case 20 n/a 120 lbs 120 CATERING TOPPED RADISHES Total 5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5
356 HOUSING CONTRACT TOPPED RADISHES Total 6 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 6 CATERING TURNIP GREEN Total 1 case 25 n/a 25 lbs 25 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HTURNIPS ea Total 24 each 1 80 1920 g 4 CATERING TURNIPS Total 49 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 49 HOUSING CONTRACT TURNIPS Total 18 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 18 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HTURNIPS Total 6 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 6 CATERING VADALIA/TEXAS SWEET ONION # Total 125 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 125 MISCELLANEOUS VADALIA/TEXAS SWEET ONION # Total 12 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 12 CATERING VADALIA/TEXAS SWEET/MAUI ONI Total 9 case 50 n/a 450 lbs 450 CATERING WALNUTS Total 5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 CATERING WATERCRESS 15 CT Total 2 case 15 20 600 g 1 HOUSING CONTRACT WATERCRESS 15 CT Total 3 case 15 20 900 g 2 CATERING WATERCRESS EA Total 65 each 1 20 1300 g 3 CATERING WATERMELLON CUTS RED CUT Total 5 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 CATERING WATERMELON 3 CT Total 159 case 3 11340 5409095.4 g 11,925 HOUSING CONTRACT WATERMELON 3 CT Total 4 case 3 11340 136077.87 g 300 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HWATERMELON 3 CT Total 122 case 3 11340 4150375.1 g 9,150 MISCELLANEOUS WATERMELON 3 CT Total 1 case 3 11340 34019.468 g 75 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HWATERMELON EA Total 3 each 1 11340 34019.468 g 75 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HWATERMELONS EA Total 10 each 1 11340 113398.23 g 250 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HWATERMELONS Total 1 each 1 11340 11339.823 g 25 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HWATERMMELONS EA Total 8 each 1 11340 90718.582 g 200 CATERING WAX BEANS Total 11 case 5 n/a 55 lbs 55 CATERING WHOLE PEELED GARLIC Total 59 ga 5 n/a 295 lbs 295 HOUSING CONTRACT WHOLE PEELED GARLIC Total 13 ga 5 n/a 65 lbs 65 HOUSING SNACK BAR WHOLE PEELED GARLIC Total 2 ga 5 n/a 10 lbs 10 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HWHOLE PEELED GARLIC Total 184 ga 5 n/a 920 lbs 920 MISCELLANEOUS WHOLE PEELED GARLIC Total 2 ga 5 n/a 10 lbs 10 CATERING WHOLE PEELED SHALLOT Total 6 ga 5 n/a 30 lbs 30 HOUSING CONTRACT WHOLE PEELED SHALLOT Total 3 ga 5 n/a 15 lbs 15 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HWHOLE PEELED SHALLOT Total 4 ga 5 n/a 20 lbs 20 CATERING WHOLE PICKLED JALPENOS Total 1 case 10 n/a 10 lbs 10 CATERING YELLOW PEPPERS EACH Total 137 each 1 148 20276 g 45 HOUSING CONTRACT YELLOW PEPPERS EACH Total 59 each 1 148 8732 g 19 HOUSING SNACK BAR YELLOW PEPPERS EACH Total 3 each 1 148 444 g 1 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HYELLOW PEPPERS EACH Total 14 each 1 148 2072 g 5 CATERING YELLOW PEPPERS Total 119 case 11 n/a 1309 lbs 1,309 HOUSING CONTRACT YELLOW PEPPERS Total 4 case 11 n/a 44 lbs 44 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HYELLOW PEPPERS Total 1 case 11 n/a 11 lbs 11 CATERING YELLOW SQUASH # Total 205 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 205 HOUSING CONTRACT YELLOW SQUASH # Total 69 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 69 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HYELLOW SQUASH # Total 122 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 122
357 No info avail - guessed CATERING YELLOW SQUASH Total 112 case 25 n/a 2800 lbs 2,800 weight of case No info avail - guessed HOUSING CONTRACT YELLOW SQUASH Total 4 case 25 n/a 100 lbs 100 weight of case No info avail - guessed HOUSING TRADITIONAL HYELLOW SQUASH Total 41 case 25 n/a 1025 lbs 1,025 weight of case CATERING YELLOW TEAR Total 1 case 10 n/a 10 lbs 10 CATERING YELLOW TEARDROP TOMATOES Total 10 case 10 n/a 100 lbs 100 CATERING YELLOW TOMATOES 5X5/5X6 Total 9 case 10 n/a 90 lbs 90 CATERING ZUCCHINI SQUASH # Total 195 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 195 HOUSING CONTRACT ZUCCHINI SQUASH # Total 168 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 168 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HZUCCHINI SQUASH # Total 286 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 286 MISCELLANEOUS ZUCCHINI SQUASH # Total 3 lbs n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 CATERING ZUCCHINI SQUASH Total 105 case 19 196 391020 g 862 HOSPITAL ZUCCHINI SQUASH Total 20 case 19 196 74480 g 164 HOUSING CONTRACT ZUCCHINI SQUASH Total 14 case 19 196 52136 g 115 HOUSING TRADITIONAL HZUCCHINI SQUASH Total 78 case 19 196 290472 g 640
Total 602,095 lbs
Organic produce as a percentage of total 0.054%
Total apples 46,434 lbs Total beans 300 lbs Total potatoes 61,247 lbs
Conversions 1 gram = 0.002205 lbs 454 1 pound = 16 ounces 1 pint = 0.625 lbs
358 APPENDIX P-1 : Food Consumption - Ecological Footprint Summary
Area in Square Meters FOSSIL ENERGY ARABLE BUILT-UP Year LOAD LAND PASTURE FOREST LAND SEA TOTAL 2000 - no Produce 16,307,371 28,042,799 36,413,493 0 0 3,296,100 84,059,763 2001 - no Produce 14,449,065 25,602,471 30,518,965 0 0 2,482,963 73,053,464 2001 - with Produce 16,056,614 27,269,401 30,518,965 0 0 2,482,963 76,327,942 Area in Acres FOSSIL ENERGY ARABLE BUILT-UP Year LOAD LAND PASTURE FOREST LAND SEA TOTAL 2000 (Excl. Produce) 4,030 6,930 8,998 0 0 814 20,772 2001 (Excl. Produce) 3,570 6,326 7,541 0 0 614 18,052 2001 (With Produce) 3,968 6,738 7,541 0 0 614 18,861
Conversions 1 square meter = 0.000247105 acres
Approx. EF per capita (at student population Acres avail. Acres avail. of 38,103) Per cap now Per cap 2050 0.495 0.67 0.42
359 APPENDIX P-2 : Food Consumption - Ecological Footprint Calculation for 2001 (including Produce) by Mathis Wackernagel, Ritik Dholakia, Diana Deumling, and Dick Richardson, Redefining Progress, v 2.0, March 2000 Assess your Household's Ecological Footprint First, (and optional) calculate how many minutes of life energy it takes to earn one dollar. (Enter your income and hours worked) 2,000 dollars earned per month (after taxes) 40.00 hours of work per week 600 work related dollars spent per month 12.00 unpaid hours per week for work preparation (commuting etc.) It takes 10 minutes of life energy to earn one dollar!
Second, choose whether you want to work with metric or US measurements. m : put "m" for metric, "s" for US standard
Third, register your monthly consumption in column D (or your yearly consumption in column E). Optional: put the dollar amounts into column F.
Number of people in the household: 1 (land and sea space in square meters)
AMOUNT eqv. amount Dollars I) FOSSIL II) ARABLE III) PASTURE IV) FOREST V) BUILT-UP VI) SEA CATEGORIES Units per month per year spent (mth) ENERGY LAND LAND 1.-FOOD Enter percentage of food purchased that is wasted rather than eaten in your household. 0% ( 26 percent is the national U.S. average) How much of the food that you buy is locally grown, unprocessed and in-season? b a. Most food we buy is packaged, out of season and from far away. b. About a quarter c. About half 100% d. About three quarters e. Most all the food we get is locally grown, unprocessed, and in-season.
.Veggies, potatoes & fruit [kg] 0.0 547359 $0.00 848,021 573,424 .Bread [kg] 0.0 112798 $0.00 436,892 318,021 .Rice, cereals, noodles, etc. [kg] 0.0 98990 $0.00 306,730 374,963 .Beans [kg] 0.0 58109 $0.00 90,028 815,306 .Milk & yogurt [l] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Ice cream, sour cream [l] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Cheese, butter [kg] 0.0 77223 $0.00 777,669 18,587,615 .Eggs [assumed to be 50 g each] [number] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Meat ..Pork [kg] 0.0 57183 $0.00 885,930 497,301 ..Chicken, turkey [kg] 0.0 194221 $0.00 2,407,250 1,996,190 ..Beef (grain fed) [kg] 0.0 111958 $0.00 2,254,926 4,720,793 26,939,866 ..Beef (pasture fed) [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Fish [kg] 0.0 15269 $0.00 354,850 7,678,286 .Juice & wine [l] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Sugar [kg] 0.0 43302 $0.00 107,963 84,679 .Vegetable oil & fat ..solid [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 ..liquid [l] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Tea & coffee [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Garden [area used for food] [m2] 0.0 00 .Eating out [complete meals] [number] 0.0 0 $0.00 000 SUB-TOTAL-1 $0.00 8,470,261 9,380,676 45,527,481 0 0 7,678,286 2.-HOUSING .House [living area] ..brick house [m2] 0 0 $0.00 0 ..wooden house (US standard) [m2] 0 0 $0.00 00 .Yard [or total lot size incl. building] [m2] 0 0 $0.00 0 . Hotels, Motels [$] 0 0 $0.00 00 .Electricity (also check composition--see note [kWh] 0 0 $0.00 enter as fraction. ex. 25% = 0.25 ..thermally produced (fossil and nuclear) 73% 0 ..lower course hydro 23% 0 ..high altitude hydro 1% 0 ..PV solar (on exisiting roof areas) 1% ..PV solar (on newly built-up area) 1% 0 ..wind 1% 0 .Fossil gas (natural gas) ..city gas [m3] 0.0 0 $0.00 0 ..bottled liquid gas [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 0 .Liquid fossil fuel (oil) ..in volume [l] 0.0 0 $0.00 0 ..in weight [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 0 .Coal [kg] 0 $0.00 0 .Water (not included since it depends on loca [m3] 0 0 $0.00 0 .Straw [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 0
360 Footprint Calculation Matrix for Households .....CONTINUED page #2 of 3 (land and sea space in square meters) AMOUNT eqv. amount Dollars I) FOSSIL II) ARABLE III) PASTURE IV) FOREST V) BUILT-UP VI) SEA CATEGORIES Units per month per year spent (mth) ENERGY LAND LAND 3.- TRANSPORTATION
.Bus/train [pers.*km] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Taxi / other´s car [km] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Gasoline (if you have a car) [l] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Parts for repair [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 0 .Airplane [pers.*hours] 0.0 0 $0.00 0 SUB-TOTAL-3 $0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.-GOODS
.Clothes (if bought used, count them at 1/3 of their true weight) ..cotton [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 0 ..wool [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 0 ..fossil based (synthetic) [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 Durable paper products (books) and hygenic [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 000 .Tools, metal parts [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Leather [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 0 .Plastic products and photos [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Porcelain, glass [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Medicine [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Hygiene products, cleaning stuff [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Cigarettes [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 0 SUB-TOTAL-4 $0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.-SERVICES (rough estimates)
.Laundry service (external) [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Postal services ..international [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 ..domestic [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Household insurances [$] 0.0 0 $0.00 000 .Telephone, electronics, photo equipment [$] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Medical services and medical insurance [$] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Entertainment [$] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 .Education [$] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 SUB-TOTAL-5 $0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.- WASTE (assuming everything compostable is composted, and waste = packaging) enter percentage recycled in your household: 35% .Household waste: ..paper [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 000 ..aluminum [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 ..magnetic metal [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 ..glass [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00 ..plastic [kg] 0.0 0 $0.00 00
SUB-TOTAL-6 0.0 0 $0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0
CORRECTION FACTORS FOR THE U.S. I) FOSSIL II) ARABLE III) PASTURE IV) FOREST V) BUILT-UP VI) SEA 1.-FOOD 1.50 1.03 1.53 5.09 2.-HOUSING 0.92 2.30 1.53 3.-TRANSPORTATION 0.99 0.95 4.-GOODS 3.76 0.94 1.37 1.52 5.-SERVICES 4.50 2.30 6.-WASTE 3.76 1.52 U.S. average fossil fuel area of goods: 1371 services: 1266 waste: 1445
Equivalence Unadjusted Constants and Conversion Factors Factors Footprint Carbon absorption factor 10000/71000 I) FOSSIL 1.2 13,749,483 (m^2/kj/yr) II) ARABLE 2.8 9,624,706 Pre-purchase food loss 1.1 III) PASTURE 0.4 69,439,086 Structural consumption 1.0825 IV) FOREST 1.2 0 Weight conversion (kg/lb) 0.454 V) BUILT UP 2.8 0 Area conversion (acres/ha) 2.47 VI) SEA 0.1 39,114,057 Area conversion (m^2/ft^2) 0.093 TOTAL - 131,927,333 Volume conversion (l/qt) 0.946
361 Ecological Footprint Assessment: The Results
Your per capita footprint is 7,632.8 hectares. 18,853 acres
The Ecological Footprint per household member (presented as a land-use consumption matrix) Daily Nutrition Analysis
expressed in average land with world average productivity [in square meters] [in kcal/day/person] FOSSIL ENERGY LOAD ARABLE LAND PASTURE FOREST BUILT-UP LAND SEA TOTAL Protein (g) Calorie (kcal) CATEGORIES Animal 261,486 3,590,815 1.-FOOD 16,056,614 27,269,401 30,518,965 0 0 2,482,963 76,327,942 Vegetable 98,142 3,048,347 2.-HOUSING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 359,628 6,639,162 3.-TRANSPORTATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RDA 60 2900 4.-GOODS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.-SERVICES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.-WASTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 16,056,614 27,269,401 30,518,965 0 0 2,482,963 76,327,942
Ecological Footprint distribution I) FOSSIL II) ARABLE III) PASTURE IV) FOREST V) BUILT-UP VI) SEA TOTAL CATEGORIES ENERGY LD. LAND LAND 1.-FOOD 21% 36% 40% 0% 0% 3% 100% 2.-HOUSING 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.-TRANSPORTATION 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.-GOODS 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5.-SERVICES 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.-WASTE 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% TOTAL 21% 36% 40% 0% 0% 3% 100%
Note: The ecological footprint does not document our entire impact on nature. It only includes those aspects of our waste production and resource consumption that could potentially be sustainable. In other words, it shows those resources that within given limits can be regenerated and those wastes that at sufficiently low levels can be absorbed by the biosphere. For all activities that are systematically in contradiction with sustainability, however, there is no footprint, since nature cannot cope with them. There is no sustainable regenerative rate for substances such as heavy metals, persistent organic and inorganic toxins, radioactive materials, or bio-hazardous waste. For a sustainable world, their use needs to be phased out. In other words, the above footprint calculation assumes that the person being assessed engages in none of these systematically unsustainable activities, be it for example the release of CFCs, the unsafe disposal of motor oil, or the purchase, use and disposal of other harmful household chemicals.
362 APPENDIX Q : Solid Waste Generated (Recycled and Disposed Of) Conversions 1 short ton = 2000 pounds 1 pound = 0.0005 short tons Fiscal Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Material recycled Source Units 1989 - 90 1990 - 91 1991 - 92 1992 - 93 1993 - 94 1994 - 95 1995 - 96 1996 - 97 1997 - 98 1998 - 99 1999 - 00 WMS, Paper (includes cardboard) - WMS PS tons 510.23 1,080.70 1,750.26 1,411.99 1,925.50 1,595.35 1,796.32 2,126.04 2,377.35 2,734.69 2,467.67 Pallets and wood - WMS WMS tons 233.60 136.56 97.97 98.00 98.48 72.23 52.80 63.35 89.90 52.59 78.00 WMS, Mixed containers - WMS PS tons - 6.24 46.70 88.20 87.96 78.75 107.79 124.47 127.36 132.43 123.00 Scrap metal WMS tons - - - - 8.48 12.46 10.82 23.11 18.80 17.84 20.25 Brass PS tons ------0.04 0.03 0.03 Compost WMS tons ------59.64 22.30 10.26 WMS Photographic film and PS tons ------0.05 1-sided paper WMS tons ------Scrap Box (reused) WMS tons ------Office Supplies (reused) WMS tons ------Other recycling (small qties) WMS tons ------Books (reused) WMS tons ------Transparencies WMS tons ------0.10 Solid Waste Recycled - WMS 743.83 1,223.50 1,894.93 1,598.19 2,120.42 1,758.79 1,967.73 2,336.97 2,673.09 2,959.88 2,699.37
Paper (includes cardboard) - hospital Hosp tons ------542.00 676.36 Mixed containers - hospital Hosp tons ------62.23 108.97 Other Recycling From Hospital UMHS tons ------44.90 46.35 Solid Waste Recycled - Hospital ------649.13 831.68
Total Solid Waste Recycled 743.83 1,223.50 1,894.93 1,598.19 2,120.42 1,758.79 1,967.73 2,336.97 2,673.09 3,609.01 3,531.05 Total paper recycled (tons) 510.23 1,080.70 1,750.26 1,411.99 1,925.50 1,595.35 1,796.32 2,126.04 2,377.35 3,276.69 3,144.03 Total paper purchased from M- M- Stores Stores tons 1,542.23
Estimated total paper use estimate tons 2,557.34 Paper as % of total recycling 68.59% 88.33% 92.37% 88.35% 90.81% 90.71% 91.29% 90.97% 88.94% 90.79% 89.04% Paper, mixed containers, and pallets and wood as % of total recycling 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.60% 99.29% 99.45% 99.01% 97.06% 97.64% 97.82%
Solid Waste Disposed Of (Landfilled) - WMS WMS tons 9,364.00 9,451.25 7,427.00 6,703.16 8,826.50 9,077.25 8,197.75 7,727.02 7,862.01 6,497.07 8,933.86 Solid Waste Disposed Of (Landfilled) - Hospital UMHS tons not avail not avail not avail not avail not avail not avail not avail not avail not avail 3,257.80 2,646.00 363 Total Solid Waste Disposed Of 9,364.00 9,451.25 7,427.00 6,703.16 8,826.50 9,077.25 8,197.75 7,727.02 7,862.01 9,754.87 11,579.86
Total Solid Waste Generated (Recycled + Disposed Of) 10,107.83 10,674.75 9,321.93 8,301.35 10,946.92 10,836.04 10,165.48 10,063.99 10,535.10 13,363.88 15,110.91
Students, faculty, and staff # 57,629 60,090 58,052 58,737 60,111 62,190 62,750 Average daily patient load - hospital 580 592
1999 - incl. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Hospital Per Capita Solid Waste Recycled - not including hospital except where indicated calc tons 0.013 0.029 0.034 0.040 0.044 0.048 0.057 Per Capita Solid Waste Disposed Of - not including hospital except where indicated calc tons 0.162 0.151 0.141 0.132 0.131 0.104 0.155
Recycling Rate (not including hospital) 7.4% 16.2% 19.4% 23.2% 25.4% 31.3% 23.2% Recycling Rate (including hospital) % 7.4% 16.2% 19.4% 23.2% 25.4% 27.0% 23.4%
Notes (1) Printing Services, and perhaps other facilities (PS is the only one WMS knows of) contract with independent contractors for recycling. (2) Several facilities contract independently for waste removal: Chem bldg, N. Campus Grounds, Dental bldg, Kresge Hearing, Med. Sci. Dock 6, and 300 N. Ingals bldg. Their refuse #s ARE included Data is just for U-M AA campus - confirmed by Brianne Haven Accurate cubic yard data not available (WMS only keeps records of estimates at pick-up, and MRF and Onyx deal in tons) Most WMS trash taken to MRF (City facility); Roll-Off trash taken straight to Onyx site (minority of total trash - see calculation for FY01) Trash qty includes Construction & Demolition (C&D) waste from U-M contracting group Printing Services trash IS collected by WMS, so included in WMS's total Trash # Special Recycling: newly added programs, lower volume
364 APPENDIX Q-1 : Solid Waste Generated (Recycled and Disposed Of) - Hospital only Conversions 1 short ton = 2000 pounds 1 pound = 0.0005 short tons Up through early 90's, approx. 4,300 tons general waste per year
Calendar Yr Calendar Yr Calendar Yr Material recycled Units 1999 2000 2001 Mixed office paper tons 119.10 300.03 323.625 Cardboard tons 422.90 373.63 419.87 Plastics tons - - 8.317 Metals tons 62.23 108.97 39.36 Yellow kitchen grease tons 29.70 24.55 32.525 Plastic bags tons 14.00 14.00 14 Phone books tons - 2.70 2.6 Batteries tons 1.20 2.60 2.223 Ballasts tons - 5.20 4.862 Mattresses tons - - 5.466 Total 649.13 831.68 852.85
Rubbish (1) tons 3,257.80 2,646.00 3,188.23 % of waste stream recycled 16.6% 23.9% 21.1%
Fluorescent tubes units 38,000 22,300 15,053 * contain mercury Alcohol gallons - - 624 Xylene gallons - - 520
FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 # of Patient Days 253,622 240,337 209,841 209,803 211,638 216,133 Average patients/day (Pat. Days)/365 694.85 658.46 574.91 574.80 579.83 592.15
Notes (1) Rubbish includes all originally non-regulated trash and formerly regulated, autoclaved red-bag trash
365 APPENDIX R - Hazardous Waste Key
1999 Hazardous Waste Biennial Report Key Information EPA ID Zone Numbers
Total by code in lbs. MIR000001784 Medical Campus D001 3,548 MIR000001735 Central Campus D002 6276 MIR000001792 North Campus D003 301 MIR000001776 South/ Athletic Campus D004 180 MIR000001800 North Ingalls Bldg. D005 90 MIR000001768 Kellogg Eye Center D006 4298 MIR000001826 University Stores D007 75 MIR000001750 Botanical Gardens D008 180 MIR000007708 Wolverine Tower D009 701 MIR000001743 Oxford Housing D011 13,845 MIR000001818 Sheep Research Farm D013 125 MIR000001834 Beck Road Facility D022 924 MIR000007690 Radrick Farms Total 30,543
30,543 lbs.out of 108,570 lbs. have been broken down by code. The difference of 78,027 lbs. is the amount of mixed materials.
366 APPENDIX S - Emission factors by source Emission Factors
Pollutant: CO PB NMOC NOX N20PMPM(total)PM10 Boiler 1&2 Fuel Oil #2 (LB/1000 gal) UM 1-03-005-01 AP-42 5 9.00E-06 3.40E-01 2.00E+01 1.10E-01 2 Natural Gas (LB/MMCF) UM 1.45E+02 1-03-006-01 AP-42 1.04E+01 5.00E-04 6.40E-01 3 0 Boiler 3 & 4 Fuel Oil #2 (LB/1000 gal) UM 1-03-005-01 AP-42 5 9.00E-06 3.40E-01 2.00E+01 1.10E-01 2 Natural Gas (LB/MMCF) UM 2.18E+02 1-03-006-01 AP-42 4.00E+01 6.40E-01 3
Cogeneration Units Boiler 7 & 8 and Turbine 9 & 10 Fuel Oil #2 (LB/1000 gal) UM 6.78E+01 2-02-001-03 AP-42 1.54E+01 1.10E-01 8.54 8.54 Natural Gas (LB/MMCF) UM 3.10E+01 2-02-002-03 AP-42 2.07E+01 6.40E-01 1.40E+01 Boiler 5 Fuel Oil #2 (LB/1000 gal) UM 1-03-005-01 AP-42 1.10E-01 Natural Gas (LB/MMCF) UM 2.53 1.55E+02 1-03-006-01 AP-42 6.40E-01 3 Boiler 6 Fuel Oil #2 (LB/1000 gal) UM 20 1-03-005-01 AP-42 5 1.25E-03 3.40E-01 2.40E+01 1.10E-01 Natural Gas (LB/MMCF) UM 9.28 0 5.80E+01 1-03-006-01 AP-42 1.04E+01 5.00E-04 6.40E-01 3 0 Hoover Boiler 3 Natural Gas (LB/MMCF) UM 1-03-006-02 AP-42 8.40E+01 5.00E-04 1.00E+02 6.40E-01 1.37E+01 1.37E+01 Hoover Boiler 4
367 UM AP-42 8.40E+01 5.00E-04 1.00E+02 6.40E-01 1.37E+01 1.37E+01
UM AP-42 8.40E+01 5.00E-04 1.00E+02 6.40E-01 1.20E+01 1.20E+01
UM AP-42 3.86 7.00E-02 4.95 4.67 5.92 UM AP-42 6.40E-01
UM AP-42 3.86 7.00E-02 4.95 4.67 5.92 UM AP-42 1.04E+01 6.40E-01 3 4.7
UM AP-42 2.00E+01 1.00E+02 6.40E-01 3
UM AP-42 1.00E+01 3 7 UM AP-42 1.00E+01 3 7 UM AP-42 6.40E-01
368 Emission Factors
PM10(filterable) SOx SO2 TOC VOC C02 Methane
1.08 1.42E+02 5.56E-01 2.23E+04 2.16E-01
3 6.00E-01 1.10E+01 5.5 1.20E+05 2.3
1.08 1.44E+02 5.56E-01 2.23E+04 2.16E-01
6.00E-01 1.10E+01 5.5 1.20E+05 2.3
4.77 1.40E+02 2.38 2.23E+04 2.16E-01
1.40E+01 6.00E-01 1.26E+01 1.20E+05 2.3
2.23E+04 2.16E-01
6.00E-01 1.10E+01 1.4 1.20E+05 2.3
1.08 1.42E-02 5.56E-01 2.23E+04 2.16E-01
3 6.00E-01 1.10E+01 1.4 1.20E+05 2.3
6.00E-01 1.10E+01 5.5 1.20E+05 2.3
369
6.00E-01 1.10E+01 5.5 1.20E+05 2.3
6.00E-01 1.10E+01 5.5 1.20E+05 2.3
7.5 1.02E+01
7.5 1.02E+01
3 6.00E-01 5.3 1.20E+05 2.3
4.7 2.5 3 3
4.7 2.5 3 3
1.20E+05 2.3
370 APPENDIX T - Global Warming Potentials
kg CO2 equivalent Direct Effect for Time Horizon of Gas Lifetime (Years) 20 Years 100 Years 500 Years Carbon Dioxide Variable 1 1 1 Methane 12+/-3 56 21 7 Nitrous Oxide 120 280 310 170 HFC's, PFC's, Sulfur Hexaflouride HFC-23 264 9200 12100 9900 HFC-125 33 4800 3200 11 HFC-134a 15 3300 1300 420 HFC-152a 2 460 140 42 HFC-227ea 37 4300 2900 950 Perfluoromethane 50000 4400 6500 10000 Perfluoroethane 10000 6200 9200 140000 Sulfur Hexafluoride 3200 16300 23900 34900
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995:The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press, 1996), p.121
371 APPENDIX U - U-M AA Land Area PHYSICAL PROPERTIES Year Ended June 30, 2001
LAND: Acreage Ann Arbor Area: General: Original Campus...... 40.3000 North Campus...... 734.7905 Arboretum...... 94.5000 Botanical Gardens...... 341.7610 Burton Memorial Tower...... 0.2000 Davidson, William Hall...... 2.1294 Dennison, David M...... 1.0870 Dental Building and W.K. Kellogg Institute...... 3.4031 East Hall...... 1.9110 Education, School of...... 3.8623 Felch Park...... 2.3000 Fleming Administration Building...... 0.3000 Frieze, Henry S., Building...... 2.1120 Hill Auditorium...... 1.3000 Human Adjustment, Institute for...... 0.8091 Inglis Property, Highland Road...... 9.1700 Kresge Medical Research Building...... 2.3784 Lane Hall...... 0.4800 Law Quadrangle...... 7.2032 Literature, Science and the Arts Building...... 2.2375 Little, Clarence Cook, Science Building...... 3.1314 Mental Health Research Institute...... 0.5343 Mitchell Field...... 62.5000 Modern Languages Building...... 1.6030 Museums Building...... 3.0621 Neuroscience Buildings...... 0.4941 Newberry Hall...... 0.2000 News and Information Services...... 0.3000 North Hall...... 4.5000 North Ingalls Street Property...... 5.1300 North University Building...... 1.6236 Observatory, Campus...... 1.9900 Perry Building...... 1.2484 Pound, Madelon, House...... 0.4000 Power Center for the Performing Arts...... 0.7875 Public Health Building, School of...... 2.6433 Rackham, Horace H., School of Graduate Studies...... 3.6010 Recreational Sports...... 22.8710 Scattered Lots...... 180.4187 Side Track Right-of-Way...... 8.7190 Simpson, Thomas Henry, Memorial Institute...... 2.1800 Social Research, Institute for...... 1.1977 Student Activities Building...... 1.2100 Vaughan, Victor, House...... 1.0250 Wolverine Tower Property...... 13.3400 FY 99 Add for Main St./Keech Property 3.1500 FY 00 Add for 726 Oakland Property 0.2000 Total Ann Arbor Area-General ...... … 1580.2946
372 Auxiliary Activities: Student Residences: Barbour, Betsy, House...... 1.0879 Cook, Martha...... 2.0000 Couzens Hall...... 2.4000 East Quadrangle...... 3.3396 Fletcher Hall...... 0.2100 Henderson, Mary Barton, House...... 0.4080 Lloyd, Alice C., Hall...... 1.9700 Markley, Mary Butler, Hall...... 2.9418 Mosher-Jordan Hall...... 1.6018 Newberry, Helen, Residence...... 0.2500 Nu Sigma Nu...... 1.0700 Observatory Lodge...... 0.2605 Oxford Housing...... 4.2140 South Quadrangle...... 2.9318 Stockwell Hall...... 2.1900 West Quadrangle...... 3.8672 Subtotal Student Residences 30.7426
Information Systems and Services...... 0.3333 Food Stores...... 26.5900 Health Services...... 0.3554 Intercollegiate Athletics...... 226.2515 ITD - Arbor Lakes...... 23.4700 Michigan League...... 3.4342 Michigan Union...... 2.7520 Parking Facilities...... 26.1717 Plant...... 21.8539 Printing and Warehouse...... 26.8900 Radrick Farms...... 654.7800 Rental Properties...... 3.7676 Student Publications...... 0.5000 University Hospitals Group...... 500.5144 FY 99 Add for 115 Zina Pitcher Place 0.2780 FY 00 Add for 103 Zina Pitcher Place 0.0400 Total Ann Arbor Area-Auxiliary 1548.7246
Total Ann Arbor Area 3129.0192
373 Out-State Area: General: Base Lake Farms...... 206.0720 Biological Station...... 10198.9170 Camp Davis - Wyoming...... 120.0000 Dearborn, UM...... 197.9968 Flint, UM...... 43.8120 Fresh Air Camp...... 170.2900 George, E.S., Reserve...... 1356.7800 Gordon Hall - Dexter...... 70.3460 Harper, William A. P., Reserve...... 330.0000 Keweenaw Rocket Site...... 0.0000 Missaukee County...... 440.0000 Mud Lake...... 257.9100 Observatory and Radio Station - Portage Lake...... 147.4000 Osborn Preserve...... 3187.6300 Pell's Island, Douglas Lake...... 3.5000 Rackham Educational Memorial - Detroit...... 2.6812 "Ringwood" Forest Reserve...... 160.0000 St. Pierre Wetlands Preserve...... 129.4360 Stinchfield Woods...... 664.3900 Total Out-State Area-General 17687.1610
Auxiliary Activities: Willow Run Properties...... 156.2290 Total Out-State Area...... 17843.3900
Total Land...... 20972.4092
CAMPUS LAND AREA PREVIOUS YEARS year acres 1990 2607 1995 N/A 1996 N/A 1997 N/A 1998 N/A 1999 3132 2000 3177
374
APPENDIX V - Wages and Benefits
Wages & Benefits Wage Distribution (NOT IN CURRENT $) FY 00 FY 99 FY 98 FY 97 FY 96 FY 95 FY 90 Faculty Average Fulltime Salary Rates Note: These data do not include adjunct, clinical or visiting faculty.
Professors (University Year) 101,115 96,226 91,396 87,509 84,131 80,709 67,162 Professors (Fiscal Year) 139,057 135,408 131,697 119,114 117,220 114,911 96,070 Assoc. Professors (University Year) 70,342 68,314 65,408 63,602 61,536 59,138 49,861 Assoc. Professors (Fiscal Year) 110,763 105,784 101,401 91,041 90,658 87,568 74,958 Asst. Professors (University Year) 58,122 55,353 52,940 51,172 49,534 47,407 41,896 Asst. Professors (Fiscal Year) 95,950 92,561 91,489 77,141 76,993 74,890 63,993 Instructors (University Year) 44,045 40,090 38,730 37,050 36,750 41,167 32,667 Instructors (Fiscal Year) 52,812 49,222 54,558 69,933 65,703 67,789 62,076 Lecturers (University Year) 35,834 34,183 33,397 33,363 32,005 30,601 27,554 Lecturers (Fiscal Year) 65,589 62,637 56,956 51,279 53,431 55,379 39,504 Total (University Year) 73,226 70,521 68,158 65,633 63,041 60,993 53,956 Total (Fiscal Year) 109,218 106,364 101,563 89,805 89,401 87,043 71,698
Professional/ Administrative Salary Schedule Minimum 14,400 14,400 13,500 13,100 12,750 12,500 11,900 Maximum 150,000 142,100 142,100 137,300 133,300 128,200 126,800
Office Salary Schedule Minimum 13,000 13,000 12,220 11,830 11,180 10,530 Maximum 52,780 50,700 50,700 49,010 45,760 34,710
Technical Salary Schedule Minimum 13,650 13,650 12,740 12,350 11,960 11,700 10,920 Maximum 69,420 66,690 66690 64,480 62,660 60,320 45,630
376 Conversion to 2001$
Wages & Benefits Wage Distribution (NOT IN CURRENT $) Faculty Average Fulltime Salary Rates FY 00 FY 99 FY 98 FY 97 FY 96 FY 95 FY 90 Note: These data do not include adjunct, clinical or visiting faculty. Professors (University Year) 103,992 102,291 99,302 96,560 94,962 93,790 91,005 Professors (Fiscal Year) 143,014 143,942 143,089 131,434 132,311 133,535 130,176 Assoc. Professors (University Year) 72,344 72,620 71,066 70,180 69,458 68,723 67,562
Assoc. Professors (Fiscal Year) 113,915 112,451 110,172 100,457 102,330 101,760 101,569 Asst. Professors (University Year) 59,776 58,842 57,519 56,465 55,911 55,090 56,770 Asst. Professors (Fiscal Year) 98,680 98,395 99,403 85,119 86,905 87,028 86,711 Instructors (University Year) 45,298 42,617 42,080 40,882 41,481 47,839 44,264 Instructors (Fiscal Year) 54,315 52,324 59,277 77,166 74,162 78,776 84,114 Lecturers (University Year) 36,854 36,337 36,286 36,814 36,125 35,561 37,336 Lecturers (Fiscal Year) 67,455 66,585 61,883 56,583 60,310 64,354 53,528 Total (University Year) 75,310 74,966 74,054 72,421 71,157 70,878 73,111 Total (Fiscal Year) 112,326 113,068 110,349 99,093 100,911 101,150 97,152
FY 00 FY 99 FY 98 FY 97 FY 96 FY 95 FY 90 Professional/ Administrative Salary Schedule Minimum 14,810 15,308 14,668 14,455 14,391 14,526 16,125 Maximum 154,268 151,056 154,392 151,500 150,462 148,978 171,815
Office Salary Schedule Minimum 13,370 13,819 13,277 13,054 12,992 14,268 Maximum 54,282 53,895 55,086 54,079 53,176 47,032
Technical Salary Schedule Minimum 14,038 14,510 13,842 13,627 13,500 13,596 14,797 Maximum 71,395 70,893 72,459 71,149 70,727 70,096 61,829
377 APPENDIX W - U- M AA Salary Schedule
1989-1990 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999- Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Pr o fessor University Year $67,162 $64,130 $80,709 $77,500 $84,131 $80,754 $87,509 $84,015 $91,396 $88,400 $96,226 $92,920 $101,115 Fiscal Year $96,070 $93,603 $114,911 $110,188 $117,220 $114,726 $119,114 $116,055 $131,697 $125,000 $135,408 $125,000 $139,057 Associate Professor University Year $49,861 $47,500 $59,138 $57,200 $61,536 $59,014 $63,602 $61,310 $65,408 $63,500 $68,314 $66,307 $70,342 Fiscal Year $74,958 $73,475 $87,568 $85,000 $90,658 $89,844 $91,041 $89,854 $101,401 $98,878 $105,784 $107,730 $110,763 Assistan t Pr o fe s s o r University Year $41,896 $39,500 $47,407 $44,500 $49,534 $46,466 $51,172 $48,000 $52,940 $49,000 $55,353 $51,025 $58,122 Fiscal Year $63,993 $65,000 $74,890 $75,000 $76,993 $77,111 $77,141 $75,312 $91,489 $88,400 $92,561 $91,249 $95,950 Instructor University Year $32,667 $33,000 $41,167 $37,500 $36,750 $36,750 $37,050 $37,000 $38,730 $38,250 $40,090 $37,000 $44,045 Fiscal Year $62,076 $59,650 $67,789 $65,670 $65,703 $64,485 $69,933 $68,539 $54,558 $44,334 $49,222 $47,000 $52,812 Lecturer University Year $27,554 $26,750 $30,601 $30,780 $32,005 $31,824 $33,363 $32,246 $33,397 $33,200 $34,183 $32,500 $35,834 Fiscal Year $39,504 $33,400 $55,379 $53,361 $53,431 $50,000 $51,279 $50,000 $56,956 $52,575 $62,637 $55,000 $65,589 Total Regular Facu lty University Year $53,956 $51,000 $60,993 $57,500 $63,041 $59,220 $65,633 $61,669 $68,158 $64,425 $70,521 $66,100 $73,226 Fiscal Year $71,698 $69,000 $87,043 $83,463 $89,401 $85,500 $89,805 $85,950 $101,563 $98,139 $106,364 $103,817 $109,218
Source: "An Analysis of Salaries Paid to th e University of M ich igan Instructional Staff and Graduate Stud ent Assistants" report (H R).
378 APPENDIX X - U-M AA Health and Safety
Indicator Number of Reported Injuries per fiscal year 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Fatal injuries 0 0101 number of days lost 19008 16171 9558 4114 3228 number of days of restricted activity 594 3294 7818 8016 13962
Number of crimes reported (by violation type) 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Murder and non-negligent Manslaughter 0 0 01000 Negligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 Forcible Rape 6434436 Forcible Sodomy 021110 Sexual Assault with an object 010200 Forcible Fondling 11 12 7 13 10 8 Incest 000000 Statutory Rape 1 00000 Robbery 12 16 5 13 5 12 5 Aggravated Assault 36 24 11 18 18 14 17 Arson 25231711191817 TOTAL VIOLENT CRIMES 79795155625853 normalized per student 0.0022 0.0022 0.0014 0.0015 0.0017 0.0015 0.0014 normalized per capita 0.0014 0.0013 0.0009 0.0009 0.0010 0.0009 0.0008
Burglary 286 165 129 68 103 82 90 Motor Vehicle Theft 37 37 31 22 24 13 15 Larceny 2428 1925 1822 1454 1348 Liquor Law Arrests/Citations/(Violations 95-98) 180 271 330 350 496 355 Drug Law Arrests/ (Drug Abuse Violations 95-98) 125 100 102 79 79 91 Weapon Law Arrests/ ( Possessions 95-98) 7 42657 TOTAL NON-VIOLENT CRIMES 2751 2439 2357 1978 1910 675 558 normalized per student 0.0756 0.0665 0.0645 0.0535 0.0513 0.0178 0.0146 normalized per capita 0.0477 0.0406 0.0406 0.0337 0.0318 0.0109 0.0089
Crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity Murder and non-negligent Manslaughter 0 00000 Negligent Manslaughter 0 0 Forcible Rape 000000 Forcible Sodomy 000000 Sexual Assault with an object 000000 Forcible Fondling 000000 Incest 00 Statutory Rape 0 0 Robbery 0 00000 Aggravated Assault 0 00000 Simple Assault 101111 Arson 0 0 Burglary 0 0 Motor Vehicle Theft 0 0 Larceny Liquor Law Arrests/Citations/(Violations 95-98) 0 0 0 0 Drug Law Arrests/ (Drug Abuse Violations 95-98) 0 0 0 0 Weapon Law Arrests/ (Weapon Possession 95-98) 0 0 0 0 TOTAL Crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity 101111
379 APPENDIX Y Total Faculty Headcount By Rank, Gender, Race, and Citizenship
PRO FESSO R GENDER 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Ma le 1,128 1,124 1,139 1,120 1,123 Fema le 177 181 193 205 226 Tota l 1,305 1,305 1,332 1,325 1,349
% M a le 86% 86% 86% 85% 83% % Fe m a le 14% 14% 14% 15% 17%
RACE 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Black 4142444949 Asia n 75 73 73 80 84 Native American 11121 Hispanic-Latino/a 1414131315
Non-Minority 1,174 1,175 1,201 1,181 1,200 Minority 131 130 131 144 149
% M in o rit y 10% 10% 10% 11% 11% Sourc e: Reg ula r Instruc tiona l Sta ff Counts. Da ta a s of Novemb er 1. Note: These counts exclude adjunct, clinical, and visiting titles.
A SSO C I A TE PRO FESSO R GENDER 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Ma le 507 494 467 450 445 Fema le 199 214 228 235 232 Tota l 706 708 695 685 677
% M a le 72% 70% 67% 66% 66% % Fe m a le 28% 30% 33% 34% 34%
RACE 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Black 3132354038 Asia n 43 50 57 49 60 Native American 34324 Hispanic-Latino/a 2423242422
Non-Minority 605 599 576 570 553 Minority 101 109 119 115 124
% M in o rit y 14% 15% 17% 17% 18% Sourc e: Reg ula r Instruc tiona l Sta ff Counts. Da ta a s of Novemb er 1. Note: These counts exclude adjunct, clinical, and visiting titles.
380 A SSI STA N T PRO FESSO R GENDER 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Ma le 419 403 421 444 447 Fema le 239 233 241 248 230 Tota l 658 636 662 692 677
% M a le 64% 63% 64% 64% 66% % Fe m a le 36% 37% 36% 36% 34%
RACE 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Black 5652535954 Asia n 90 88 101 116 118 Native American 22435 Hispanic-Latino/a 2430343433
Non-Minority 486 464 470 480 467 Minority 172 172 192 212 210
% M in o rit y 26% 27% 29% 31% 31% Sourc e: Reg ula r Instruc tiona l Sta ff Counts. Da ta a s of Novemb er 1. Note: These counts exclude adjunct, clinical, and visiting titles.
INSTRUCTOR
GENDER 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Male 147631 Female 44355 Total 1811986
% M a le 78% 64% 67% 38% 17% % Fe m a le 22% 36% 33% 63% 83%
RACE 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Black 22231 Asian 10022 Native American 00000 Hispanic-Latino/a 21000
Non-Minority 138733 Minority 53253
% M in o rit y 28% 27% 22% 63% 50% Sourc e: Reg ula r Instruc tiona l Sta ff Counts. Da ta a s of Novemb er 1. Note: These counts exclude adjunct, clinical, and visiting titles.
381 TO TA L TEN URED A N D TEN URE TRA C K FA C ULTY GENDER 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Ma le 2,068 2,028 2,033 2,017 2,016 Fema le 619 632 665 693 693 Tota l 2,687 2,660 2,698 2,710 2,709
% M a le 77% 76% 75% 74% 74% % Fe m a le 23% 24% 25% 26% 26%
RACE 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Bla c k 130 128 134 151 142 Asia n 209 211 231 247 264 Native American 678710 Hispanic-Latino/a 6468717170
Non-Minority 2,278 2,246 2,254 2,234 2,223 Minority 409 414 444 476 486
% M in o rit y 15% 16% 16% 18% 18% Sourc e: Reg ula r Instruc tiona l Sta ff Counts. Da ta a s of Novemb er 1. Notes: (1) Tenured and tenure-track faculty includes Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, and Instructors. Lecturers are not included in these counts. (2) These counts exclude adjunct, clinical, and visiting titles.
LEC TURER GENDER 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Ma le 258 259 282 294 304 Fema le 332 350 369 393 395 Tota l 590 609 651 687 699
% M a le 44% 43% 43% 43% 43% % Fe m a le 56% 57% 57% 57% 57%
RACE 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Black 2226282422 Asia n 69 70 73 85 81 Native American 33464 Hispanic-Latino/a 3135343739
Non-Minority 465 475 512 535 553 Minority 125 134 139 152 146
% M in o rit y 21% 22% 21% 22% 21% Sourc e: Reg ula r Instruc tiona l Sta ff Counts. Da ta a s of Novemb er 1. Note: These counts exclude adjunct, clinical, and visiting titles.
382 TO TA L REG ULA R I N STRUC TI O N A L FA C ULTY Tenured, Tenure-Track, and Lecturers GENDER 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Ma le 2,326 2,287 2,315 2,311 2,320 Fema le 951 982 1,034 1,086 1,088 Tota l 3,277 3,269 3,349 3,397 3,408
% M a le 71% 70% 69% 68% 68% % Fe m a le 29% 30% 31% 32% 32%
RACE 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Bla c k 152 154 162 175 164 Asia n 278 281 304 332 345 Native American 910121314 Hispa nic -Latino/ a 95 103 105 108 109
Non-Minority 2,743 2,721 2,766 2,769 2,776 Minority 534 548 583 628 632
% M in o rit y 16% 17% 17% 18% 19% Sourc e: Reg ula r Instruc tiona l Sta ff Counts. Da ta a s of Novemb er 1. Note: These counts exclude adjunct, clinical, and visiting titles.
REGULAR CLINICAL INSTRUCTIONAL (TOTAL) GENDER 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Ma le 197 247 280 290 309 Fema le 179 202 226 237 255 Tota l 376 449 506 527 564
% M a le 52% 55% 55% 55% 55% % Fe m a le 48% 45% 45% 45% 45%
RACE 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Black 1722252522 Asia n 35 41 55 55 59 Native American 00110 Hispanic-Latino/a 8 11 9 13 15
Non-Minority 316 375 416 433 468 Minority 60 74 90 94 96
% M in o rit y 16% 16% 18% 18% 17% Sourc e: Reg ula r Instruc tiona l Sta ff Counts. Da ta a s of Novemb er 1. Note: These c ounts inc lud e fa c ulty in the Clinic a l II ra nks. Exc lud es a d junc t, c linic al I, a nd visiting titles.
383 TO TA L REG ULA R I N STRUC TIO N A L A N D REG ULA R C LIN IC A L Tenured, Tenure-Track, Lecturers, and Regular Clinical GENDER 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Ma le 2,523 2,534 2,595 2,601 2,629 Fema le 1,130 1,184 1,260 1,323 1,343 Tota l 3,653 3,718 3,855 3,924 3,972
% M a le 69% 68% 67% 66% 66% % Fe m a le 31% 32% 33% 34% 34%
RACE 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Bla c k 169 176 187 200 186 Asia n 313 322 359 387 404 Native American 910131414 Hispa nic -Latino/ a 103 114 114 121 124
Non-Minority 3,059 3,096 3,182 3,202 3,244 Minority 594 622 673 722 728
% M in o rit y 16% 17% 17% 18% 18% Sourc e: Reg ula r Instruc tiona l Sta ff Counts. Da ta a s of Novemb er 1. Note: These counts exclude adjunct, clinical I, and visiting titles.
SUPPLEM EN TA L I N STRUC TI O N A L STA FF ( TO TA L) Adjunct, Clinical I, and Visiting GENDER 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Ma le 217 249 269 271 284 Fema le 135 140 157 147 174 Tota l 352 389 426 418 458
% M a le 62% 64% 63% 65% 62% % Fe m a le 38% 36% 37% 35% 38%
RACE 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Black 1113181216 Asia n 24 35 34 27 32 Native American 00000 Hispanic-Latino/a 5 12 8 10 17
Non-Minority 312 329 366 369 393 Minority 40 60 60 49 65
% M in o rit y 11% 15% 14% 12% 14% Sourc e: Reg ula r Instruc tiona l Sta ff Counts. Da ta a s of Novemb er 1.
384 TO TA L A LL FA C ULTY Regular Instructional, Regular Clinical, and Supplemental GENDER 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Ma le 2,740 2,783 2,864 2,872 2,913 Fema le 1,265 1,324 1,417 1,470 1,517 Tota l 4,005 4,107 4,281 4,342 4,430
% M a le 68% 68% 67% 66% 66% % Fe m a le 32% 32% 33% 34% 34%
RACE 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Bla c k 180 189 205 212 202 Asia n 337 357 393 414 436 Native American 910131414 Hispa nic -Latino/ a 108 126 122 131 141
Non-Minority 3,371 3,425 3,548 3,571 3,637 Minority 634 682 733 771 793
% M in o rit y 16% 17% 17% 18% 18% Sourc e: Reg ula r Instruc tiona l Sta ff Counts. Da ta a s of Novemb er 1.
385 APPENDIX Z : Non-Discrimination
Faculty and Staff Demographics Staff Demographics RACE 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Black 13.5% 12.4% 11.9% 11.8% 11.7% 11.7% 11.9% Asian 2.7% 3.6% 4.0% 4.1% 4.4% 4.5% 4.7% Native American 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% Hispanic-Latino 1.3% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% Non-Minority 82.1% 81.8% 81.9% 81.7% 81.5% 81.3% 80.8% %Female 30.8% 30.3% 30.0% 30.0% 29.5% 29.0% 28.8% %Male 69.2% 69.7% 70.0% 70.0% 70.5% 71.0% 71.2%
Faculty Demographics RACE 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Black 3.9% 5.0% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 5.0% 5.6% Asian 5.6% 7.3% 7.7% 7.8% 7.9% 8.6% 9.1% Native American 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Hispanic-Latino/a 1.1% 1.9% 2.0% 2.4% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% Non-Minority 89.3% 85.6% 85.2% 84.8% 84.4% 83.5% 82.4% Minority 10.7% 14.4% 14.8% 15.2% 15.6% 16.5% 17.6% % Male 81.6% 78.2% 78.0% 77.0% 76.2% 75.4% 74.4% % Female 18.4% 21.8% 22.0% 23.0% 23.8% 24.6% 25.6%
386 APPENDIX AA : Non-Discrimination - Student Demographics Graduate Enrolllment by Ethnicities and Gender
1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 African American 6.1% 6.3% 6.4% 5.8% 5.6% 5.7% 5.4% 5.2% Asian American 4.3% 6.8% 7.4% 7.9% 7.8% 7.1% 8.3% 8.1% Native American 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% Hispanic American 2.5% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.3% 3.2% 3.5% 3.5% Non-Minority 68.2% 62.6% 61.4% 60.7% 60.0% 58.6% 58.4% 55.4% Foreign 18.8% 20.3% 21.1% 21.8% 22.9% 25.1% 24.0% 27.4%
GENDER 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 %Male 58.8% 57.0% 57.4% 57.8% 57.6% 58.0% 58.3% 56.9% %Female 41.2% 43.0% 42.6% 42.2% 42.4% 42.0% 41.7% 43.1%
First Professional Degree Student Demographics RACE 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 African American 9.3% 8.7% 8.0% 6.9% 7.0% 6.3% 6.8% 6.8% Asian American 8.8% 13.0% 13.6% 14.3% 15.8% 15.4% 14.8% 14.9% Native American 0.8% 1.0% 1.1% 0.8% 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% 1.0% Hispanic American 3.6% 4.3% 4.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.2% 3.4% 3.4% Foreign 2.8% 4.6% 5.9% 5.4% 4.3% 4.2% 2.6% 3.2% Non-Minority 74.7% 68.5% 66.9% 67.8% 67.2% 68.6% 71.2% 70.7%
GENDER 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 %Male 64.4% 59.1% 59.0% 57.7% 58.1% 57.8% 58.1% 57.6% %Female 35.6% 40.9% 41.0% 42.3% 41.9% 42.2% 41.9% 42.4%
Total Student Population Demographics 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 African American 6.7% 8.0% 8.1% 7.8% 7.7% 7.3% 7.1% 7.0% Asian American 7.0% 9.9% 10.3% 10.5% 10.6% 10.7% 11.2% 11.3% Native American 0.4% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% Hispanic American 3.0% 4.2% 4.2% 4.1% 4.0% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% Non-Minority 76.6% 69.0% 68.2% 67.9% 67.9% 67.6% 67.8% 66.4% Minority 17.1% 22.8% 23.2% 23.1% 22.9% 22.4% 22.7% 22.9% Foreign 6.3% 8.2% 8.7% 9.0% 9.2% 10.0% 9.5% 10.7%
GENDER 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 %Male 55.6% 53.4% 53.0% 52.9% 52.8% 52.8% 52.7% 52.2% %Female 44.4% 46.6% 47.0% 47.1% 47.2% 47.2% 47.3% 47.8%
387 APPENDIX AB : Non-Discrimination - Degrees by Ethnicity Total Degrees Granted by Ethnicity and Gender 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 African Am 4.6% 6.0% 6.4% 6.7% 6.3% 6.5% 6.8% 6.2% Asian Ame 4.7% 8.3% 8.9% 9.7% 10.0% 10.1% 9.9% 10.6% Native Ame 0.3% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% Hispanic A 2.0% 3.8% 3.6% 3.9% 3.9% 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% Foreign 7.8% 8.7% 9.0% 9.8% 10.7% 11.0% 10.1% 11.9% Non-Minori 80.6% 72.6% 71.4% 69.2% 68.6% 68.1% 69.0% 67.3% Male 54.0% 53.6% 53.3% 53.2% 52.0% 51.4% 51.3% 52.1% Female 46.0% 46.4% 46.7% 46.8% 48.0% 48.6% 48.7% 47.9%
Source: Table 9-1, Data Displays, Office of Budget and Planning
Notes: (1) Counts include Non-resident Aliens. (2) Counts exclude certificates, certificates of candidacy, and honorary degrees awarded.
388 APPENDIX AC : Graduation Rates The University of Michigan - Ann Arbor GRADUATION RATES OF FRESHMAN COHORTS SIX YEARS AFTER INITIAL ENTRY
Entering Cohort RA C E 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Caucasian 82% 84% 85% 87% 87% 87% 86% 85.7% 85.1% 86.9% 85.9% 86.3% 0.6% Asian Ame 78% 86% 84% 87% 88% 87% 86% 84.9% 85.6% 84.2% 87.0% 85.1% 0.2% African Am 59% 61% 68% 64% 65% 70% 70% 62.3% 64.6% 61.4% 58.4% 56.4% -5.9% Hispanic A 75% 66% 64% 74% 72% 73% 80% 77.6% 64.9% 73.0% 69.5% 67.7% -9.8% Native Am 78% 77% 64% 63% 60% 71% 87% 75.0% 78.4% 60.0% 51.4% 61.5% -13.5% Tota l 81% 82% 84% 85% 85% 85% 85% 83.3% 82.3% 83.3% 82.3% 82.0% -1.4%
Sourc e: Reg istra r's Rep orts 864, 867
Notes: Table includes Summer/Fall Term Freshmen students who are U.S. citizens or Permanent Residents; excludes Non-Resident Aliens.
389 APPENDIX AD : Education Attainment US Census 2000 (numbers are in thousands)
% % Profession Race Gender PhD %PhD Master's Master's Graduate Graduate al % Prof. All 2032 10527 12559 2613 Male 1433 70.5% 5205 49.4% 6638 52.9% 1762 67.4% Female 599 29.5% 5332 50.7% 5931 47.2% 852 32.6% White 1659 81.6% 8640 82.1% 10299 82.0% 2200 84.2% Male 1195 58.8% 4304 40.9% 5499 43.8% 1550 59.3% Female 464 22.8% 4336 41.2% 4800 38.2% 650 24.9% Black 72 3.5% 828 7.9% 900 7.2% 113 4.3% Male 37 1.8% 330 3.1% 367 2.9% 53 2.0% Female 35 1.7% 498 4.7% 533 4.2% 60 2.3% Asian 207 10.2% 654 6.2% 861 6.9% 182 7.0% Male 148 7.3% 378 3.6% 526 4.2% 99 3.8% Female 59 2.9% 275 2.6% 334 2.7% 83 3.2% Hispanic 84 4.1% 372 3.5% 456 3.6% 117 4.5% Male 51 2.5% 175 1.7% 226 1.8% 58 2.2% Female 33 1.6% 197 1.9% 230 1.8% 59 2.3%
390 APPENDIX AE : Community Development - Student Contributions
Alternative Spring Break 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Applications 15 30 50 70 230 440 not avail not avail not avail not avail Participants 15 30 50 70 110 220 300 not avail not avail 475 Applications in excess of s 0 0 0 0 120 220 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! # sites 2 3 5 7 11 21 30 39 not avail 42
500 45 450 40 400 35 350 30 300 25 Participants 250 20 # sites 200 # Sites 15 # Participants 150 100 10 50 5 0 0
3 7 90 94 998 19 1991 1992 199 19 1995 1996 199 1 1999
391 APPENDIX AF : Community Development - Faculty and Staff Contributions
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Public Service (in thousands)$ 29,206 $ 28,248 $ 47,648 $ 56,240 $ 66,868
Faculty & Staff: United Way Campaign 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 $ Amount Raised$ 908,027 $ 960,672 $ 1,026,236 $ 1,115,549 $ 1,005,105 Participation* 22.5% 21.7% 20.5% 19.6% 16.3% Average $ Gift**$ 154.48 $ 165.18 $ 177.67 $ 197.23 $ 206.00 # of UW Agencies 148 139 152 148 145 # of Non-UW Agencies 138 145 140 135 164 # of $1,000+ Contributions 182 207 255 279 258 Large Contributions as % of Total 25.9% 30.4% 35.3% 33.7% 36.0%
* Participation is defined as the proportion of employees who receive Campaign materials that end up contributing ** Average $ Gift is the $ Amount Raised divided by the total participation
392 APPENDIX AG : Sustainability in Education - Enrollment in Key Undergraduate Sustainability Classes
Fiscal Year Crse ID Crse Descr Subject Catalog Nbr 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total 5197 Introduction (1997), Big Quest Sm ENVRNSTD 320 (1999), 240 90 66 80 not offered 48 32 316 12988 Nat Res Prob NRE 100 89 81 102 74 222 237 805 17591 Global Chng AOSS, BIOL, 171, 110 64 85 177 189 270 326 1111 17791 Int Glob Chng II AOSS, NRE, 172, 111 56 64 82 82 162 174 620 20268 Future:Ecol,Econ NRE, ENVRN 120 (1999), 270 38 43 not offered 40 135 not yet avail 256 12991 Ecological Iss NRE 301 358 278 149 142 234 182 1343
Total 695 617 590 527 1,071 951 4,451 Percentage of students that take more than 1: 10% Total # students exposed to sustainability issues 626 555 531 474 964 856 Total # undergraduates enrolled, Fall semester of the fiscal year (Registrar's Office) 24,475 24,412 24,547 Percentage of undergraduates enrolled in sustainability classes 1.9% 3.9% 3.5% Percentage of undergrads not enrolled in sustainability classes 98.1% 96.1% 96.5%
393 APPENDIX AH : Sustainability in Education - Undergrad and Grad Courses Addressing Sustainability Concepts
# classes NUMERIC QUALIFICATION SUMMARY TOTALS per year % of total 1=addresses the basic functions of the earth's natural systems. Class does not address sustainability issues 6,243 95.44% 2=addresses the correlation between human activity and environmental sustainability Addresses the basic functions of the earth's natural systems. 163 2.49% 3=addresses practices that support a sustainable lifestyle Addresses the correlation between human activity and environmental sustainability 97 1.48% 4=addresses policy strategies that support environmental sustainability Addresses practices that support a sustainable lifestyle 21 0.32% Addresses policy strategies that support environmental sustainability 20 0.31% Classes addressing sustainability issues 301 4.60% Total number of classes 6,544 100%
qualifica total sub sub Course # cross-listed COURSE TITLE credits School tion count counts totals COURSES ADDRESSING SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPTS 100-115 1/2 term courses on specific geological topic 1 Geography 111 528 Advanced Forest Ecology 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 122 457 Algae in Freshwater Ecosystems 5 Biology cont. 133 130 Animal Behavior 3 Biology cont. 144 288 Animal Diversity 4 Biology cont. 155 427 Aquaculture 3 to 4 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 166 311 Aquatic Ecosystems School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 177 485 NRE 450 Aquatic Science Field Studies 5 to 6 Biology cont. 188 479 Atmospheric Chemistry 3 AOSS cont. 199 451 Atmospheric Dynamics I 3 AOSS cont. 11010 492 Behavioral Ecology 4 to 5 Biology cont. 11111 467 AOSS 467 Biogeochemical Cycles 3 Chemistry (Chem) 11212 445 GS 445 Biogeography 3 Biology cont. 11313 486 Biology & Ecology of Fishes 5 Biology cont. 11414 100 Biology for Non-Scientists 4 Biology (Bio) 11515 450 Biology of Amphibians & Reptiles 5 Biology cont. 11616 330 Biology of Birds 5 Biology cont. 11717 440 NRE 422 Biology of Fishes 3 Biology cont. 11818 441 NRE 423 Biology of Fishes Lab 1 Biology cont. 11919 442 Biology of Insects 5 Biology cont. 12020 437 Biology of Invertebrates 5 Biology cont. 12121 451 NRE 451 Biology of Mammals 4 Biology cont. 12222 438 Biology of Mollusks 3; 5 Biology cont. 12323 458 Biology of the Algae 5 Biology cont. 12424 532 Birds of the World 4 Biology cont. 12525 252 Chordate Anatomy and Phylogeny 4 Biology cont. 12626 411 Cloud & Precipitation Processes 3 AOSS cont. 12727 497 Community Ecology 3 Biology cont. 12828 466 AOSS 466 Computational Models of Geochemical Processes 3 Geological Science (GS) cont. 12929 480 Computer-Aided Inferences in Evolution & Ecology 4 Biology cont. 13030 499 Dynamic Systems in Population & Community Ecolo 3 Biology cont. 13131 232 Earth Materials 4 Geological Sciences (GS) cont. 13232 442 Earth Surface Processes and Soils 4 Geological Science (GS) cont. 13333 475 Earth-Ocean-Atmosphere Interactions 3 AOSS cont. 13434 431 Ecology of Animal Parasites 5 Biology cont. 13535 487 NRE 409 Ecology of Fishes 3 to 4 Biology cont. 13636 585 Ecology of Streams & Rivers 5 Biology cont. 13737 103 Ecology: Principles and Application 4 Biology (Bio) 13838 476 NRE 476 Ecosystem Ecology 3 Biology cont. 13939 425 Environmental Geochemistry 3 Geological Sciences (GS) cont. 14040 284 Environmental Geology 4 Geological Sciences (GS) cont. 14141 356 Hist 346 Environmental History & the Tropical World 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 14242 693 Environmental Molecular Biology 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) cont. 14343 425 Name 425 Environmental Ocean Dynamics 4 AOSS cont. 14444 432 Environmental Radiative Processes 3 AOSS cont. 14545 594 Environmental Soil Chemistry 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) cont. 14646 593 Environmental Soil Physics 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) 14747 455 Ethnobotany 5 Biology cont. 14848 125 Evolution & Extinction 3 Geological Sciences (GS) cont. 14949
394 375 Introduction to Plant Development 4 Biology cont. 18181 162 Introductory Biology 5 Biology cont. 18282 201 Geog 201 Introductory Geography: Water, Climate & Mankind 4 Geological Sciences (GS) cont. 18383 116 Introductory Geology in the Field 8 Geography 18484 119 Introductory Geology Lectures 4 Geography 18585 223 Introductory Oceanography: Lab 1 Geological Sciences (GS) cont. 18686 222 Introductory Oceanography: Lecture 3 Geological Sciences (GS) cont. 18787 321 Introductory Plant Physiology: Lecture 3 Biology cont. 18888 477 NRE 455 Lab in Field Ecology 5 Biology cont. 18989 482 Limnology 5 Biology cont. 19090 484 Limnology: Lab 3 Biology cont. 19191 483 Limnology: Freshwater Ecology 3 Biology cont. 19292 130 Macroscopic Investigations & Reaction Principles 3 Chemistry (Chem) 19393 449 Marine Geology 3 Geological Science (GS) cont. 19494 424 Mesometeorology 3 AOSS cont. 19595 488 Microbial Ecology of Terrestrial Ecosystems 3 Biology cont. 19696 422 Micrometeorology 3 AOSS cont. 19797 434 Mid-Latitude Cyclones 3 AOSS cont. 19898 461 Morphology & Evolution of Vascular Plants 5 Biology cont. 19999 468 Mushrooms & Molds: Biology & Use 5 Biology cont. 1 100 100 147 Natural Hazards 3 Geological Sciences (GS) cont. 1 101 101 538 Natural Resource Data Analysis 4 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 1 102 102 445 Natural Resource Measurements 4 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 1 103 103 200 Natural Resource Mentoring Seminar 1 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 1 104 104 438 Natural Resource Statistics 4 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 1 105 105 154 Ocean Resources 3 Geological Sciences (GS) cont. 1 106 106 442 Oceanic Dynamics I 3 AOSS cont. 1 107 107 380 Oceanography: Marine Ecology 3 Biology cont. 1 108 108 416 Organismal Function & Evolution 4 Geological Sciences (GS) cont. 1 109 109 433 NRE 433 Ornithology 4 Biology cont. 1 110 110 281/481 Physics & National Science Policy 4 Physics (Phys) 1 111 111 415 Plant Constituents & Their Functions 3 Biology cont. 1 112 112 255 Plant Diversity 5 Biology cont. 1 113 113 322 Plant Physiology: Lab 3 Biology cont. 1 114 114 472 Plant-Animal Interactions 3 Biology cont. 1 115 115 146 Plate Tectonics 3 Geological Sciences (GS) cont. 1 116 116 481 Population Dynamics & Ecology 4 Biology cont. 1 117 117 496 NRE 425 Population Ecology 4 Biology cont. 1 118 118 102 Practical Botany 4 Biology (Bio) 1 119 119 498 Practicum in Atmosphere, Oceanic & Space Sciences max of 8 AOSS cont. 1 120 120 226 Principles of Animal Physiology: Lab 2 Biology cont. 1 121 121 225 Principles of Animal Physiology: Lecture 3 Biology cont. 1 122 122 306.101 Principles of Geographic Information Systems 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 1 123 123 491 Principles of Phylogenetic Systemics 4 Biology cont. 1 124 124 441/442 Remote Sensing of Environment: Lecture & Lab 2 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 1 125 125 528 Name 528 Remote Sensing of Ocean Dynamics 3 AOSS cont. 1 126 126 148 Seminar: Environmental Geology 3 Geological Sciences (GS) cont. 1 127 127 489 NRE 430 Soil Properties & Processes 3 Biology cont. 1 128 128 402 Spring Ecosystems & Plants 4 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 1 129 129 215 Spring Flora of Michigan 3 Biology cont. 1 130 130 459 Systematic Botany 4 Biology cont. 1 131 131 314 Terrestrial Vertebrate Natural History 3 to 4 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 1 132 132 202 The Atmosphere 3 Atmospheric, Oceanic & Space Sciences (AOSS) 1 133 133 304 The Atmospheric & Oceanic Environment 3 Atmospheric, Oceanic & Space Sciences (AOSS) 1 134 134 479 The Dynamics of Neotropical Rainforests 2 Biology cont. 1 135 135 203 The Oceans 3 Atmospheric, Oceanic & Space Sciences (AOSS) 1 136 136 108 GS 130 The Physical World 4 Chemistry (Chem) 1 137 137 564 The Stratosphere & Mesosphere 3 AOSS cont. 1 138 138 430 Thermodynamics of the Atmosphere 3 AOSS cont. 1 139 139 495 Thermosphere & Ionosphere 3 AOSS cont. 1 140 140 454 Weather Analysis & Forecasting Laboratory 3 AOSS cont. 1 141 141 414 Weather Systems 3 AOSS cont. 1 142 142 408 Wetlands Ecology 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 1 143 143
395 460 Fishery Science 4 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 217411 330 Habitats & Organisms: Science of Interactions 5 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 217512 105 AOSS 105 Our Changing Atmosphere 3 Chemistry (Chem) 217613 463 Air Pollution Meteorology 3 AOSS cont. 217714 575 Air Pollution Monitoring 3 AOSS cont. 217815 360 NRE 560 Behavior & Environment 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 217916 613 Behavior, Psychosocial, & Ecological Aspects 3 School of Social Work (SW) 218017 460 Design of Environmental Engineering Systems 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) 218118 527 Environmental Carcinogens 3 School of Public Health (PH, EIH, HMP) 218219 306 Environmental History & Third World Development 3 Environmental Studies (ES) cont. 218320 Environmental Law & Real property 3 Law School 218421 408 Environmental Problem Solving with Computers 3 AOSS cont. 218522 403 NRE 403 History of Human Interaction with the Land 3 History of Art (Hist Art) 218623 Landuse Planning & Control 3 Law School 218724 621 Pollution Control (intro environmental law type cours 3 Law School 218825 504 Principles of Health Behavior 2 School of Public Health (PH, EIH, HMP) 218926 888 Seminar: Environmental & Water Resource Engineeri TBA Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) cont. 219027 580 Values, Ethics and Public Policy 3 School of Public Policy (PP) 219128 Wildlife Law & Policy 2 Law School 219229 477 CAAS 477 Women & the Environment 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 219330 571 Water quality Management Practices 3 School of Public Health (PH, EIH, HMP) 219431 572 Environmental Impact Assessment 3 School of Public Health (PH, EIH, HMP) 219532 492 UP 492 Environmental Justice: Domestic & International 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 219633 475 EIH 588 Environmental Law 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 219734 562 Environmental Policy in Action 3 School of Public Policy (PP) 219835 599 EIH 699 Hazardous Wastes: Regulation, Remediation & Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) cont. 219936 651 International Environmental Management Systems St 2 School of Public Health (PH, EIH, HMP) 220037 585 Water Resource Economics 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 220138 573 Aquatic Pollution Ecology 3 School of Public Health (PH, EIH, HMP) 220239 317 Conservation Biology 4 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 220340 475 Conservation Biology & Ecosystem Management 5 Biology cont. 220441 432 Forest Hydrology & Watershed Management 2 to 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 220542 575 NRE 545 Population-Environment Dynamics 3 School of Public Health (PH, EIH, HMP) 220643 415 RC NS 415 Science & Politics 4 Environmental Studies (ES) cont. 220744 306-002 The Changing Face & Fabric of the Great Lakes Ecos 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 220845 311 Agriculture, Ecology & Rural Communities I 4 Environmental Studies (ES) cont. 220946 312 Agriculture, Ecology & Rural Communities II 3 Environmental Studies (ES) cont. 221047 301 Ecological Issues 4 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 221148 306-090 Ecological Livelihood 2 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 221249 124 AOSS 124 Environment, People & Resources 2 Geography 221350 356 NRE 308 Homeplace: Life in the Huron Valley 3 Environmental Studies (ES) cont. 221451 446 Quantitative Analysis of Ecological Issues 4 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 221552 305 Society & Environment 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 221653 240 RC ID 240 Big questions for a small planet: intro to Environment 4 Environmental Studies (ES) 221754 109 Ecological Knowledge & Environmental Problem Sol 3 Biology cont. 221855 270 NRE 270 Ecology, Economics & Ethics of Sustainable Develop 4 Environmental Studies (ES) cont. 221956 110 AOSS 171 Global Change I: Physical Impacts 4 Biology cont. 222057 498 NRE 498 Global Environmental Change & the State 3 Political Science (PS) 222158 141 How to Build a Habitable Planet 3 Geological Sciences (GS) cont. 222259 111 UC 111 Introduction to Global Change II 4 Sociology (Soc) 222360 123 AOSS 123 Life & the Global Environment 2 Geography 222461 662 NRE 669 Advanced Environmental Economics 3 Economics (Econ) 222562 256 Anthro 256 Culture, Adaptation & Environment 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 222663 471 NRE 571 Environmental Economics 3 Economics (Econ) 222764 360 Environmental Process Engineering 4 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) 222865 467 Human Behavioral Ecology 3 Anthropology (Anthro) 222966 505 Human Resource Ecology 2 to 4 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 223067 280 Introduction to Environmental Engineering 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) 223168 505 Introduction to Environmental Health 1 School of Public Health (PH, EIH, HMP) 223269 507 Introduction to Environmental Toxicology 1 School of Public Health (PH, EIH, HMP) 223370 407 Eng 317 Literature of the American Wilderness (Literature & C 3 Environmental Studies (ES) cont. 223471 RC SS 305 Society & the Environment 4 Environmental Studies (ES) cont. 223572 572 Geog 472 Transportation & Land Use Planning 3 Urban Planning (UP) 223673
396 212 GS 212 Global Change III: Studies in Global Sustainability 4 Atmospheric, Oceanic & Space Sciences (AOSS) 3 267 7 419 Phys 419 Energy Demand 3 Environmental Studies (ES) cont. 3 268 8 306-005 Mind, Culture and Environment 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 3 269 9 500 Principles of Environmental Health 3 School of Public Health (PH, EIH, HMP) 3 270 10 421 Practicum in Environmental Problems 1 to 4 Environmental Studies (ES) cont. 3 271 11 481 Ed D474 Environmental Education & Natural Resources 3 to 4 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 3 272 12 627 Policy in Community Organizations 3 School of Public Policy (PP) 3 273 13 550 Theory & Practice of Community Organizing 3 School of Social Work (SW) 3 274 14 654 Concepts, Techniques of Community Participation 3 School of Social Work (SW) 3 275 15 270 ES 270 Our Common Future: Ecology, Economics & Ethics of School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 3 276 16 502 Organizational, Community & Societal 3 School of Social Work (SW) 3 277 17 306-055 Gender, Development, & Inequality 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 3 278 18 586 NRE 557 Industrial Ecology 3 to 4 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) 3 299 19 250 ES 263 Energy & Environment 4 Physics (Phys) 3 300 20 470 NRE 670 Transportation & Society 1 Urban Planning (UP) 3 301 21 21 391 Sustainability & the Campus 3 Environmental Studies (ES) cont. 4 279 1 449 Organizational Theory & Change 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 4 280 2 CS 564 NRE 513 Strategies for Environmental Management 1.5 Business School 4 281 3 532 Sustainable Development: Resolving Economic & 3 Urban Planning (UP) 4 282 4 290.001 The Science & Politics of Global Warming 2 Environmental Studies (ES) cont. 4 283 5 306-012 Environmental Decision-Making in Business 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 4 284 6 502 Environmental Planning: Issues & Concepts 3 Urban Planning (UP) 4 285 7 380 NRE 480 Environmental Politics & Policy 3 Political Science (PS) 4 286 8 482 CAAS 482 Environmental Justice: Theory & Approaches 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 4 287 9 210 Introduction to Environmental Policy Making 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 4 288 10 495 Small Group Organizing & Advocacy Planning 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 4 289 11 661 NRE 668 Advanced Natural Resource Economics 3 Economics (Econ) 4 290 12 519 PH 576 Evaluating, Managing, and Communication Risk Asse 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 4 291 13 472 Intermediate Natural Resource Economics 3 Economics (Econ) 4 292 14 365 International Environmental Policy 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 4 293 15 461 The Economics of Development I 3 Economics (Econ) 4 294 16 486 Public Opinion, Political Participation, & Pressure Gr 3 Political Science (PS) 4 295 17 375 Econ 370 Natural Resource Economics 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) 4 296 18 661 Pollution Policy 2 Law School 4 297 19 587 NRE 558 Water Resource Policy 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) 4 298 20 20 Rest of school 6,243 6,243 Total classes per year (2 semesters) 6,541 6,541 COURSES NOT ADDRESSING SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPTS (INCOMPLETE LIST) 499 Directed Study for Undergraduate Students TBA AOSS cont. n/a 299 285 Science, Technology, & Society: 1940 to Present 4 History (Hist) n/a 300 283 Survey of the History of Science 3 History (Hist) n/a 301 480 GS 480 The Planets: Composition, Structure, & Evolution 3 AOSS cont. n/a 302 204 Astron 204 The Planets: Their Geology & Climates 3 Geological Sciences (GS) cont. n/a 303 489 Advanced Topics in Contemporary Political Science 1 to 3 Political Science (PS) n/a 304 646 Geophysical Techniques in Environmental Geotechno 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) cont. n/a 305 549 Geotechnical Aspects of Landfill Design 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) n/a 306 Hazardous & Solid Waste 3 Law School n/a 307 562 Human Nature 2 Anthropology (Anthro) n/a 308 430 Introduction to Population Studies 3 Sociology (Soc) n/a 309 461 Meteorological Instrumentation for Air Pollution Stud 2 AOSS cont. n/a 310 580 Physiochemical Processes in Environmental Engineer 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) n/a 311 482 Econ 483 Positive Political Economy 3 Political Science (PS) n/a 312 140 Science & the Media 3 Geological Sciences (GS) cont. n/a 313 611 Social Change Theories 3 School of Social Work (SW) n/a 314 465 Space System Design for Environmental Observation 3 to 4 AOSS cont. n/a 315 687 EIH 617 Special Problems in Solid Waste Engineering TBA Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) cont. n/a 316 525 Turbulent Mixing in Environmental Applications 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) n/a 317 447 Mfg 448 Waste Management in Chemical Engineering 3 Chemical Engineering (ChE) n/a 318 585 Waste Supply & Waste Water Engineering 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) n/a 319 485 Water Supply & Wastewater Engineering 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) n/a 320 576 Air Quality Field Project 4 AOSS cont. n/a 321 333 Writing about Natural Resources & Environment 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) n/a 322 589 NRE 595 Risk & Benefit Analysis in Environmental Engineerin 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) n/a 323
397 392 Education in a Multicultural Society 3 School of Education (Ed) n/a 354 395 Topics in Economics & Economic Policy (landfills) 1 to 3 Economics (Econ) n/a 355 401 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics 3 Atmospheric, Oceanic & Space Sciences (AOSS) n/a 356 406 Geog 406 Introduction to Geographical Information Systems 3 Urban Planning (UP) n/a 357 407 Mathematical Methods in Geophysics 3 Atmospheric, Oceanic & Space Sciences (AOSS) n/a 358 417 Contemporary Nature Writing (Senior Seminar) 3 English (Eng) n/a 359 420 Philosophy of Science 3 Philosophy (Phil) n/a 360 428 Introduction to Groundwater Hydrology 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) n/a 361 430 Topics in Ethics 3 Philosophy (Phil) n/a 362 431 Industrial Organization & Performance 3 Economics (Econ) n/a 363 431 Normative Ethics 3 Philosophy (Phil) n/a 364 432 Combustion 3 Mechanical Engineering n/a 365 432 Government Regulation of Industry 3 Economics (Econ) n/a 366 438 Topics in Aesthetics 3 Philosophy (Phil) n/a 367 440 Cultural Adaptation 3 Anthropology (Anthro) n/a 368 443 Foundations of Rational Choice Theory 3 Philosophy (Phil) n/a 369 443 Histories of Urban Design 3 Urban Planning (UP) n/a 370 445 Engineering Properties of Soil 4 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) n/a 371 446 Engineering Geology 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) n/a 372 455 Environmental Nearshore Dynamics 3 Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering (NAME) n/a 373 458 Principles & Applications of Visible & Infrared AOSS cont. n/a 374 459 NRE 469 Principles & Applications of Radio & Active Remote 3 AOSS cont. n/a 375 460 Satellite Meteorology 3 AOSS cont. n/a 376 462 Instrumentation for Atmospheric & Space Sciences 3 AOSS cont. n/a 377 464 Aero 464 The Space Environment 3 AOSS cont. n/a 378 469 Name 469 Underwater Operations 3 AOSS cont. n/a 379 481 Government Expenditures 3 Economics (Econ) n/a 380 484 BioMedE 484Radiological Health Engineering Fundamentals 4 Nuclear Engineering & Radiological Science (NERS) n/a 381 485 Law & Economics 3 Economics (Econ) n/a 382 487 Psychological Perspectives on Politics 3 Political Science (PS) n/a 383 491 Hist 491 History of the American Economy 3 Economics (Econ) n/a 384 491 Econ 491 The History of the American Economy 3 History (Hist) n/a 385 495 Seminar in Economics (some have environmental focu 3 Economics (Econ) n/a 386 499 Special Topics in Mechanical Engineering TBA Mechanical Engineering n/a 387 513 Legal Aspects of Planning Process 2 to 3 Urban Planning (UP) n/a 388 528 Flow & Transport in Porous Media 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) n/a 389 533 The Combustion Process 3 Aerospace (Aero) n/a 390 540 Planning Theory 3 Urban Planning (UP) n/a 391 543 EECS 450 Imaging Radar as a Remote Sensor 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) n/a 392 563 Mechanisms of Human Adaptation 3 Anthropology (Anthro) n/a 393 570 Introduction to Geostatistics 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) n/a 394 583 EIH 672 Radiological Assessment & Risk Evaluation 3 Nuclear Engineering & Radiological Science (NERS) cont. n/a 395 583 Surfaces & Interfaces in Aquatic Systems 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) n/a 396 584 EIH 667 Hazardous Waste Processes 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) n/a 397 586 Organizational Design 3 School of Public Policy (PP) n/a 398 590 Stream, Lake, & Estuary Analysis 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) n/a 399 595 Field Methods in Hydrogeochemistry 3 Civil & Environmental Engineering (CEE) cont. n/a 400 595 EEC 518 Magnetosphere & Solar Wind 3 AOSS cont. n/a 401 620 Contemporary Cultures in United States 3 School of Social Work (SW) n/a 402 728 Ethics and Values in Use of Information Technology 3 School of Public Policy (PP) n/a 403 310/311 Synoptic Laboratory I & II 3 Atmospheric, Oceanic & Space Sciences (AOSS) n/a 404 Geography see Geology, Urban Planning Geography n/a Medical School Inteflex Program - premed/MD program Medical School n/a
398 APPENDIX AI : Sustainability in Education - Research Dollars Devoted to Sustainability Research at U-M AA Title Amount Start Date FY Word searched A Mongolian American Cooperative: Diatom Diversity and Training in Mongolia's Lake Hovsgol National Park $ 37,852 7/13/98 1999 diversity Success in Managed Forests: A Study of Sustainable Timber Harvesting and Conservation of Biodiversity on the Menominee Reservation $ 10,580 7/21/98 1999 diversity The Animal Diversity Web $ 40,000 9/24/98 1999 diversity Asian Urban Population Environment Dynamics $ 60,000 7/28/98 1999 environment Biostatistical Methods in Environmental Epidemiology $ 159,145 8/31/98 1999 environment City of Flint, Environment Block Assessment (EBA) for the 21st Century $ 493,030 6/18/99 1999 environment Doris Duke Environmental and Natural Resource Fellows-Internship Support $ 113,850 1/26/99 1999 environment Environmental STAR Fellowship $ 23,000 8/27/98 1999 environment Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory $ 63,136 9/18/98 1999 environment Michigan Center for the Environment and Children's Health $ 2,086,255 8/4/98 1999 environment Michigan Center for the Environment and Children's Health $ 3,415,691 10/22/98 1999 environment Packard Population Environment Fellowship $ 183,840 9/11/98 1999 environment Proposal to Develop a Case Analysis in Conjunction with an Inter-University Consortium on the Framing of Intractable Environmental Disputes $ 24,053 8/5/98 1999 environment Reciprocal Relation Between Population and Environment $ 532,985 9/21/98 1999 environment Study of the Environmental Protection of the Transboundary Mountain Aquifer Shared by Israelis and Palestinians (Phase II) $ 497,000 9/24/98 1999 environment Cognitive Mediation of Indigenous and Nonindigenous Conflict Over a Shared Environment $ 100,040 1/1/99 1999 environment Desegregation of Public Education - Equity Assistance Center Program $ 1,499,798 5-99 1999 equity 1999 Campus Social Mentoring Project $ 9,000 4-14-99 1999 social Countering the HIV/AIDS Ma'afa $ 8,000 2-99 1999 social Social Psychological Impacts of Residential Development Patterns at the Urban-Forest Fringe $ 38,248 2-99 1999 social Strengthening Geriatric Social Work $ 50,000 4-99 1999 social Supplement to: Building a Sustainable Model of Practical Learning and Service in Community Organizations $ 100,000 6-99 1999 sustain
Total - FY 1999 $ 9,545,503
399 Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function: Top Down Control of Herbivory by Birds and Invertebrate Predators in the Coffee Agroecosystem $ 388,805 5/15/00 2000 diversity Promoting Ethnic Diversity in Public Health Training $ 1,142,683 4/21/00 2000 diversity Strategy 2000: Recruitment, Retention Recognition A Balanced Approach to Diversity and Excellence $ 64,880 9/7/99 2000 diversity Collaborative Research: Cultural Models, Values, and Networks in Environmental Decisions $ 157,500 9/1/99 2000 environment Aquatic Ecosystem Responses to Changes in the Environment of an Arctic Drainage Basin $ 50,000 5/1/00 2000 environment Toxic Metals in the Northeast: From Biological to Environmental Implications. Project 6: The Hydrogeochemistry of Arsenic $ 153,023 4/1/00 2000 environment 2000 Campus Social Mentoring Project $ 7,100 2-00 2000 social Aligning Social and Ecological Drivers of Urban Landscape Change $ 87,818 6-00 2000 social Bridging Democratic Educational Theory: Social Studies Teacher Education and Service Learning $ 26,000 6-00 2000 social Community Support Systems $ 198,189 7-99 2000 social Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives $ 17,000 7-99 2000 social Ecological, Social, and Genetic Correlates of Wild Chimp $ 20,000 1-00 2000 social Michigan Interdisciplinary Center on Social Inequalities, Mind, and Body $ 9,548,495 9-99 2000 social Social Mentoring Program $ 46,000 2-00 2000 social Strengthening Geriatric Social Work $ 325,000 4-00 2000 social EPA Internship for U-M Sustainable Systems Internship Programs $ 11,537 5-00 2000 sustain Labor Supply and Sustainable Employment $ 17,180 3-00 2000 sustain Sustainable Energy Efficient Behaviors: Actual, Intended, and Influencing (Pilot) $ 10,000 1-00 2000 sustain Technology for a Sustainable Environment: Life Cycle Optimization of Vehicle Replacement $ 444,138 5-00 2000 sustain
Total - FY 2000 $ 12,715,348
Biodiversity Loss and the Function of Beneficial Litter Ants in Contrasting Coffee Management $ 6,000 5/21/01 2001 diversity Biodiversity Survey of the Terrestrial Vertebrates (Amphibians, Reptiles, Small Mammals of Madagascar's Remnant Forests and Satellite Islands $ 399,992 9/5/00 2001 diversity Grant Supplement to Promote Diversity $ 25,000 12/21/00 2001 diversity Promoting the Defense of Diversity $ 600,000 6/19/01 2001 diversity Science, the Professions, and Global Diversity $ 47,600 9/6/00 2001 diversity Strategy 2000: Recruitment, Retention, Recognition (Year Three): A Balanced Approach to Diversity $ 90,000 7/17/00 2001 diversity
Collaborative Research: Cultural Models, Values, and Networks in Environmental Decisions/REU Supplement $ 7,375 9/1/00 2001 environment Environmental Impacts on Arab Americans in Metro Detroit $ 268,015 1/18/01 2001 environment An Ecological Assessment of the Muskegon River Watershed to Solve and Prevent Environmental Problems $ 36,000 6/1/01 2001 environment Community Organizing Network for Environmental Health $ 2,290,670 9/18/00 2001 environment Indoor Air Quality in the Work Environment $ 10,290 12/1/00 2001 environment
Introducing Markets for Green Products: Product Demand, Environmental Quality, and Economic Welfare $ 68,042 1/1/01 2001 environment Producer Training and Environmental Reporting by the Great Lakes Radio Consortium $ 25,000 3/9/01 2001 environment Public Broadcasting Coverage of West Michigan Environmental Issues $ 38,000 3/1/01 2001 environment Reciprocal Relations Between Population and Environment $ 2,821,269 1/1/01 2001 environment Spatial and Temporal Analyses Applied to Understanding Racial Socioeconomic Disparities in the Location of Environmental Hazards $ 299,844 6/1/01 2001 environment The Information-Based Approach to Environmental Policy: An Analysis of Green Electricity Programs in Michigan $ 43,843 9/1/00 2001 environment
400 2001 Campus Social Mentoring Project $ 39,000 2-2001 2001 social 2002 Campus Social Mentoring Project $ 2,500 2-2001 2001 social Biocomplexity - Incubation Activity: Exploring Biocomplexity at the Interface of Social and Ecological Systems $ 99,973 9-00 2001 social
Early Socioeconomic and Psychosocial Risk for Obesity $ 641,250 6-01 2001 social Exploring Biocomplexity at the Interface of Social and Ecological Systems $ 12,000 Sep 2000 2001 social IT Research / Social and Economic Effects of IT and IT Management: Sustainable and Generalizeable Technologies to Support Collaboration in Science $ 2,400,000 9-00 2001 social Reporting on the Social, Enviro, and Rural Impacts of Agriculture by the GLRC $ 100,000 7-2001 2001 social
Social and Physical environments and Health Disparities $ 3,014,369 9-2000 2001 social Social Consequences of Unintended Childbearing $ 890,214 9-00 2001 social Social Identity in Context: Behavioral Engagement and Institutional Commitment $ 44,035 9-2000 2001 social Social Implications of Landscape Change $ 61,500 June 2001 2001 social
Socioeconomic Status, Social Support, Age and Health $ 377,657 4-2001 2001 social Understanding Social Disparities in Health and Aging $ 1,475,451 8-00 2001 social Application and Refinement of Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) for Enhancing Building Life Cycle Assessments $ 20,000 9-00 2001 sustain Center for Sustainable Systems Internship Program $ 25,000 5-01 2001 sustain Information Technology Research/Social and Economic Effects of Information Technology and Information Management (ITR/SOC + IM): Sustainable and Generalizable Technologies to Support Collaboration in Science $ 2,400,000 9-00 2001 sustain
Total - FY 2001$ 18,724,889
"rights" 0 entries "justice" 0 entries
Non- Total Research Sustainability Sustainability Awards Research Research % Notes FY 1999$ 429,010,525 $419,465,022$ 9,545,503 2.2% (1) FY 2000$ 653,594,614 $640,879,266$ 12,715,348 1.9% (2) FY 2001$ 640,828,045 $622,103,156$ 18,724,889 2.9% (3) Average: 2.4% (1) 1999 Total Awards from 1999 Annual Report on Research, http://www.research.umich.edu/research/research_guide/annual_reports/FY99/99financial.summary.pdf (2) 2000 Total Awards from 2000 Annual Report on Research, http://www.research.umich.edu/research/research_guide/annual_reports/FY00/00.financial.summary.pdf (3) 2001 Total Awards from Annual Report on Research, http://www.research.umich.edu/research/research_guide/annual_reports/FY01/01regentsreport-app.html#6
401