fy13 sustainability & climate action report
DESCRIPTION
Ohio University's FY13 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Report.TRANSCRIPT
Ohio University
FY13 Sustainability &
Climate Action Report
Published: October 2013
Available electronically at www.ohio.edu/sustainability
Hard copies or PDF versions available by request only.
Send requests to [email protected].
On the cover:
Office of Sustainability Graduate Assistant,
Markie Miller, teaches volunteers about
garden management during a spring work day.
Photo credit: Megan Graver
Executive Summary 4-5
Benchmarks 6
Categorical Progress 7-58
Academics & Research 7
Land Management 15
Outreach & Reporting 19
Purchasing 29
Transportation 32
Waste 39
Fundraising & Endowment 47
Buildings & Energy Infrastructure 51
Climate Commitment 57-61
Climate Action Plan Report 60
Acknowledgements 62-63
Tab
le o
f C
on
ten
ts
Execu
tive
Sum
mary
Highlights:
The 2012-2013 academic year marked an exciting time for sustainability efforts at Ohio University:
In September 2012, the university published its first sustainability report.
In November 2012, President McDavis formally adopted the university’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), offi-
cially dissolving the Presidential Advisory Council for Sustainability Planning, putting implementation
oversight into the hands of the entire university.
In January 2013, the university established its formal reporting body, Sustainable Ohio University Lead-
ers (SOUL). This was created to streamline the sustainability implementation and communication pro-
cesses at the university and to allow for complete transparency in sustainability and carbon-neutrality
progress.
This issue of Ohio University’s Sustainability Report is the first to feature reporting progress made on
both the Sustainability Plan (adopted in Summer 2011) and the Climate Action Plan (adopted in Fall
2012).
Note on Reporting Data:
In an effort to offer a timely report, the inclusion of quantitative data in this report is, most commonly, post
-dated. That is to say that this report reflects quantitative data such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
and procurement data from FY12 and the qualitative, or programmatic, data from FY13. Since reporting
for quantitative data (particularly GHG emissions) requires a significant amount of time, the completion of
that data is not ready for reporting until January the following year. Where possible, we have noted the
date discrepancies.
Interpreting the Sustainability Report:
The Sustainability Report offers highlights, progress narratives, roadblocks and next steps for each of the
35 Benchmarks of the Ohio University Sustainability Plan. For ease of comprehension, each Benchmark
has been allocated at least one full page for reporting purposes (several Benchmarks required additional
space).
Changes from FY12 Report: The Sustainability Report that was published in October 2012 contained
“progress bars” which showed a level of completion that had been attained for each benchmark. Feedback
provided from the campus community suggested that such a reporting tool was both difficult to interpret
and lacked scientific verification of the assessment (since some of the benchmarks are qualitative and oth-
ers more quantitative). In response to this feedback, the progress bars have been removed in this issue of
Ohio University’s Sustainability Report.
4
Exe
cuti
ve S
um
mar
y
Interpreting the Climate Action Report:
This issue of the Sustainability Report is the first to contain a report on the Climate Action Plan
which was formally adopted in Fall 2012. In the interest of space and public comprehension, it was
decided that the Climate Action Plan report was best published as a separate section within the Sus-
tainability Plan. This was voted on by the Office of Sustainability staff as the most appropriate
mechanism since many of the goals within the Climate Action Plan align with various benchmarks of
the Sustainability Plan.
This inaugural issue of the Climate Action Report contains updates on progress made toward any
CAP goals that are approaching within 3 years. The full Climate Action Plan can be viewed online if
readers wish to review goals through the year 2075.
Publication Medium:
ISSUU (www.issuu.com) was selected as the publication medium for all documents published by the
Office of Sustainability. This includes the Sustainability Plan, Climate Action, Plan, Sustainability Re-
ports, Routes e-zine and other, longer documents. This format was selected in an effort to deter
unnecessary printing of large documents. The excessive paper, ink and energy consumed by
printing these documents were deemed contradictory to the Office of Sustainability’s mission. The
printing process associated with ISSUU is intentionally cumbersome so as to encourage users to re-
consider their printing needs. If anyone should need a PDF of these documents, however, they are
encouraged to email their request to [email protected].
Feedback:
The implementation and reporting mechanisms developed by the university are deeply dependent
on public feedback. We welcome any thoughts about the formatting of this plan, projections for
future action and suggestions for additional implementation items that could be accomplished in
the future. Feedback can be submitted electronically at the Office of Sustainability’s website.
Photo Credits:
Unless otherwise noted, all photographs were taken by OHIO staff or volunteers and are, therefore,
property of Ohio University. Please contact [email protected] if you wish to utilize any of the
photos in this document.
5
Prioritized Sustainability Plan Benchmarks: The following list of Sustainability Plan Benchmarks is listed in order of institutional priorities.
1 Reduce institutional greenhouse gas emissions
Note: Benchmark 1 encompasses the overarching goal of the Climate Action Plan
2 Reduce campus and building energy intensity
3 Increase renewable energy
4 LEED certify new buildings and major renovations on all campuses
5 Reduce solid waste
6 Institute annual sustainability profile tracking and assessment process
7 Increase recycling rates
8 Improve sustainability literacy of students, faculty and staff
9 Increase enrollment in sustainability-themed courses, majors, and programs
10 Integrate sustainability goals and objectives into capital campaign
11 Provide undergraduate students with a sustainability-focused major, degree program, or equivalent
12 Evaluate LEED EBOM of existing facilities
13 Prohibit the installation of permanent irrigation systems that rely on potable water
14 Increase purchase of local food
15 Improve identification and proper handling of hazardous waste
16 Improve sustainability profile of student, staff, and faculty vehicles
17 Institute storm water management plan
18 Improve sustainability profile of campus fleet
19 Increase use of green cleaning products
20 Increase the percentage of paper products on campus that include post-consumer recycled content
21 Assess endowment investment in sustainable corporations and entities and recommend strategies for
increasing investment in these corporations and entities
22 Implement recruitment strategies targeting sustainability-minded students, faculty, and staff
23 Strengthen sustainability research activities
24 Prohibit elective use of Styrofoam materials and containers
25 Sub-meter campus facilities
26 Practice Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
27 Decrease use of Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOV)
28 Increase purchase on non-food local goods and services and environmentally preferable goods
29 Increase purchase of environmentally preferable computer products
30 Provide information to diners regarding sustainability-attributes of food options
31 Develop sustainability guidelines for concessionaires and franchisees
32 Increase food donations to local service organizations
33 Encourage residency in City of Athens for Athens campus employees
34 Implement notification system for local service organizations regarding availability of surplus items
35 Define and track sustainability research activities
Be
nch
marks b
y Prio
rity
6
Aca
de
mic
s an
d R
ese
arch
7
Benchmark 8: Improve sustainability literacy of students, faculty, and staff Target and Date:
December, 2011 – Define ‘sustainability literacy’
June 2012 – establish ‘sustainability literacy’ baseline
Annually – increase sustainability literacy among students, faculty and staff by 5%
Acad
em
ics and
Re
search
Sustainable Ohio University Leaders (SOUL) was
founded and implementation meetings were held
weekly during Spring 2013 semester.
Highlights:
Student leader and SOUL member, Alex
Slaymaker, worked with a variety of campus
constituents to replace plastic bags at
orientation with post-consumer recycled content
paper bags for Orientation 2013. This is the first
step in increasing sustainability literacy and
improving the sustainable attributes of Bobcat
Student Orientation.
EECC hosted the Energy Efficiency for your Home event (pictured below) to assist Faculty and Staff increase their
personal sustainability literacy while reducing
their home energy bills.
Progress Overview:
The SOUL (Sustainable Ohio University Leaders) program, a liaison group aimed at assisting in further implementation of the
Sustainability Plan and Climate Action Plan, began in December 2012 and was active throughout Spring Semester 2013.
SOUL members (or, as we call them, SOULmates) have addressed many benchmarks in the Sustainability Plan and Climate
Action Plan. Various implementation strategies have been addressed and executed.
Baseline data collection on sustainability literacy of the student body is underway. A sustainability survey was administered
to all incoming first year students in the fall 2012 semester (70% response rate) and to exiting seniors at the end of the
spring 2013 semester (16% response rate) to assess literacy in the subject. This step will allow the University to track sus-
tainability of incoming classes and compare it to their level of sustainability literacy upon graduation of the university. The
first within-class comparison will be available once the class of 2016 takes the exiting sustainability survey (May 2016). A
brief overview of FY13 results are offered on the next page and full results can be viewed by following the link below the
graphs offered.
It should be noted that the Sustainability Literacy surveys have only been conducted on the student body. Surveys have yet
to be administered to faculty and staff since an appropriate mechanism yielding high response rates has yet to be deter-
mined. It is anticipated that the Common Experience Project on Sustainability (CEPS) will host a faculty/staff professional
development workshop in FY14. It is the hope of the Office of Sustainability that initial surveying can occur at that event.
Steps have been taken to integrate sustainability literacy into the Bobcat Student Orientation program, which occurs every
summer for incoming first year students. During the 2013 orientation, plastic bags that are handed out to students in
attendance will be replaced with post-consumer recycled bags. The bags will be imprinted with educational information on
sustainability.
8
Benchmark 8, cont’d:
Reporting Bodies: Ecology and Energy Conservation Committee, Office of Sustainability,
Common Experience Project on Sustainability, Sustainable Ohio University Leaders
Next Steps:
Over the next four years, data will be collected from incoming first year students and graduating seniors. Once the class of
2016 has taken both the incoming and exiting survey, baseline data can be obtained about the extent of sustainability litera-
cy gained while enrolled at Ohio University-Athens.
The baseline data on students has been collected and is provided on the following page. Moving forward, strategies to in-
fuse sustainability into the curriculum by the Common Experience Project on Sustainability will aim to increase student liter-
acy by 5% annually.
In FY14, it is recommended that Office of Sustainability work collaboratively with the Common Experience Project on Sus-
tainability to address and assess faculty and staff sustainability literacy.
SOUL will continue to be marketed and implemented. It is anticipated that SOUL’s growth will have a direct correlation with
increased comprehension of sustainability at OHIO.
Progress Overview, cont’d:
Human Resources has begun including Sustainability and Recycling in their New Employee Orientation sessions. This allows
the Office of Sustainability and the Office of Refuse and Recycling to offer comprehensive introductions to the sustainable
behavior expectations of OHIO faculty and staff and allows interested individuals to become further involved by partici-
pating in the efforts of SOUL.
Ecology and Energy Conservation Committee (EECC) committed to hosting additional programming relating to sustainability
and energy conservation. It is anticipated that, in line with their Spring 2013 Energy Conservation for the Home event,
these increased programmatic opportunities will target faculty and staff comprehension of sustainability-related concepts
and behaviors both in the workplace and in their personal lives.
Aca
de
mic
s an
d R
ese
arch
The Common Experience Project completed its first year under the sustainability theme.
Check out the video above to learn more about the project and other educational sustainability
9
Benchmark 8, cont’d. Sustainability Literacy Survey Data, Students:
Acad
em
ics and
Re
search
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
A B C D
First-Years
Graduates
1. What do you believe is the best defini-
tion of Sustainability?
A. Living within your means
B. Reduce, reuse, recycle
C. Eating a well-balanced diet
D. Meeting the needs of the present
without compromising the needs of
the future.
3. Have you calculated your own carbon
footprint?
A. Yes
B. No
C. What’s a Carbon Footprint?
2. What do you feel are the most important
aspects of sustainability?
A. Environmental preservation and con-
servation.
B. Social health and well-being
C. Economic vitality
D. All of the above
E. None of the above 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
A B C D E
First-Years
Graduates
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
A B C
First-Years
Graduates
A full-detailed review of both sets of survey results can be viewed on the Office of Sustainability’s Supplemental Data website.
Sustainability Literacy surveys were conducted on incoming first year students in Fall 2012 via the CIRP and on graduating
seniors via an emailed survey. Side-by-side results are offered here. Sustainability Literacy surveys have not yet been con-
ducted on faculty or staff.
10
Benchmark 9: Increase enrollment in sustainability-themed courses, majors and programs Target and Date:
December, 2011 – Define sustainability-themed courses, majors, and programs. Determine baseline
Annual – 5% increase in sustainability – themed course offerings and enrollment
Reporting Bodies: Common Experience Project on Sustainability, Ecology and Energy
Conservation Committee, Office of Sustainability, University College, Enrollment
Next Steps:
Office of Sustainability will assume responsibility for the continued tracking of sustainability courses now that a multi-year
baseline is established. Common Experience Project on Sustainability will encourage growth of these course offerings and as-
sist in the tracking/reporting of associated increases in the courses that are tracked.
Progress Overview:
Courses: Sustainability-Themed courses by academic term (includes undergraduate and graduate enrollment at all campuses):
Q=Quarter, S=Semester Majors: As of FY13, there were over 250 possible undergraduate majors offered at Ohio University. Of those, 15 were defined as “Sustainability-Themed,” allowing for 6% of institutional majors to qualify as sustainable. Programs: “Programs” at Ohio University are determined, for the sake of this benchmark, as all entities identified at the following link: http://www.ohio.edu/departments/programs.cfm. Of the 76 entities listed in FY13, one was identified as sustainability-themed (Environmental Studies), allowing for a baseline of 1.3% of institutional programs qualifying as sustainable. For more details regarding the process involved in establishing baseline data and the ongoing tracking of this information, please review the Supplemental Reporting Data for Benchmark 9.
Fall 2011 (Q)
Winter 2012 (Q)
Spring 2012 (Q)
Summer 2012 (Q)
Fall 2012 (S)
Spring 2013 (S)
Summer 2013 (S)
Fall 2013 (S) Subject to change
% of students enrolled in sus-tainability courses
2.2% 2.7% 2.4% 0.5% 3.1% N/A N/A N/A
% of classes de-fined as “sustainability-themed”
0.24% 0.34% 0.26% 0.18% 0.24% 0.22% 0.15% 0.23%
Aca
de
mic
s an
d R
ese
arch
“Sustainability Themed” has been defined to consider both “sustainability-focused” and “sustainability-related” content in an effort to be more inclusive of faculty efforts and to be compliant with national reporting processes.
“Sustainability-Focused” courses concentrate on the concept of sustainability, including its social, economic, and environ-mental dimensions, or examine an issue or topic using sustainability as a lens.
“Sustainability-Related” courses are courses which incorporate sustainability as a distinct course component or module or concentrate on a single sustainability principle or issue.
11
Benchmark 11: Provide undergraduate students with a sustainability- focused major, degree program, or equivalent Target and Date: 2015 – One major, degree program or equivalent
Acad
em
ics and
Re
search
The Honors Tutorial College has formalized the Environmental Studies undergraduate degree!
The first enrolled student will begin the program’s coursework in Fall 2013.
Highlight:
Student Spotlight:
Hallie Zarbakhsh is the first student to be accepted into the Environmental Studies undergraduate program offered by Honors Tutorial College and will begin classes for the program in Fall 2013. Office of Sustainability had the opportunity to interview Hallie about the program, her interests and her career goals:
How did you learn about this program? I had originally been enrolled in the Environmental and Plant Biology program at Ohio University. At my HTC interview, I learned about the upcoming (Environmental Studies) program. It had not been approved yet, so I actually wasn't officially part of the program until late summer. But hey, good things come to those who wait, right?
What made you choose to enroll in the program? Ever since I was eight years old( maybe sooner, maybe later, but eight is a good solid number) I knew I wanted to help the en-vironment. In my mind I was going to be the real world Captain Planet, eradicating pollution and setting the world back into balance. My parents are nature lovers, and took me to forests and lakes and shores so I could see how beautiful the world is. Years later, I wasn't sure exactly what I wanted to do, but I knew it had to revolve around the big blue ball that revolves around the Sun. Also, the one-on-one, self-tailored flexibility and possibility within the program was definitely a big push to get me into the Environmental Studies program.
What type of coursework can you expect to enroll in? This program is a very comprehensive smorgus board of opportunities. I am expected to take one tutorial each semester and have a solid background in natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. I had originally planned to be an environmen-tal scientist, but hard science isn't exactly my forte. Being in this program introduced me to the policy side of environmental-ism, which is in desperate need of a boost...I will have a background in the physical, political, and social aspects of the world.
What are your career goals and how will this program help you attain those goals? I’m still a little fuzzy on what I want to do. Hmmm…right now I am thinking about being an environmental lawyer, and working for a non-profit like Earth Justice. I am interested in human rights just as much as ecological ones, which not-so-surprisingly go hand in hand. I’ve also considered choosing a path along the lines of international relations, and being a sort of “environmental diplomat” between nations. Or maybe I’ll become a druid. It all depends.
My program is tailored specifically to me, and I get to take the classes I want to as long as they fit a certain set of specifica-tions. I also have a fantastic support network to teach, support, and direct me along the way. These include my Director of Studies, Geography professor Dr. Geoff Buckley, a fantastic mentor and all around cool guy, Dr. Harold Perkins, a political ge-ographer that got me interested in environmental justice, Dr. Geoff Dabelko of the Voinovich School, who has worked for the Smithsonian Institute and teaches environmental diplomacy, regulation, and communication between divisions, Dr. Debatin, the HTC Journalism DOS who teaches a mean Environmental and Science Journalism class, complete with comprehensive local field trips, and more professors I will meet in the future. This is a preeminent shout out.
Anything else you’d like to share with us? I am enthralled with the scope of sustainable and innovative opportunities at OU. From the clubs to the classes to the Voinovich school, the Eco House and the student gardens, the Campus Involvement Cen-ter environmental justice spring break trip (check it out!), and other programs I can’t wait to integrate myself into this kaleido-scope of awesome. Also, my favorite color is glitter. That is all.
12
Reporting Body: Provost
Benchmark 23: Strengthen sustainability research activities Target and Date:
2012-2013: 24% increase in full-time faculty engaged in sustainability research and 75% increase in sustainability research in all
academic departments and centers by 2020 or a 5% increase per year in each category beginning 2012-2013.
Reporting Bodies: Center for Excellence in Energy and Environment (CE3),
Common Experience Project on Sustainability and Office of Research and Sponsored Programs
Next Steps:
It is necessary to increase encouragement of faculty engaging in sustainability
research activities. We are hopeful that increased faculty professional devel-
opment programming led by the Common Experience Project on Sustainability
will offer additional education about sustainability, encourage increased re-
search on the topic and provide insights into some of the obstacles that faculty
may encounter in trying to accommodate this benchmark.
Additional conversations regarding financial incentive programs should occur
in FY14. Please see the “Progress Overview” in the report for Benchmark 10
for more information about this recommended Next Step.
Progress Overview:
In FY12, 55 faculty were identified as currently engaged in sustainability re-
search activities. In FY 13, 76 faculty were identified as currently engaged in
sustainability research activities. That yields at 72% overall increase in faculty
engaged in sustainability research activities.
Though, we are aware that we are not adequately capturing all institutional
research in sustainability (see Benchmark 35 for a more thorough overview of
the tracking process and plans for future initiatives). We recognize that there is
a great need to better educate our researchers about the definition of sustaina-
bility, encourage increased and continued investments in sustainability research
and incentivize faculty efforts toward sustainable research endeavors.
The Target and Date of this benchmark focus purely on the research of OHIO
faculty. It is important, however, to note that a large number of students are
focusing their academic research on topics relating to sustainability. Since this
Benchmark currently requires tracking of faculty data only, this report is not
inclusive of student research and their associated faculty supporters. We ap-
plaud the effective research efforts of our students and will continue to support
and encourage increased sustainability research activities of our talented stu-
dent body.
Aca
de
mic
s an
d R
ese
arch
Highlight:
FY13 data yields a 72% overall increase in faculty engaged in sustainability research.
Above: Student researcher, Alexander
Doksa, featured his work with Acid Mine
Drainage at the Spring 2013 Student Expo.
Obstacles:
Currently, there is no centralized system
that reports on all faculty-led research at
the university. Therefore, we must rely
on faculty self-reporting efforts to offer
data on progress made within this
benchmark. We recognize a need to
offer incentives for conducting sustaina-
bility research but lack the financial
means to do so at this time.
13
Benchmark 35: Define and track sustainability research activities Target and Date:
July 2011: Define ‘sustainability research activities’
September 2011: Conduct inventory of sustainability research activities by faculty, department, collaboration, awards and award
dollars
Reporting Bodies: Office of Research and Sponsored Programs,
Center for Excellence in Energy and Environment, Office of Sustainability
Next Steps:
It is important to encourage faculty to self-report
their research practices to the Office of Sustaina-
bility so we may more adequately capture a com-
prehensive list of current sustainability-related
research at Ohio University. It is recommended
that SOUL work to assist with marketing the need
for self-reporting.
Office of Sustainability will work with Center for
Excellence in Energy and Environment to stream-
line their current reporting efforts, yielding more
efficient and accurate results for both offices an-
nually.
Progress Overview:
In FY12, a definition of sustainability research activities was
created: “Sustainability” research activities must be multidisci-
plinary and must advance knowledge in all three of the tenets
of sustainability: preserving the planet, promoting a strong
economy and fostering healthy populations.
It was determined that research activities that would be in-
cluded in the inventory of sustainability research activities
would include controlled terms from each of the three tenets
of sustainability.
A list of controlled terms for sustainability research activities
was created. Annually, the Office of Sustainability searches
institutional databases for the presence of these controlled
terms in current institutional research. Additionally, we work
with the Consortium for Energy, Economics and the Environ-
ment to track research being performed by faculty through
the CE3 program.
An inventory of 76 faculty members potentially conducting
current research has been created and is publicly available.
This inventory was merged with a similar inventory created
by the Center for Excellence in Energy and Environment
(CE3). To avoid future duplicative work, it was decided that
Office of Sustainability will work with CE3 to collaborate on
the development of future reporting inventories.
Acad
em
ics and
Re
search
Highlight:
A current inventory of known sustainability-research activities (including faculty name, department,
collaborating parties and overall award dollars) has been collected and is available for viewing online.
Faculty are encouraged
to self-report their
sustainability-related
research activities
through an online form
available on the Office of
Sustainability website.
14
Lan
d a
nd
Re
sou
rce
Man
age
me
nt
15
Benchmark 13: Prohibit the installation of permanent irrigation systems that rely on potable water Target and Date: Total ban by June 2011
Reporting Bodies: Design and Construction, Facilities Management, Office of Sustainability
Next Steps:
Various entities across campus will continue to work to-
gether to develop formalized design standards that ex-
plicitly prohibit this action that is currently practiced on
our campus.
Additionally, plans created by Residential Housing will
assist in future developments in this areas.
Progress Overview:
Design and Construction, Office of Sustainability and the
Office of Recycling and Refuse are collaborating to devel-
op amendments to the university’s current Design Stand-
ards. These amendments would include the prohibition
of irrigation systems that utilize potable water.
University irrigation practices currently utilize a grey-
water system through a retention pond at the university
golf course. Additional greywater systems will need to
exist to maintain environmentally preferable practices.
Land
and
Re
sou
rce Man
agem
en
t
Highlights: What is potable water and
why is it such a big deal?
Although a foreign term to many Americans, potable water
(pronounced pote-able) simply refers to water that is safe for
human consumption. The Safe Drinking Water Act, passed by
Congress in 1974, is the law that ensures that safe drinking
water in America is, in fact, safe. The United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) sets the standards that water
needs to pass in order to be considered potable water.
Although non-potable water is not safe for human consump-
tion, it does not mean that it has no use. Non-potable water
can come from various sources, including rainwater runoff, air
conditioner condensate, and greywater collection. Greywater
refers to water that has been used for another purpose, such
as to run an appliance (dishwasher, shower, washing machine)
or to wash your hands or do the dishes. It cannot include hu-
man, organic or toxic waste. Once the water has been used, it
is no longer safe to drink but can be re-used in other ways in
place of potable water. Irrigating lawns, trees, and gardens
and flushing a toilet are all activities that can safely use non-
potable water, thus preserving safe drinking water for its’ in-
tended purpose.
Benchmark 13 indicates that Ohio University is making an
effort to avoid using potable water for any permanent irriga-
tion system on campus. Although this is a large-scale effort,
individuals can do their part to conserve potable water use in
their own homes by substituting for non-potable water when
appropriate. Small-scale efforts might include a rainwater
collection barrel or air conditioner condensate collection sys-
tem to use throughout the yard for irrigation purposes. The
air conditioner condensate collection system is especially use-
ful in warm, humid climates and can salvage multiple gallons
per day! A greywater collection system can also be installed
indoors and direct the water to be used to flush a toilet. Prac-
tices such as these ensure that water that can be re-used is
not being unnecessarily wasted.
Current general operating procedures implemented by
the Office of Design and Construction at Ohio University
restrict permanent irrigation systems that rely on potable
water.
OHIO’s Residential Housing department is currently in
the design phase of an exciting new residential hall build-
ing. Staff within that department are excited to explore
options for greywater storage and usage. It is anticipated
that the leadership shown by Residential Housing will be
able to serve as a model for future construction practices
at Ohio University.
16
Benchmark 17: Institute storm water management plan Target and Date: Plan adopted June 2012
Reporting Body: Design and Construction
Next Steps:
Ohio University’s Office of Design and Construction
will continue to work with the City of Athens to fur-
ther identify partnership opportunities. Should for-
mal agreements be developed, though will be added
to the institution’s design standards and included in
this report accordingly.
OU Southern celebrated its one year anniversary of
installing pervious concrete in August 2013. It is
anticipated that they’ll be able to offer best practic-
es to Design and Construction as time goes on.
Lan
d a
nd
Re
sou
rce
Man
age
me
nt
Regional Campus Highlight:
In August 2012, Ohio University’s Southern campus became
the first of OHIO’s campuses to install Pervious Concrete in an
effort to encourage increased sustainability in its storm water
management efforts. This Pervious Concrete was installed in
a high traffic parking lot that had, previously, been subject to
flooding during heavy rains. The “holes” in the concrete al-
lows for water to be filtered through layers of concrete, grav-
el. sand and soil so as to reduce the load on the city’s storm
sewers and to protect the groundwater from contamination
commonly caused by parking lot runoff.
Above: The Pervious Con-
crete parking lot at OU
Southern. Left: A close-up
view of the pervious con-
crete contrasted by the non-
pervious concrete.
Below: OU Southern has instituted other storm water
management efforts such as a n underground reten-
tion area (pictured below) to mitigate flooding from
run-off during intense storms.
17
Progress Overview:
As an institution committed to green building prac-
tices, all new construction and renovations on any
Ohio University campus will consider a storm water
management plan. As the university began its design
phase for the Housing Development Plan in FY13, it
was clear that considerable measures must be taken
to manage volume and water quality control, espe-
cially with the project’s proximity to the Hocking Riv-
er. A feasibility study conducted by the engineering
firm Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. led
the university to actively seek a partnership with the
City of Athens and the Hocking Conservancy on storm
water management practices. The resulting efforts
suggested that all entities will work together now and
into the future by holistically approaching storm wa-
ter management to appropriately share access to
release points along the Hocking River. While a for-
mal, written agreement does not yet exist between
these entities, such a valuable and proactive partner-
ship on best practices suggests that future efforts on
campus and in the city will offer significant benefits
to the quality of waters and soils in Southeast Ohio.
Many times, a storm water management plan can be
difficult to see with the naked eye. Though, in FY13,
Ohio University completed construction of a sophisti-
cated storm water management plan at the Compost
Facility on the Athens campus. Tours of this facility
can be requested through online Tour Request Form.
Benchmark 26: Practice Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Target and Date: Plan adopted by 2011
Reporting Bodies: Design and Construction, Facilities Management/Campus Grounds
Next Steps:
Office of Sustainability will work collabo-ratively with campus grounds to formal-ize these IPM procedures by incorpo-rating written information of these strat-egies into training manuals and/or gen-eral operating procedures.
Progress Overview:
Currently, it is estimated that all grounds are maintained with a minimum of
85% compliance toward an Integrated Pest Management Program.
Campus Grounds and Environmental Health and Safety work collaboratively
to limit chemical spray treatments of non-aggressive pest management.
Insecticide is used only on an emergency basis across campus; manual labor
of hand-picking is the preferred practice for pest management on campus
grounds.
Such efforts significantly reduce the water and toxins utilized on our
grounds, making the soil, habitats and human population healthier.
It should also be noted that signage is offered in all locations where such
practices are in place in an attempt to educate our campus of these oper-
ating procedures.
Land
and
Re
sou
rce Man
agem
en
t
We need a picture here….
Highlights:
What is Integrated
Pest Management?
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is
a responsible approach to the eradi-
cation of pests in human-managed
spaces such as campus grounds,
home gardens/landscapes, and agri-
cultural land.
IPM eliminates the need for petrole-
um-based insecticides and favors
natural solutions to pest manage-
ment by considering soil needs, crop
rotations, natural predators, pest life
-spans and more.
Insecticides contain harmful chemi-
cals that can destroy soils, kill benefi-
cial pests, or even cause harm to the
health humans and their pets. Addi-
tionally, the materials used to create
insecticides have a large carbon foot-
print.
Ohio University recognizes the im-
portance of eliminating these toxins
and carbon-intensive materials from
our landscapes.
Approximately 85% of current university grounds keeping prac-
tices comply with an Integrated Pest Management Approach.
Below: A student reads a sign about OHIO IPM practices.
18
Ou
tre
ach
an
d R
ep
orti
ng
19
Benchmark 6: Institute annual sustainable profile tracking and assessment process Target and Date: Formal mechanism implemented within 3 months of Sustainability Plan adoption
Reporting Bodies: Sustainable Ohio University Leaders, Office of Sustainability,
Ecology and Energy Conservation Committee
Next Steps:
This report will continue to evolve
through feedback from readers re-
garding its ease of comprehension
and readability.
As noted to the left: All individuals
are invited to offer feedback regard-
ing this document, its layout, medium
and contents by completing an online
Feedback Form. All feedback gath-
ered through this form will be com-
piled, discussed and considered in
next year’s report.
Progress Overview:
The document at hand serves as the annual tracking and assessment process for
internal reporting of the Sustainability Plan.
All individuals are invited to offer feedback regarding this document, its layout,
medium and contents by completing an online Feedback Form. All feedback
gathered through this form will be compiled, discussed and considered in next
year’s report.
Additionally, it should be noted that the Office of Sustainability reports to numer-
ous external agents such as American College and University Presidents’ Climate
Commitment and the Princeton Review. Additional reporting pieces are sub-
mitted to agencies to which the university does not formally belong at this junc-
ture (such as the Sustainability Tracking and Assessment Reporting Tool through
the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education).
Ou
treach
and
Re
po
rtin
g
Highlights:
The Sustainability Report contains a minimum of
one page per Benchmark for comprehensive and
transparent reporting of each item. The Climate
Action Plan has been included in this report, pub-
lished annually in October/November of each year.
This report is strategically published through an
online tool called ISSUU that reduces ease of
printing. Should an individual require a format of
this document that can be printed, a request for a
PDF version can be sent to [email protected].
This year’s format has been changed slightly from
the FY12 report in response to excellent feedback
from our campus community. Thank you!
20
Benchmark 22: Implement recruitment strategies targeting sustainability-minded students, faculty and staff Target and Date: Fall 2012: use the sustainability profile of the school as a tool to recruit students with an expressed interest in
sustainability. Faculty and staff will be recruited based on an expressed interest in sustainability and environmental issues.
Reporting Bodies: Human Resources, Undergraduate Admissions, Office of Sustainability
Next Steps:
University College has been instrumental in assisting
with further recruitment tactics relating to sustainability.
They have graciously arranged to allow an Office of Sus-
tainability graduate student to participate in a Bobcat
Student Orientation session and a campus tour in sum-
mer 2013. Participation in these activities will allow the
Office of Sustainability to determine what additional
sustainability-related information can be provided to
students during the campus tour.
Additional efforts must be taken, though, to offer in-
creased information to prospective students, faculty and
staff. Current students and employees are invited to
offer feedback regarding where they personally
searched for information about Ohio University prior to
committing to working and learning here. Such infor-
mation will help us to better determine where infor-
mation is lacking or inappropriately posted.
Feedback can be submitted electronically through the
Office of Sustainability’s online Feedback Form.
Progress Overview:
Current student recruitment materials do contain infor-
mation about sustainability efforts at the university.
Though, SOULmates all agree that more information can
be provided to incoming students.
Human Resources is entering a new employee recruitment
campaign featuring videos of current employees. Office of
Sustainability will be included in the content of this video
project so as to offer more information to prospective em-
ployees about sustainability at the university and in the
region.
In FY13, the sustainability profile of the university was
highlighted in Princeton Review’s Guide to 322 Green Col-
leges. Since the Princeton Review is utilized by many
young students as a resource for selecting a college or uni-
versity, Ohio University is honored to be selected as one of
these top schools.
“Sustainability” is offered a relatively prominent location
on the Ohio University webpage (under the “About” sec-
tion). This web-based location offers excellent visibility to
prospective campus community members.
Ou
tre
ach
an
d R
ep
orti
ng
Highlights:
Human Resources is entering a new employee recruitment campaign featuring videos of current employees.
Office of Sustainability will be included in the content of this video project.
Current student recruitment materials do contain information about sustainability efforts at the university.
In FY13, the Office of Sustainability moved office locations to the Bingham House. It is at this location where visi-
tors must stop to receive a visitor parking pass. In an effort to provide additional information to visiting prospec-
tive students, Office of Sustainability provides informational materials at either entrance of this building.
21
Benchmark 30: Provide information to diners regarding sustainability-attributes of food options Target and Date: Labeling and marketing program by 2012
Reporting Bodies: Ohio University Auxiliaries, Atrium Café and Kennedy Museum Café
Next Steps:
The icon system in the Dining Courts/
Halls is exceptionally beneficial for the
ease of finding the sustainability-
attributes one may be looking for.
However, this program does not edu-
cate those diners who are not already
personally invested in a low-carbon
diet. Therefore, additional education
and outreach needs to occur in an
effort for students to better understand
their connection to sustainability
through their plate.
Office of Sustainability will work closely
with Culinary Services to ensure that
diners understand the importance of
investigating the origin, type and quali-
ty of their food products.
Additionally, these entities will work to
better define “sustainability” as it re-
lates to campus food products and die-
tary needs.
Progress Overview:
Campus residents and guests who are interested in consuming foods with a low
carbon footprint, or items that are locally produced/manufactured, are invited to
utilize Culinary Services’ Nutritional Icon Guide. These informative, color-coded
icons are displayed on Culinary Services' website (www.ohio.edu/food) and within
each of their venues. Such icons were designed to help students and guests to not
only better understand Culinary Services' meticulous food preparation process,
but the numerous special food options available to them as well. Furthermore,
each icon empowers customers to select foods that better meet their needs as a
responsible and sustainable member of the Ohio University campus community.
Additionally a variety of sustainability-related educational programs occurred in
the OHIO Residential Dining Courts/Halls in FY13.
A student intern in the Office of Sustainability, Austin Stahl, hosted a “Food
Waste Reduction Week” in Nelson Court in April 2013. The week’s events
featured an educational table set-up in the dining hall explaining the im-
portance of reducing diner food waste, a significant source of waste at OHIO.
Surveys assisted in discerning the motivations behind diner-generated food
waste in an effort to help curb this activity in the future.
Culinary Services, in partnership with the Culinary Services Development
Committee (CSDC) has plans to partner with other campus entities and pro-
vide a free reusable bag to all 2013-2014 residential students on a meal plan.
Ou
treach
and
Re
po
rtin
g
Highlights:
Culinary Services provides a variety of sustainable and/or local food
options in the Dining Courts/Halls. Guests can utilize the icon sys-
tem (provided on the following page) to find the food items that fit
their interests and dietary needs.
Atrium Café in Grover Center on the Athens Campus was
recognized as a “Certified Green Restaurant” by the National Green
Restaurant Association. It should be noted that Atrium Café is an
entity separate from Auxiliaries which manages the Dining Courts/
Halls. Right: Atrium Café staff pictured with their designation logo.
(the logo is pictured in the bottom right corner)
22
Ou
tre
ach
an
d R
ep
orti
ng
23
Ou
treach
and
Re
po
rtin
g
Above:
“From Garbage to Garden” artwork.
Student sustainability leaders, Alex Slaymaker and Austin Stahl, collaborated with OHIO students, faculty and staff in the creation
of an original educational "Garbage to Garden" poster that explains the campus composting process and its importance to the
community. Posters were professionally framed and positioned near key composting points within every campus
Dining Court/Hall and West 82 Food Court in Baker University Center.
24
Pu
rch
asin
g
25
Benchmark 14: Increase purchase of local food Target and Date: 0.5% per year between 2011 and 2016
Reporting Bodies: Ohio University Auxiliaries,
Atrium Café, Kennedy Museum Café
Next Steps:
Ohio University Auxiliaries has made a deep and
meaningful commitment to streamline their re-
porting processes in an effort to offer transparent
reports to the campus community. In the coming
years, “local” food products will be highlighted in
the bid process so as to ensure that an increase in
local purchases and accurate reporting can occur.
Office of Sustainability will assist Ohio University
Auxiliaries by providing guidelines to food provid-
ers regarding the tracking requests of “local”
foods.
Additionally, increased diner marketing will occur.
The Customer Appreciation Day event noted
above was very well received, and Culinary Ser-
vices looks forward to hosting a similar event in
Spring 2014.
Current data is only requested from Auxiliaries
venues. It is suggested that future reporting be
required of Atrium Café & Kennedy Museum Café.
Pu
rchasin
g
Highlights:
Culinary Services regularly offers students and employees the
opportunity to buy locally produced/packaged food items
within many of their venues, including West 82 Food Court in
Baker University Center and their Campus Markets.
Obstacles:
Since Ohio University is deeply connected to a community that values
the local food movement, it is important to note the many obstacles
that must be addressed in the advancement of this Benchmark.
Previous food tracking processes limited the university’s ability to
track local food purchases. Therefore, no baseline data exists prior
to the current fiscal year. In FY13, Auxiliaries developed advanced
tracking mechanisms, though growth rates cannot yet be tracked.
OHIO’s streamlined food preparation process demands that prod-
ucts be standardized, an offering that many local farmers cannot
yet provide.
Culinary Services must ensure that their HACCP (Hazard Analysis
and Critical Control Points) Plan and state procurement procedures
are followed. They are currently identifying opportunities to source
more locally within that framework.
Many smaller, local food producers do not have electronic invoice
processes, making business transactions more cumbersome.
In March, in an effort to further inform customers of the
local products and services available to them on OHIO's cam-
pus, Culinary Services hosted a Customer Appreciation Day
and invited local vendors to showcase and sell their products
at West 82 Food Court, a centrally-located OHIO student/
faculty/staff environment in Baker University Center.
Progress Overview:
Baseline data was obtained so that future efforts may progress. In the current reporting year, OHIO purchased $554,835.72
in food items produced by local farmers/manufacturers (out of a total of $11,144,760). Thus, 4.98% of the overall institution-
al annual spend on food items is dedicated to local food. A .5% increase will suggest that the university be able to report that
$610,732.85 was spent on local food items, an increase of $55,897.13 (numbers are approximate as they assume no change in
overall spend).
26
Benchmark 19: Increase use of green cleaning products Target and Date: Exclusive use of certified products when available and competitively priced.
Reporting Body: Facilities Management
Next Steps:
Facilities Management will continue to
pursue “Green Cleaning” measures in
their general operating proce-
dures. Regular research will be conduct-
ed to continue to pursue the products
with the most sustainable ratings that
can offer the end result required to up-
hold Ohio University’s standards for
sanitation.
Progress Overview:
The university follows a Green Cleaning procedure for all buildings. Recent track-
ing of custodial materials and supplies for buildings (including paper, cleaning
products, cleaning supplies and equipment such as vacuums and extractors) indi-
cates that 47% of Facilities Management’s purchases are considered “green” by
LEED standards. We’ll include a link to OU’s LEED Green Cleaning standards de-
veloped for 15 Park Place.
All custodial staff are trained a minimum of once per year on the institution’s
“green cleaning” and recycling procedures.
Pu
rch
asin
g
47% of custodial materials and supplied purchased by Facilities
Management are considered “green” by the standards established
by United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED).
Highlights:
Right: Green Cleaning at Home: Ohio University’s Office of Sustainability can
provide residential students with “Natural Cleaning” workshops for their
residence halls, fraternity/sorority houses or apartments. To schedule a
hands-on presentation for your floor, club or organization, complete an
online request form a minimum of two weeks in advance of your desired
date. See URL below for more information about these workshops.
Are you interested in learning more about Green Cleaning?
Resident Assistants, student organizations, or other campus community members
can request a “Natural Cleaning” workshop from the Office of Sustainability by
submitting an online request form: http://author.oit.ohio.edu/sustainability/programs/EcoSkills.cfm 27
Benchmark 20: Increase the percentage of paper products on campus that include post-consumer recycled content Target and Date: 75% of all annual paper products purchased will include at least 40% PCC by June 2012.
Reporting Body: Procurement Services
Progress Overview:
For the sake of this benchmark, the reports supplied to the Office of Sustainabil-
ity from the Procurement office contained quantities, prices and recycled con-
tent details of all purchases made through Office Max for the past two fiscal
years. The products included in this report consisted of:
Copier Paper
Manila Folders
Hanging Folders
Toilet Paper
Hand Towels
Miscellaneous Paper Products
Obstacles:
Pu
rchasin
g
Highlights:
The data supplied here is not exhaustive. The paper products reported here
are only those products that were purchased through Office Max, the Univer-
sity’s current supplier. We understand that this data must be interpreted
with the understanding that we have an unknown margin of error since insti-
tutional employees may purchase paper supplies for office use with their uni-
versity issued Purchasing Card (credit card), which will not track the level of
product specifications that are required for this type of reporting.
The Procurement Office has supplied the Office of Sustainability with two years’ worth of paper purchasing data.
This allowed for baseline data to be interpreted so that future progress is possible.
Next Steps:
Office of Sustainability will continue to
work with the Procurement Office to
obtain data regarding practices sur-
rounding the purchase of paper prod-
ucts on campus. This will allow us to
assess the purchasing practices utilized
on campus and determine future
efforts surrounding education and out-
reach to purchasing managers.
SOUL will analyze these processes and
propose action items that will assist in
advancing this benchmark.
Since the deadline for achievement of
this benchmark was not achieved, this
Benchmark will be advanced on SOUL’s
priority listing of benchmarks for FY14.
What is “PCC”?
“PCC” stands for Post Consumer Recy-
cled Content. This means that the re-
cycled content materials used in the
products are recovered from previous-
ly utilized resources recycled by anoth-
er consumer.
Conversely, “Pre Consumer” recycled
content means that the materials used
in the product were merely recovered
during the actual manufacturing pro-
cess.
“Post Consumer” Recycled Content
products are considered to be more
environmentally conscious purchases.
Total amount
spent on paper
products
Amount
containing
40%+ PCC
Percentage
of PCC
FY12 $119,652.12 $62,551.29 52%
FY13 $114,789.02 $96,296.17 46%
28
Benchmark 24: Encourage use of sustainable and/or recyclable materials and containers in place of polystyrene by developing environmen-tally preferable purchasing guidelines Target and Date: Develop and distribute Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Guidelines to the campus community by Decem-
ber 2013.
Reporting Bodies: Procurement Services, Office of Sustainability, Common Experience Project
on Sustainability.
Next Steps:
Common Experience Project on Sustainability and Office of
Sustainability will continue to encourage participation in
class projects that positively impact this, and other, Bench-
marks.
Office of Sustainability will work to encourage advance-
ment in this area.
A Special Note About This Benchmark:
It should be noted that the language of this Benchmark was amended in FY13. The primary change was that of altering the language from “Styrofoam” to “polystyrene” to be more inclusive of non-biodegradable materials. The overall lan-guage of the Benchmark was altered to encourage positive purchasing decisions rather than condemn certain purchas-ing behaviors. No other efforts made toward this Benchmark have seen significant advancement yet.
Pu
rch
asin
g
Highlights:
Sustainable Ohio University Leaders (SOUL) have identified this as an excellent class project. It has been included in the
Common Experience Project for Sustainability (CEPS) sustainable project list for FY14. Faculty interested in assisting with
this effort are invited to email [email protected].
Class Project Ideas to Support Progress:
Assistance with the advancement of this benchmark is need-ed by several different classes.
Research and Public Speaking:
SOUL would like to enlist the support of a class charged with engaging in a research project. Significant research regarding comprehensive Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Guide-lines for an institution of this size must be completed. Then, we wish for interpretation of that research to yield recom-mendations of realistic guidelines to be pitched to the Pro-curement department at Ohio University.
Marketing:
It is important for responsible purchasing guidelines to be effectively marketed to those employees on campus who are responsible for making purchases for the university. A com-prehensive and long-term marketing plan needs to be created and implemented. This plan should consider the long-term maintenance of the marketing strategies utilized.
A full listing of the
Sustainable Class Project List
is available online.
All faculty are encouraged to re-
view this list of projects that are
in need of support.
Faculty interested in assisting
with this effort are invited to
email [email protected].
29
Benchmark 28: Increase purchase of non-food local goods and services and environmentally preferable goods. Target and Date: 0.5% per year between 2011 and 2016.
Pu
rchasin
g
Reporting Body: Procurement Services
Progress Overview:
Non-Food Local Goods and Services: Purchasing in-
formation has been provided by OHIO Procurement
Services. While initial interpretation has occurred, the
complexity of this report has proven that additional
staffing and/or student volunteers and interns are
needed to be able to appropriately interpret this data.
Environmentally Preferable Goods: A formal request
was submitted by Procurement Services (with support
from the Office of Sustainability) to SciQuest, in col-
laboration with other institutions throughout the
country, to formally request improvements to this
tracking feature.
Obstacles:
Highlights:
Office of Sustainability received, from Procurement Services, data regarding the purchase of all goods and services on cam-
pus. While receipt of such a large amount of information has offered great insights into the university’s purchasing practic-
es, it should be noted that the interpretation of this data includes a large margin of error for the sake of this benchmark.
Non-Food Local Goods and Services: For purchases made through direct means such as Purchase Orders and Direct Pay-
ments, the university is able to track location of the purchase and we will, thus, be able to offer quantitative data on such
purchases in the near future. Unfortunately, many purchases for the university are made on credit cards that do not, nec-
essarily, track the location of the purchase and, certainly, not the point of origin for the products purchase. In fact, initial
analysis suggests that 62% of the purchases made in the past fiscal year contained no location data. Additional interpreta-
tion needs to occur in order to provide reliable baseline data. It will be possible to then determine the current status of
purchasing practices surrounding non-food local goods/services and environmentally preferable goods and SOUL will be
able to recommend actions necessary for improving those purchasing practices in order to comply with this benchmark.
Environmentally Preferable Goods: The “environmentally preferable” attributes of purchases is currently a more difficult
piece to track through the existing features of SciQuest (OHIO’s procurement software). Without improved infrastructure
from this software, the university is unable to offer a comprehensive report on purchasing practices.
Procurement Services was able to provide Office of Sustainability with comprehensive reports containing data on each pur-
chase made by the university for the past two fiscal years. Due to time constraints, though, that data has not yet been inter-
preted. Office of Sustainability is in need of student volunteers or interns who can assist with data interpretation. Once that
information is available, this report will be updated online.
Next Steps:
Office of Sustainability has already received the data for next
year’s report. Therefore, the office is uniquely poised to dedi-
cate time to proper interpretation and tracking efforts in the
coming year. It will also allow SOUL to spend time learning
more about OHIO’s current and past practices surrounding the
purchase of non-food local goods and services. Continued sup-
port of increased offerings from SciQuest will also occur.
Since it was discovered that the data necessary for this report is
so in-depth, it is suggested that Office of Sustainability work to
obtain this data by January of each academic year so as to have
appropriate time to interpret the large quantity of data provid-
ed.
SOUL will analyze data, once received, and propose action items
that will assist in achieving progress toward this benchmark.
30
Benchmark 29: Increase purchase of environmentally preferable computer products Target and Date: 75% of all annual computer products purchased rated EPEAT Gold or better by FY2012
Reporting Bodies: Technology Depot, Procurement Services
Next Steps:
In Fall 2013, SOULmates will provide
TechDepot with marketing ideas to en-
courage increased use of TechDepot
and, thus, support their efforts toward
environmentally preferable computer
products. Additional SOULmates will
offer TechDepot a one-page overview of
EPEAT Gold to provide to their employ-
ees so they may be strong advocates of
these efforts.
Although data can be collected through
TechDepot and Bobcat Buy, it is not cur-
rently feasible to attain computer pur-
chasing data from additional outside
resources. This will continue to be a
roadblock in completing the target of
this benchmark.
Progress Overview:
EPEAT, or Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool, registers electronic
products that meet certain environmental criteria. According to the EPEAT web-
site, these criteria address:
Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
Material selection
Design for end of life
Product longevity/life extension
Energy conservation
End-of-life management
Corporate performance
Packaging
Consumables (unique to Imaging Equipment standard)
Indoor Air Quality (unique to Imaging Equipment standard) TechDepot currently offers 57 EPEAT gold-certified products. FY12 marks the
year with the highest reported sales in EPEAT Gold products with 1,255 EPEAT
gold products purchased. A final percentage of overall products purchased will
become available as further data from FY12 is appropriately interpreted.
Pu
rch
asin
g
Highlights:
SOUL members held a meeting with Technology Depot to learn more
about their EPEAT Gold rated program and to establish support mecha-
nisms to promote their efforts. It should be noted that Technology Depot
is careful to only create relationships with companies that offer quality
products that are rated EPEAT Gold or higher. Technology Depot’s com-
mitment to sustainable practices should be applauded!
Obstacles:
A comprehensive quantitative report is not yet available. Additional staffing is needed in the Office of Sustainability to appropriately inter-pret data supplied by Procurement. Initial data suggests that 100% of the 4,228,858.60 in Apple and Dell computer sales in FY12 are rated EPEAT Gold or better. Though, during the coming academic year, Office of Sustainability staff will work to verify that each model pur-chased through university funds does, indeed, qualify for this environ-mental rating.
31
Benchmark 31: Develop sustainability guidelines for concessionaires and franchisees Target and Date: Guidelines developed by June 30, 2012.
Reporting Bodies: Procurement Services, OHIO Auxiliaries, Athletics, Office of Sustainability
Progress Overview:
Since Ohio University Auxiliaries has no concessionaires and franchisees, this report will, instead, focus on the university’s con-
tract for Pouring Rights, Juice, Vended Snacks and Iced Tea. This contract, awarded to PepsiCo in 2012, includes the following
sustainability requirements:
Support for Recycling – Plastic containers must meet all FDA requirements for such packaging and must be recyclable as per
the unique recycling programs at each OHIO campus. Products with packaging that contain a minimum of 30% Post-Consumer
Materials (PCM) are preferred.
Waste Reduction – Packaging of materials must work to decrease the overall waste from operations related to this contract
(packaging, beverage containers, reusable/refillable products, etc.). Note: In accordance with the Ohio University Sustainabil-
ity Plan, the use of polystyrene foam (Styrofoam) materials on OHIO Campuses is prohibited. Composting: As Ohio University
is a nationwide leader in institutional composting, it is expected that products and packaging sold or used by the supplier will
contribute to the overall success of the composting program at the Athens campus. It is expected that significant and unique
waste reduction efforts related to this contract will occur at special events such as Move-In, Homecoming and Bobcat Student
Orientation and will be hosted and/or supported by the supplier.
Energy Conservation – The University will favor proposals that incorporate the collective use of energy conservation initiatives
(such as the installation of vending misers and preference toward appliances that automatically transition to standby mode
during off-peak hours). The supplier must offer potential energy savings opportunities through proposed equipment changes
or updates. It is expected that the supplier will work closely with relevant OHIO staff to appropriately collect and report on
data related to energy consumption and conservation.
Promotional Support – The University expects support of its sustainability initiatives through the supplier’s marketing on its
campuses.
Reporting – The University is invested in finding strategies for measuring reduction and recycling efforts as well as their suc-
cess.
Carbon Footprint – Supplier is encouraged to reduce its overall carbon footprint by reducing product travel and vehicle emis-
sions.
Social Responsibility – - Suppliers related to this contract are expected to offer all employees fair wages and safe working con-
ditions. –Similarly, suppliers are expected to give employment preference to local residents and/or provide community devel-
opment programming where appropriate as it relates to this contract. It is the responsibility of the supplier to offer healthy
options for its consumers and to appropriately label and market those options.
End-Of-Life Practices – Suppliers must have a recycle/reuse/repurpose program in place for all equipment removed or retired
from the OHIO campus as it relates to this contract. OHIO’s Office of Sustainability must be provided with written verification
of proper removal/retirement practices within 30 days of the equipment being removed from campus.
Pu
rchasin
g
Please Note: Ohio University is uniquely poised to incorporate sustainability into dining services efforts
Auxiliaries currently has no concessionaires or franchisees contracted at its main campus.
32
Transportation
Tran
spo
rtati
on
33
Benchmark 16: Improve sustainability profile of student, staff and faculty vehicles Target and Date: 60% of all student, faculty and staff vehicles will be classified as LEFE (Low Emission Fuel Efficient) by 2015.
Reporting Body: Transportation and Parking Services
Next Steps:
SOUL will work with Transportation and Parking Services to de-
termine if requiring the tracking of the year of the primary vehi-
cles associated with parking passes would be possible. If so, it is
in the best interest of the university to begin establishing base-
line data. Since faculty and staff vehicles are not re-issued annu-
ally, it will take several years to establish accurate baseline data.
It is recommended that, while we wait for baseline data to be
gathered, a car-buying marketing program be developed and
implemented by an Ohio University Marketing course. It would
be ideal if this campaign explained fuel efficiency of vehicles,
defined “LEFE” and offered tips for selected the most fuel effi-
cient vehicle possible for their needs.
Once an inventory of personal vehicles is created, the Office of
Sustainability will purchase annual memberships to ACEEE’s
Green Book© to help further define baseline and ongoing data.
Transp
ortati
on
Highlights:
A catalogue of potential class projects ha been established and is publicly available online. It is the hope of SOUL that faculty
will be able to utilize this catalogue of potential class projects to assist with their efforts to incorporate sustainability into the
classroom. The surveying of travel trends at Ohio University is included in that list of potential projects. .
Obstacles:
Currently, the tracking software utilized by Transportation and
Parking Services at Ohio University does not require that parking
pass holders provide the year of their vehicle upon registration.
Unfortunately, without this information, tracking average fuel
efficiency of personal vehicles of faculty, staff and students is not
possible. Therefore, no baseline data regarding the fuel econo-
my of personal vehicles is currently available.
About LEFE:
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
has identified a long list of vehicles that qualify as Low
Emission Fuel Efficient (LEFE).
Advocates of LEFE typically use the designation to edu-
cate the general public of the importance of considering
the fuel economy of a vehicle when making a car pur-
chase or choosing to drive instead of walk, bike or take
public transit. The Ohio State University, for example,
hosts a Buckeye LEFE Parking Program which offers
premiere parking spots for the drivers of LEFE-qualified
vehicles. By having clearly marked parking spots for
these vehicles, the university can more readily educate
its campus community members and visitors about the
university’s commitment to promoting a reduction in
institutional greenhouse gas emissions.
LEFE isn’t without its critics, though. For example, elec-
tric vehicles are considered “LEFE” since they do not
utilize gasoline for fuel. However, the electricity utilized
to charge an electric vehicle is, most commonly, gener-
ated from coal. The burning of coal is a significant
source of emissions generated in the United States.
New rules created by the Environmental Protection
Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-
istration will require increased efficiencies for new vehi-
cles by the year 2016.
34
Benchmark 18: Improve sustainability profile of campus fleet Target and Date: Average fuel economy of the campus fleet will increase by 5% per year beginning in the fall of 2011. All cars
and light trucks acquired from outside the university beginning in June 2011 will meet or exceed 2011 federal CAFE standards.
CAFE: Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Reporting Body: Transportation and Parking Services
Next Steps:
Transportation and Parking Services will
work to complete the inventory of the
campus fleet. Office of Sustainability
will offer volunteer support , resources,
and inventory maintenance recommen-
dations since the development and con-
tinued maintenance of such an invento-
ry requires a great deal of research, time
and effort.
Transportation and Parking Services will
continue to implement Policy 47.001
which will assist in the success of this
Benchmark and in the overall reduction
of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions re-
ported by the university transit on an
annual basis (transit emissions are cur-
rently calculated by a national average
of fuel economy compared to gasoline
consumption).
Progress Overview:
While baseline fuel economy of university-owned vehicles is not yet possible,
Transportation and Parking Services has successfully completed one full year of
implementing Policy 47.001, which requires that all newly purchased vehicles
meet or exceed federal CAFE standards.
When any entity on campus elects to purchase a vehicle for their program or de-
partment, that purchase request is filtered through Transportation and Parking
Services. In addition to a variety of safety regulations, staff in that office ensure
the vehicle meets fuel economy regulations. If the vehicle does not meet or ex-
ceed these fuel economy requirements, the vehicle request is denied and the
department must find another vehicle that meets these standards.
In FY13, two non-CAFE vehicle purchase requests were denied as a result of this
process.
Tran
spo
rtati
on
Highlight:
Transportation and Parking Services is improving the sustainability profile of the campus fleet by only allowing the
purchase of vehicles that meet or exceed 2011 federal CAFE standards.
Obstacles:
Transportation and Parking Services does not yet have a comprehensive invento-
ry of the Athens campus fleet. Without this necessary data, it is not possible to
determine the baseline fuel economy of institution-owned vehicles. Therefore,
this report does not contain quantitative reporting of increases or decreases in
fuel economy.
For the sake of this Bench-
mark, “campus fleet” encom-
passes the public transit vehi-
cles (including buses, vans and
cars), the vehicles rented for
university business and the
many vehicles owned by indi-
vidual programs/departments
campus-wide.
35
Benchmark 27: Decrease use of Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) Target and Date: 85% of all students and 20% of all faculty and staff will use a non-SOV option as their primary method of trans-
portation by 2015, including but not limited to non-motorized, shared, and alternative fuel options.
Reporting Bodies: Transportation and Parking Services, Human Resources, University Planner,
University-City Transit Partnership
Next Steps:
Office of Sustainability and the Common Experi-
ence Project on Sustainability will continue to
support faculty in their efforts to incorporate
sustainability in the classroom. Such support
may, naturally, lend itself to successful advance-
ment in this Benchmark.
Once data is collected, it should be submitted to
Transportation and Parking Services for their
review and consideration. Recommendations
will be made regarding potential action and
marketing that could be taken to educate the
campus community about alternatives to Single
Occupancy commuting.
Office of Sustainability will provide more educa-
tion to the campus community about existing
infrastructure that can reduce SOV on campus.
Progress Overview:
SOULmates have recommended that GIS, statistics or urban planning clas-
ses assist in the planning, implementation, recording and interpretation of
this data.
By soliciting the help of Ohio University students, we can acquire accurate
and professional data to assist in the advancement of this Benchmark.
Current infrastructure does allow for faculty, students and staff to find
alternatives to driving to campus alone:
The RideShare website provides a safe place for campus members to
post availability or need regarding local and regional transportation.
Transportation and Parking Services offers public transit bus and es-
cort services.
Bike racks and designated bike lanes are readily available throughout
the Athens campus for those who wish to commute on bike.
Transp
ortati
on
Highlights: A full listing of the
Sustainable Class Project List
is available online.
All faculty are encouraged to
review this list of projects that
are in need of support.
Faculty interested in assisting with
this effort are invited to email
This Benchmark was identified by SOULmates as an
ideal potential class project for FY14.
Obstacles:
Currently, no baseline data exists for students, faculty or
staff in regards to this Benchmark. It was decided that
data collection through online or paper surveys would not
yield accurate results and, therefore, physical surveying of
drivers entering or leaving parking lots of campus need to
be created. This would require that at least one dozen
locations be monitored by volunteers for a minimum of 4
hours per day for 5 consecutive days. The Office of Sus-
tainability will require significant assistance from the cam-
pus community for such an initiative to be successfully
implemented.
36
Benchmark 33: Encourage residency in City of Athens for Athens campus employees Target and Date: 8Informational materials will be provided to all incoming faculty and staff prior to relocation by 2012.
Reporting Bodies: Human Resources, Office of Sustainability
Next Steps:
SOUL will solicit classes to partici-
pate in course projects that assist
with the promotion of Athens
residency.
Office of Sustainability has includ-
ed relocation information on
their public website and will
work with Athens County Con-
vention and Visitors Bureau to
determine possible presence of
such materials on the ACCVB
website.
Human Resources will regularly
provide Office of Sustainability
with the names of newly hired
employees who will be relocating
to the region so the office may
send Welcome packets outlining
the benefits of living in Athens.
Progress Overview:
text
Tran
spo
rtati
on
Highlights:
SOUL members worked with CEP-S to establish a catalogue of potential class projects, including the development of a mar-
keting plan and corresponding marketing materials encouraging residency in the City of Athens for Athens campus employees..
Athens City Planner, Paul Logue, has developed a map (below) containing details of neighborhoods and typical households
found in those neighborhoods to better assist relocating employees in their search for appropriate neighborhoods.
Left: The full-sized relocation map
and additional information can be
viewed at: http://www.ohio.edu/
sustainability/Relocating.cfm
37
38
Was
te R
ed
ucti
on
39
Benchmark 5: Reduce Solid Waste Target and Date: 5% per year between 2011 and 2016
Reporting Bodies: Offices of: Recycling and Refuse,
Facilities Management, Moving and Surplus, Culinary Services,
Environmental Health and Safety
Next Steps:
Ohio University’s Office of Facilities
Management will continue the expan-
sion of compost collection to include
Baker Center’s post-consumer service
ware (currently not collected).
Office of Recycling and Refuse will allow
select academic buildings to transition
to a mixed stream system (not all com-
modities will need to be source separat-
ed in hopes that convenience will aid in
increased recycling practices). There
will be an increased focus on waste re-
covery from athletic events. Recycling
and Refuse will also work to simplify the
sorting system within the Recycling Shop
to streamline labor, capture under-
represented categories of recycling and
to increase education and outreach.
Progress Overview:
Waste
Re
du
ctio
n
Highlights:
Above: Marching 110 member, Kevin Lin,
with the reusable water bottles issued to
band members at the beginning of the
year in an effort to reduce waste gener-
ated by band members from disposable
beverage containers.
SOUL worked with the Office of Recycling and Refuse to brainstorm a variety
of marketing opportunities to assist in the improved marketing of recycling
and waste reduction opportunities available at Ohio University.
A number of academic and administrative programs and offices across cam-
pus are initiating waste-reduction efforts in their areas. Marching 110, for
example, chose to supply their members with reusable water bottles and
water/Gatorade refilling stations in an effort to reduce the waste generated
from disposable cups and bottles (see right photo).
In FY12, there was a 29.5% reduction in waste going to the landfill.
Obstacles:
Current tracking processes for recycling offer rough estimates of recycled quanti-
ties. As such, the historical data collected has a large margin of error. Tracking
waste stream in Athens County is a combination of hard data and best esti-
mates. When reviewing the FY11 waste stream data, it has been determined that
the category of Coal Ash was overestimated by over 2,200 tons. Because Coal
Ash in FY11 was the single biggest category tracked as recycling, this correction
means that both the overall waste stream and the amounts recovered through
recycling needed to be recalculated.
Recycling Manager, Andrew Ladd, worked to correct the miscalculation noted above. After the correction was made, it was determined that, in FY 11, the total waste stream was 7200 tons with 3214 tons going to the landfill, 3724 tons recycled and 251.5 tons composted. This equals a 55.4% recycling rate in FY11.
In FY12, the total waste stream was 5527 tons with 2266 tons being landfilled, 2046 tons recycled and 1215 tons composted.
Overall , Ohio University yielded a 23.2% reduction in total waste stream be-tween FY11 and FY12, far exceeding the goal established in this benchmark. Perhaps even more significant, the university saw a 29.5% reduction in waste going to the landfill.
40
Benchmark 7: Increase Recycling Rates Target and Date: 80% by weight of all recyclable solid waste by 2016.
Reporting Bodies: Recycling and Refuse, Design and Construction
Next Steps:
Ohio University’s Office of Facilities Management will continue the expansion of
compost collection to include Baker Center’s post-consumer service ware (currently
not collected).
Office of Recycling and Refuse will allow select academic buildings to transition to a
mixed stream system. This means that not all commodities will need to be source
separated in hopes that convenience will aid in increased recycling practices.
An increased focus on waste recovery from athletic events will also occur through
additional programs and education/outreach.
Office of Recycling and Refuse will also work to simplify the sorting system within
the Recycling Shop to streamline labor, capture under-represented categories of
recycling and to increase education and outreach.
Finally, the Office of Design and Construction and the Office of Recycling and Refuse
will further focus collaborative efforts on writing and enacting construction and ren-
ovation recovery standards.
Progress Overview:
The University further increased the
accuracy of waste stream reporting
and data collection. In In FY12, 3,261
tons were recycled and composted
out of a total waste stream of 5,527
tons. Therefore the rate of recycling
was 59%, a 4.6% increase from FY11.
Construction waste, which is being
tracked as its own category independ-
ent of other recycling on campus,
reported 121.4 tons recov-
ered. Please note that this construc-
tion data may be incomplete as not
every project as not every project
appears to have reported all catego-
ries.
Was
te R
ed
ucti
on
Highlights:
In FY11, the university achieved a 55.4% recycling rate. In FY12, the university achieved a 59% recycling rate.
This yields a 4.6% increase in the institutional recycling rate between the two most recent years.
Office of Recycling and Refuse has expressed a
deep interest in and commitment to advancing
education and outreach efforts. In FY13, the
Recycling Manager worked closely with stu-
dent volunteers to develop new outreach pro-
grams and opportunities that will be imple-
mented in the coming academic year.
Right: Ohio University is home to the largest in-
vessel composting system at any college or
university in the nation. In 2012, the university
tripled the size of its composting facility with
the installation of at 4-ton per day system.
41
Waste
Re
du
ctio
n
Waste Reduction Highlight: In-Vessel Composting at Ohio University Ohio University is home to the largest in-vessel composting facility at any college or university in the nation thanks to a 2-ton per
day composting system that was installed in 2009. In 2012, the university tripled the size of its facility by adding a second unit
that can accept up to 4 tons of organic materials daily. This increase in composting capacity is significantly contributing to the
overall progress of Benchmarks 5 and 7 of the Sustainability Plan.
Facts about composting at Ohio University: Food waste is collected from the Central Foods Facility and all Athens campus Dining Courts/Halls six days per week. Both pre-consumer food waste (kitchen scraps) and post-consumer food waste (waste generated by diners) is collected. It should be noted that Ohio University's kitchen preparation process is quite stream-lined. Therefore, a significant portion of the weight collected comes from post-consumer waste. The organic food waste is brought to the compost facility and combined with bulking agents (wood chips from landscape waste are commonly used). It is then processed in the in-vessel systems for approximately 14 days. The in-vessel systems have 14 stainless steel trays situated on the bottom of the machine. Each day, the organic material moves one tray’s-length closer to the exit of the system. When organic material reaches the exit of the system, it is swept off the tray and pushed out of the system through a con-veyor belt. The image to the right shows what this material looks like upon immediately exiting the system. After exiting the system, the partially processed material is then moved to “windrows” where they will cure for approxi-mately 90 days. This product is a nutrient-rich organic material that is used as a soil amendment on the campus’ grounds.
42
Was
te R
ed
ucti
on
For more information about the process, and for a video of Ohio University’s composting program, click the image above.
Left: The ARRA grant included the purchase of a Windrow
Turner which assists in the aeration of the windrows during
the curing process.
Bottom Left: Inside the in-vessel system are augers that rotate
slowly so as to aerate (add oxygen to) the organic material.
This image was taken prior to the installation and commis-
sioning of the first in-vessel unit and offers a rare view of
these augers.
Below: The elevator and weighing system located to the right
in this image place the organic material on the elevated con-
veyor system which then, mechanically, dumps the material
into the in-vessel unit. This process has increased employee
safety and comfort.
43
Benchmark 15: Improve identification and proper handling of hazardous waste Target and Date: Implement tracking system of hazardous chemicals by 2013.
Reporting Body: Environmental Health and Safety
Next Steps:
Environmental Health and Safety will
continue to implement and assess the
hazardous materials handling policies
and adjust procedures as needed to
ensure materials are purchased, man-
aged and disposed of in the most sus-
tainable manner possible.
Individuals who have questions
about how to dispose of hazard-
ous materials on campus are
invited to call Environmental
Health and Safety for support:
740-593-1663.
Progress Overview:
Ohio University has a Hazardous Materials Coordinator employed within the De-partment of Environmental Health and Safety. This individual is responsible for tracking the purchase and disposal of materials as well as training those who han-dle these materials. Ohio University’s new online procurement process, Bobcat Buy, allows us to more adequately track the purchase of hazardous materials and provide the purchaser with the proper training regarding handling and dispos-al. This tracking of purchases through Bobcat Buy is considered a marked im-provement of the procedures previously implemented at the university.
Supplemental information is available online:
Ohio University Hazardous Waste website. This site outlines all potential hazardous waste present on a university campus and offers information regarding proper handling: http://www.ohio.edu/riskandsafety/ehs/hazmat/index.htm
This formal university policy outlines management processes for hazardous
waste: http://www.ohio.edu/policy/44-104.html
Waste
Re
du
ctio
n
Highlights:
A tracking system through Bobcat Buy currently exists and is being implemented.
All individuals at the university who purchase hazardous materials are
instructed to do so through this tracking system.
About the Hazardous Materials Office at Ohio University:
Responsibilities include but are not limited to implementation of and consultation for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Hazardous Waste), Atomic Energy Act (Low Level Radioactive Waste), Ohio Department of Health Underground Storage Tank Regulatory Program, Toxic Substance Control Act (PCBs), Clean Water Act (Storm Water Runoff), Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Dilution Tank Maintenance Program, Emergency Planning Community Right to Know Act, County Health De-partment Center for Disease Control, lab programs including chemical hygiene, lab safety, biosafety, infectious waste disposal, bloodborne pathogens and hazardous materials in general.
44
Benchmark 32: Increase food donations to local service organizations Target and Date: Meet with Athens County Health Department, Culinary Services and local service groups to discuss current ob-
stacles and establish baseline goals for improvement by end of Fall 2011.
Reporting Bodies: Culinary Services, Office of Sustainability
Next Steps:
The feasibility study for this benchmark was conducted in FY12.
Therefore, there is no current data available regarding possible
changes to this information. If additional research regarding
the feasibility of this Benchmark is desired, the Office of Sus-
tainability encourages interested students to volunteer re-
search time to further provide emissions data.
Progress Overview:
While donation of pre-consumer food waste is currently
not a viable option for the university, the value of food
donation is still widely recognized at Ohio University. A
variety of programs currently exist to encourage food
donation:
Ecohouse Community Garden required that garden-
ers provide a tithe of their produce to local food pan-
tries, community meals, church programs, children’s
programs, etc.
A partnership between the university and Community
Food Initiatives has been created to offer additional
information to Southeast Ohioans regarding the im-
portance of local food and how to offer or accept
food donations within the region.
Office of Recycling and Refuse and Residential Hous-
ing accept unwanted non-perishable food items dur-
ing move-out each semester. These food items are
then donated to local food pantries.
Was
te R
ed
ucti
on
Highlights:
The Ecohouse Community Garden is home to 12 raised beds. All participants within the Ecohouse Community Gar-
den Program must donate a tithe of their harvest.
Office of Sustainability has entered into a partnership with Community Food Initiatives to offer a wider array to com-
munity food access and education. Promotion events for future community meals began in summer 2013 and will
extend into FY14.
Obstacles:
Within the past few years, the university has transitioned to a streamlined central food production process. This centralized
production has significantly reduced the university’s pre-consumer food waste. In fact, if one were to compare the emissions
produced from a refrigerated truck (necessary for safe food donation practices) to the emissions generated from wasted food,
the donation of food would actually create more emissions than composting that waste. Therefore, at this juncture, the dona-
tion of pre-consumer food waste is in direct contradiction with the Climate Action Plan.
The university’s pre-consumer waste is minimal compared to
post-consumer food waste. Learn more by clicking the video
above.
45
Benchmark 34: Implement notification system for local service organizations regarding availability of surplus items Target and Date: Notification system active within 3 months of Sustainability Plan adoption..
Reporting Body: Moving and Surplus
Progress Overview:
Moving and surplus has a comprehensive listing of all current inventory offered on their website. The gen-
eral public is invited to attend auctions for the purchase of items. Inventory lists are available online at
www.ohio.edu/moving.
Waste
Re
du
ctio
n
Above: A screenshot of the Moving and Surplus website.
Note the inventory listing options in the left navigation bar.
46
Fundraising & Endowment
Fun
dra
isin
g an
d E
nd
ow
me
nt
47
Benchmark 10:
Integrate sustainability goals and objectives into capital campaign Target and date: Goals will be developed and integrated into the capital campaign by the Fall of 2012
Reporting Bodies: University Advancement
Next Steps:
It is recommended that the Office of Sustainability, SOUL, University College and the Ecology and Energy Conservation Com-
mittee work to establish sustainability-related goals and objectives for raising sustainability funds (as noted in “Progress
Overview”) on an ongoing basis that extends beyond the current Capital Campaign.
Office of Sustainability will continue to partner with United Appeal of Athens County to encourage sustainability-related lan-
guage in employee giving programs.
Progress Overview:
It was suggested, through the conversations noted above,
that Ohio University work to propose sustainability-related
goals and objectives for campaigns or giving programs spon-
sored by University Advancement that extend beyond 2015.
Through work with other benchmarks in this plan, it has been
determined that two separate sources of sustainability-
related funding are needed to encourage the continued im-
plementation of the Sustainability Plan and Climate Action
Plan:
Facilities Funding: The sustainability category of facilities
funding would allow for the university to develop a re-
volving loan fund or LEED assistance fund. These funds
could help encourage continued reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions produced by institutional facilities.
Academic Funding: This sustainability-related category
would allow for University College to further encourage
faculty to incorporate sustainability into the classroom
and would allow for a pool of money to be used to facili-
tate sustainability-related research activities of Ohio Uni-
versity faculty and researchers. Fu
nd
raising an
d En
do
wm
en
t
Highlights:
Obstacles:
Much conversation centered around this Benchmark has
occurred in the past fiscal year. The vague language of
this Benchmark allowed the depth and breadth of the
conversations to be quite expansive. Ultimately, several
obstacles were identified as impeding sustainability ad-
vocates on campus to present any formal proposals for
sustainability integration to leaders within University Ad-
vancement. Those obstacles included:
The current capital campaign, “The Promise Lives,” is
scheduled to conclude mid-2015. Therefore, inclu-
sion in this round would be short-lived; thus, not al-
lowing for significant data to be developed regarding
the impact sustainability had on the overall campaign.
Without the ability to collect data, a significant con-
cern regarding the efficacy of the benchmark was
raised.
The language of this benchmark suggests that financ-
es could be directed toward sustainability-related
activities. However, infrastructure is not currently in
place to allow for such funds to be appropriately
managed.
United Appeal of Athens Country will include sustainability in the 2013 employee giving campaign.
Involvement in this program is allowing Office of Sustainability to determine processes and infrastructure that would need to
be developed for future programs in partnership with University Advancement
University Advancement has expressed an interest in sustainability through inclusion of the topic in their marketing
efforts. Such interest may naturally lend itself to future conversations about sustainability inclusion.
48
Benchmark 21: Assess endowment investment in sustainable corporations and entities and recommend strategies for increasing investment in these corporations and entities Target and date: Annual assessment beginning in the academic year following sustainability plan adoption.
Reporting Bodies: OU Foundation, Sustainable Investment Advisory Committee
Next Steps:
SIAC will function as a formal student
organization in FY14. Advised by one
graduate student and one faculty advi-
sor, this group will perform its duties to
the best of its abilities and report to the
OU Foundation. After its first full year of
implementation, this group will assess
its efficacy and determine next steps. It
is the long-term goal of this group to
discover best practices regarding sus-
tainable investing so that long-term in-
stitutional recommendations may be
made.
Any student interested in
applying to join the
Sustainable Investing
Advisory Committee,
is invited to email
Participation in this group will require a
substantial level of commitment since
the responsibilities trusted to this group
are significant. This is an exciting and
unique opportunity that will greatly ben-
efit those students interested in finance,
business and sustainability.
Progress Overview:
The Sustainable Investing Advisory Committee (SIAC) is a new organization in
FY14 that is supervised by a faculty advisor and supported by a Graduate Assis-
tant in the Office of Sustainability. SIAC will report to the Ohio University Founda-
tion. High-ability and committed students are invited to apply to participate in
this prestigious organizations. In partnership with the Student Equity Manage-
ment Group (SEMG) and the Fixed Income Management Group (SIMG), SIAC will
work to develop institutional portfolios relating to Socially Responsible Investing.
SIAC will engage in several core activities:
Define "sustainable investing" for the university. This definition is to encom-
pass: sustainability; corporate social responsibility (CSR) ;environment, social
and governance (ESG) responsibility; and, socially responsible investing (SRI).
Specify an investment universe consistent with SRI/sustainability for use by
SEMG and FIMG. The universe should generally be inclusive, identifying
those companies and securities that are leaders in SRI.
SIAC will accept other responsibilities or execute projects at the request of
the OU Vice President for Finance and Administration, OU Foundation, or the
SEMG and FIMG.
SIAC will conduct regular training and research to make sure that the group
provides advice to SEMG, FIMG, and the OU Foundation that represents pro-
fessional best practices.
SIAC will be supervised by a faculty sponsor and, for the first year at least, be
supported by a graduate assistant selected and advised by the OU Director of
Sustainability.
In SIAC's first year of implementation, the Office of Sustainability will work to
provide the supplies and meeting space necessary for group members to
complete their duties.
Fun
dra
isin
g an
d E
nd
ow
me
nt
Highlights:
The OU Foundation has created a student managed sustainability portfolio to pilot the endowment assessment process. This
was done to honor one of the Recommended Strategies for this Benchmark in the Sustainability Plan. Such a process allows for
a pilot phase of assessment and implementation to occur prior to making larger-scale recommendations for sustainable in-
vesting practices with institutional portfolios.
49
50
Bu
ildin
gs a
nd
En
erg
y In
fras
tru
ctu
re
51
Benchmark 2: Reduce campus and building energy intensity Target and date: Reduce building energy intensity 20% below 2004 levels by 2014 and 40% below 2004 levels by 2030. Avoid 24
Megawatt (MW) peak on the Athens campus. Lower peak to 23 MW by 2016.
Reporting Bodies: Facilities Management, Office for Design and Construction, Residential Housing
Next Steps:
Office of Sustainability will continue to work
with Facilities Management to provide sup-
port in accomplishing these goals through
efforts such as energy conservation pro-
gramming and outreach.
Progress Overview:
Energy intensity was 165,000 BTU/GSF in FY12, representing a 9.7% decrease
from 2004 levels at 181,000 BTU/GSF.
Peak energy intensity was 21.6 MW, indicating that the Athens campus suc-
cessfully avoided a 24 MW peak and reached a peak below 23 MW before
2016.
Athens campus reduced its energy intensity by 9.7% from 2004 levels.
Highlights:
Bu
ildin
gs and
Ene
rgy Infrastru
cture
Residential Housing is currently in the
design and planning phase of a Hous-
ing Development Plan.
That plan has publicly embraced the
need to commit to sustainable
design features that will reduce
building energy intensity.
Peak energy intensity was
21.6 MW in FY13
Ohio University has entered into an aggressive Energy Performance Contract that is expected to
assist with future reductions in campus and building energy intensity.
52
Benchmark 3: Increase renewable energy generation and sourcing Target and date: 20% of all campus energy use by 2020.
Reporting Body: Facilities Management
Next Steps:
Office of Sustainability will maintain a positive working relationship
with Facilities Management and serve in a support role in their ac-
quisition of additional renewable energy options.
In FY14, the Office of Energy Management will be investigating op-
tions for increased investments in alternative fuel sources in the
university’s energy portfolio. The source for this power would come
from Ohio wind farms.
Office of Sustainability will encourage clients of new construction or
renovation projects that they consider including renewable energy
sources in their plans.
Design and Construction will be encouraged to reach out to Office of
Sustainability each time a new project is accepted on the Athens
campus. By making OoS aware of new projects, potential for collab-
orations on renewable energy and grant acquisitions are more like-
ly.
Progress Overview:
In FY13, with the assistance of the university’s two
new PV systems, 473.43 MMBtu of electricity was
generated through renewable energy sources. This
represents .0003% of total energy utilized by the uni-
versity during the past year. Additionally, it should be
noted that the existing campus electric energy portfo-
lio fuel mix has renewables at 3% (1% wind & 2% hy-
dro
Although renewable energy generation is increasing
across campus, there is still progress to be made. In
order for the university to meet the target and date
outlined in this benchmark, more stakeholders are
needed to provide additional resources. Based on
current campus energy demands, achieving 20% of all
campus energy will require a greater amount of fund-
ing than is presently available.
Highlights:
Bu
ildin
gs a
nd
En
erg
y In
fras
tru
ctu
re 473.43 MMBtu of electricity was generated from renewable energy sources in FY13.
53
Benchmark 4: LEED certify new buildings and major renovations on all campuses Target and date: LEED Silver minimum certification for all building and renovation projects budgeted at or above $2 million,
effective FY2011. Equivalent LEED-based approach for projects budgeted under $2 million, effective FY 2012.
Reporting Bodies: Facilities Management, Office of Design and Construction , Residential Housing
Next Steps:
Design and Construction will continue to
ensure compliance with LEED Silver stand-
ards in the design and construction of uni-
versity projects, requesting assistance from
Office of Sustainability when necessary.
Progress Overview:
The current list of university projects are slated for LEED Silver application:
Chillicothe Project 14,000 square feet
Scripps Phase 1 80,800 square feet
Nelson total projects 151,058 square feet
15 Park Place 12,710 square feet
Bush Hall 35,000 square feet
Additionally, Residential Housing has been working tirelessly to incorporate
sustainability into future plans for the Housing Development Plan. In fact,
they have made commitments to build to LEED Silver building standards and,
in turn, seek LEED certification.
Highlight:
Bu
ildin
gs and
Ene
rgy Infrastru
cture
Currently, it is within the university’s standard operating procedures for all projects budgeted for $2 million or above
to meet or exceed LEED Silver standards.
Below: The Scripps renovation project is an
80,800 square foot project that is striving for
LEED Silver.
54
Benchmark 12: Evaluate LEED EBOM of existing facilities Target and date: Checklist evaluation of at least one existing facility over 15,000 gsf by October 1, 2011.
Reporting Body: Facilities Management
Next Steps:
This benchmark has, technically, been completed. It will be removed from implementation priorities in an effort to offer more
attention to other Benchmarks that have not progressed as quickly.
Though, Office of Sustainability will remain interested in future LEED EBOM evaluations of university-owned buildings should
class projects continue to find interest and value in this exercise. This Benchmark will be added to the project listing docu-
ment offered to faculty participating in the Common Experience Project on Sustainability (see Benchmark 8 for more infor-
mation about this project listing).
Progress Overview:
The full text of the FY13 evaluation of Chubb Hall, conducted by student Richard Wilson, is available online.
Bu
ildin
gs a
nd
En
erg
y In
fras
tru
ctu
re Highlights:
A LEED EBOM evaluation was conducted by Office of Sustainability
students in FY 12, thus completing the minimum requirements of this
Benchmark.
55
In FY13, A LEED evaluation was conducted of Chubb Hall
by a student, Richard Wilson, in his efforts toward achieving the
Graduate Sustainability Certificate.
This assessment offered a hypothetical approach to
potential future renovations of the building.
While the student utilized the 2009 LEED New Construction and Major
Renovations guidelines, this white paper offers interesting insights
into the student perspective of what could be accomplished by the
university in regards to LEED assessments of existing buildings and is,
therefore, included in this Benchmark’s report.
Benchmark 25: Sub-meter campus facilities Target and date:
2014: Building level meters for electricity and water for 50% of facilities over 15,000 gsf
2021: Building level meters for electricity and water for 100% of facilities over 15,000 gsf
Reporting Bodies: Facilities Management, Office of Design and Construction
Next Steps:
Work with the Office of Design and
Construction to ensure that sub-
meters are included in the design
standards for future buildings on
Ohio University’s campus.
Office of Sustainability will work with
SOUL to identify potential opportuni-
ties for grant funds that could assist
with costly sub-metering projects.
As the university transitions into a
Responsibility Centered Manage-
ment structure, it is recommended
that potential opportunities for in-
corporating sub-meter installation
incentives into communications with
each administrative and academic
unit on campus.
The Director of Energy Management
will alert Office of Sustainability if
technologies and infrastructure op-
portunities change in regards to this
topic, allowing for growth in this ar-
ea. Additionally, a report will be
supplied regarding the efficacy of the
newly installed meters referenced in
Progress Overview.
Progress Overview:
While not broken down by building, electricity data for the entire Athens campus is currently available in real-time for the
public through an online energy dashboard.
Currently, it is estimated that 75% of buildings are sub-metered for both electricity and water on the Athens campus. Sub-
meters for each building on campus is cost prohibitive. As the university transitions to a Responsibility Centered Manage-
ment system, new avenues for encouraging building occupants may present themselves.
Additional sub-meter purchases were made in FY13 through the Energy Performance Contract. A report on the installation
and performance of these tools will be available in next year’s Sustainability Report
Bu
ildin
gs and
Ene
rgy Infrastru
cture
How does sub-metering work and
what does this have to do with sustainability?
Each building on campus utilizes a variety of utilities such as water, steam, gas
and electricity. In some areas, usage for utilities is aggregated among a number
of buildings. This Benchmark seeks to provide each individual building with me-
ters that can read utility usage of that specific building.
This is desired because it allows campus leaders and building inhabitants to
better gauge their own utility use habits. This would provide the university with
a more detailed understanding of efficiencies, inefficiencies and lifestyles associ-
ated with specific areas of campus. Such information allows for more specific
outreach to occur in an effort to promote positive lifestyle changes and building
upgrades.
Sub-meters can be found on most buildings, typically located one or two feet off
the ground on the exterior of the building. Depending on the age and purpose of
a meter, the utility usage will be represented in a digital or analog format that
allows the utility company or resident to easily track resource usage in real-time.
Left:
The solar inverters at
the Ohio University
Compost Facility on
Dairy Lane.
These solar PV me-
ters clearly explain
energy generated by
the panels.
56
Climate Commitment
Clim
ate
Co
mm
itm
en
t
57
Clim
ate C
om
mitm
en
t
Benchmark 1: Reduce institutional greenhouse gas emissions Target and date:
By 2030: 25% below 1990 levels. By 2050: 80% below 1990 levels. By 2075: carbon neutrality
Reporting Bodies: Culinary Services, Office of Parking and Transportation Services,
Facilities Management, Procurement, Provost, Residential Housing, Office of Sustainability
Next Steps:
Continue to implement the
Sustainability Plan and Climate Action
Plan goals across campus.
Accept ongoing reports from Facilities
Management regarding the progress
made in the transition off coal as a
primary fuel source.
Progress Overview:
On November 28, 2012, the Climate Action Plan was formally adopted by Ohio
University. For more information on carbon emissions data, please see the Climate
Action Plan Report, which begins on the next page.
Reported greenhouse gas emissions were reduced campus-wide by 2% in FY12
compared to FY11 data. Net emissions produced by the university have been on
the decline since FY10.
The Feasibility Study conducted in FY12 for the replacement of the
use of coal at the Lausche power plant was followed by a 5-month
natural gas pilot phase in FY13. This trial run yielded results that
suggest the university would lower emissions and increase energy
efficiency by transitioning from coal to natural gas. Natural gas
is considered the most energy efficient option and the most flexible
available in the current market. On-site carbon emissions will drop
significantly once the institution transitions off coal. Additionally, it
is suggested that the boilers used for the burning of natural gas can
more easily convert to other energy sources in the case of new
technologies. The design phase for this transitional project is
scheduled to begin in FY14.
The university will continue to explore renewable energy op-
tions. Though, at this time, technologies and campus energy de-
mand restrict the institution from converting entirely to renewable
sources.
Highlights:
A note about this data: Because of original benchmarks and commitments regarding the reporting of emissions data, the Office of Sustainability will continue to re-port emissions data from 1990 levels, as indicated in the target and date of this benchmark. However, it is rec-ommended that the reader of this report recognize that 2005 is, realistically, a more accurate baseline year. This is the case because 2005 was the first year that GHG emissions data reporting occurred in the cur-rent year. Since data from 1990 through 2004 was ret-roactively collected in 2005, a greater likelihood of inac-curacies is possible. Therefore, it is the opinion of the preparers of this report that it is more accurate for us to publicly evaluate changes in energy use since 2005.
58
Facilities engaged in a natural gas pilot
program to project potential cost and
emissions savings by switching on-site
power from coal to natural gas.
The OHIO Climate Action Plan was formally
adopted in November 2012
FY12: 2% reduction in GHG emissions
compared to FY11.
Pictured: The Ohio University Coal Storage Shed is subject to become obsolete within the next
three years as the university woks to transition off coal as its primary on-site fuel source.
Clim
ate
Co
mm
itm
en
t
59
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
To
tal E
ne
rgy
Use
(M
MB
tu)
Year
Scope 2 T&D Losses
Paper
Wastewater
Solid Waste
Study Abroad Air Travel
Directly Financed Outsourced Travel
Commuting
Purchased Steam / Chilled Water
Purchased Electricity
Direct Transportation
On-Campus Stationary
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
To
tal E
ne
rgy
Use
(M
MB
tu)
Year
Scope 2 T&D Losses
Paper
Wastewater
Solid Waste
Study Abroad Air Travel
Directly Financed Outsourced Travel
Commuting
Purchased Steam / Chilled Water
Purchased Electricity
Direct Transportation
On-Campus Stationary
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
To
tal E
ne
rgy
Use
(M
MB
tu)
Year
Scope 2 T&D Losses
Paper
Wastewater
Solid Waste
Study Abroad Air Travel
Directly Financed Outsourced Travel
Commuting
Purchased Steam / Chilled Water
Purchased Electricity
Direct Transportation
On-Campus Stationary
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
To
tal E
ne
rgy
Use
(M
MB
tu)
Year
Scope 2 T&D Losses
Paper
Wastewater
Solid Waste
Study Abroad Air Travel
Directly Financed Outsourced Travel
Commuting
Purchased Steam / Chilled Water
Purchased Electricity
Direct Transportation
On-Campus Stationary
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
To
tal E
ne
rgy
Use
(M
MB
tu)
Year
Scope 2 T&D Losses
Paper
Wastewater
Solid Waste
Study Abroad Air Travel
Directly Financed Outsourced Travel
Commuting
Purchased Steam / Chilled Water
Purchased Electricity
Direct Transportation
On-Campus Stationary
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
To
tal E
ne
rgy
Use
(M
MB
tu)
Year
Scope 2 T&D Losses
Paper
Wastewater
Solid Waste
Study Abroad Air Travel
Directly Financed Outsourced Travel
Commuting
Purchased Steam / Chilled Water
Purchased Electricity
Direct Transportation
On-Campus Stationary
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
600,000
200,000
400,000
800,000
Tota
l En
ergy
Use
(M
MB
tU)
0
2003 2006 2009 2012
Fiscal Year
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
To
tal E
ne
rgy
Use
(M
MB
tu)
Year
Scope 2 T&D Losses
Paper
Wastewater
Solid Waste
Study Abroad Air Travel
Directly Financed Outsourced Travel
Commuting
Purchased Steam / Chilled Water
Purchased Electricity
Direct Transportation
On-Campus Stationary
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
To
tal E
ne
rgy
Use
(M
MB
tu)
Year
Scope 2 T&D Losses
Paper
Wastewater
Solid Waste
Study Abroad Air Travel
Directly Financed Outsourced Travel
Commuting
Purchased Steam / Chilled Water
Purchased Electricity
Direct Transportation
On-Campus Stationary
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
To
tal E
ne
rgy
Use
(M
MB
tu)
Year
Scope 2 T&D Losses
Paper
Wastewater
Solid Waste
Study Abroad Air Travel
Directly Financed Outsourced Travel
Commuting
Purchased Steam / Chilled Water
Purchased Electricity
Direct Transportation
On-Campus Stationary
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
To
tal E
ne
rgy
Use
(M
MB
tu)
Year
Scope 2 T&D Losses
Paper
Wastewater
Solid Waste
Study Abroad Air Travel
Directly Financed Outsourced Travel
Commuting
Purchased Steam / Chilled Water
Purchased Electricity
Direct Transportation
On-Campus Stationary
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
To
tal E
ne
rgy
Use
(M
MB
tu)
Year
Scope 2 T&D Losses
Paper
Wastewater
Solid Waste
Study Abroad Air Travel
Directly Financed Outsourced Travel
Commuting
Purchased Steam / Chilled Water
Purchased Electricity
Direct Transportation
On-Campus Stationary
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
To
tal E
ne
rgy
Use
(M
MB
tu)
Year
Scope 2 T&D Losses
Paper
Wastewater
Solid Waste
Study Abroad Air Travel
Directly Financed Outsourced Travel
Commuting
Purchased Steam / Chilled Water
Purchased Electricity
Direct Transportation
On-Campus Stationary
Energy Use
Athens Campus
Many items within the Climate Action Plan have direct relationships with the Sustaina-
bility Plan. Therefore, these reports will have some overlap. For the sake of this first
year of reporting of the Climate Action Plan, the Office of Sustainability has chosen to
refer readers of this document to associated Benchmark (BM) Reports contained on
the preceding pages.
In the case that a report has already been addressed by a BM, that BM is noted in pa-
rentheses. In the case that no other report exists, an overview of status is supplied im-
mediately next to the goal.
For the sake of brevity, listed here are only the goals that must be achieved in the fore-
seeable future. Despite that, Facilities Management and Sustainable Ohio University
Leaders continue to address the longer-term goals noted in the Climate Action Plan.
Energy and Operations:
2014: Reduce building energy intensity by 20% below 2012* levels (BM2)
Land and Resource Management:
2013 (through 2075): Record 0 net emissions from fossil fuel extraction on OU
property.
Report: OHIO currently has no extraction operations on its campuses.
Therefore, the university can currently report 0 net emissions from fossil
fuel extraction.
The Office of Sustainability remains to be included on institutional
discussions of any developments in this area and will continue to honor this
goal within the Climate Action Plan.
Climate Action Plan Report
Waste Reduction and Recycling:
2016: Consume 5% less per person, per year (BM 5)
2016: Increase recycling rates 80% by weight of all recyclable solid waste (BM 7)
Transportation:
2016: Encourage use of “LEFE” vehicles on campus: 60% of all student, faculty,
and staff vehicles registered with a parking pass will be classified as LEFE.(BM 16)
Education and Outreach: (BM 8)
2015: Establish and implement assessment of baseline awareness and knowledge
of carbon neutrality issues for the university community as a whole
2015: Establish and implement assessment of baseline awareness and
knowledge of carbon neutrality issues for incoming students. This assessment is
to be repeated annually
2015 and ongoing: Expand and implement new university-wide programming
and curriculum efforts aimed at increasing greenhouse gas emissions awareness
Construction and Design:
Ultimate goal of 0 net emissions from Construction and Design practices.
Report: OHIO currently does not track the emissions associated with
construction projects. No known tracking mechanisms currently exist for
such an effort. It is suggested that the development of a convenient
tracking mechanism be associated with a university-sponsored class project.
Behavior Change and Implementation Management:
2013: Develop SOUL. Complete-See Executive Summary.
Climate Action Plan Report
Acknowledgements
The success of the Ohio University Annual Sustainability Report is greatly dependent on the leadership and vision of all faculty, staff and students on all Ohio University campuses. A great deal of our efforts are aug-
mented and complemented by various leaders and invested parties from surrounding communities.
A special thanks is extended to those entities mentioned as a “Reporting Body” for one or more Benchmarks in this plan.
In particular, the following assisted in the acquisition of departmental and partnership data:
Ecology and Energy Conservation Committee The Ecology and Energy Conservation Committee serves as the monitoring agent to the Sustainability Plan. Stephen Scanlan, Sociology and Anthropology (EECC Chair) Annie Laurie Cadmus, Office of Sustainability Teri Combs, Human Resources Ana Rosado Feger, Business Cliff Hamilton, Environmental Health and Safety Paul Logue, Community Member Scott Miller, Energy Management Jill Rosser, English Hogan Sherrow, Sociology and Anthropology Alex Slaymaker, Student Henry Woods, Facilities
Bridget Allman, Transportation and Parking
Karen Augenstein, Institutional Research
Roger Bail, City of Athens
Patti Barnes, Auxiliaries
Scott Blower, Facilities Management
Shawna Bolin, Space Management
Bryan Branham, Aviation
John Brant, Grounds Maintenance
Dean Bruckner, Engineering
Chad Burkett, Procurement Services
Mike Gebeke, Facilities Management
Stephen Golding, VP Finance and Administration
Andrew Ladd, Recycling and Refuse
Paul Logue, City of Athens
Diane Lucas, Budget Planning and Analysis
Steve Mack, Facilities Management
Serena McCollum, Institutional Research
Ian McPherson, Procurement Services
Laura Nowicki, Procurement Services
Marty Paulins, Transportation and Parking
Dan Pittman, Auxiliaries
Erin Robb, Auxiliaries
Steve Schel, Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton,
Inc. Richard Shultz, Design and Construction
Vicki Smith, Airport Operations
Andy Stone, City of Athens
Tim Strissel, Energy Management
Henry Woods, Recycling and Refuse
Harry Wyatt, AVP Facilities
The Office of Sustainability Office of Sustainability staff collect, interpret and report annually on the Sustainability Plan. John Benson, SOUL Administration Intern Annie Laurie Cadmus, Director of Sustainability Liz Emley, Tours and Presentation Coordinator Megan Graver, Graduate Assistant for Reporting and Outreach Nick Kroncke, Alternative Transportation Intern Katie Lasco, SOUL Implementation and Professional Development Coordinator Markie Miller, Ecohouse Garden Manager Pronoy Rai, Graduate Assistant for Education and Research Jaymie Tighe, Ecohouse and Special Programs Coordinator Austin Stahl, Waste Reduction Intern
Sustainable Ohio University Leaders Sustainable Ohio University Leaders (SOUL) are the implementation arm of the Sustainability Plan. Karen Augenstein, Staff Member John Benson, Undergraduate Student Member Annie Laurie Cadmus, Staff Member Megan Foss, Undergraduate Student Member Elaine Goetz, Graduate Student Member Megan Graver, Graduate Student Member Marianne Jacobs, Undergraduate Student Member Matt Kovarik, Undergraduate Student Member Andrew Ladd, Staff Member Katie Lasco, SOUL Coordinator and Undergraduate Student Member Rebecca Mathews, Undergraduate Student Member Alex Slaymaker, Undergraduate Student Member Austin Stahl, Undergraduate Student Member Catherine Weisbarth, Undergraduate Student Member
For additional information about the
Sustainability Plan, the planning process, and for a
PDF of the original June 2011 version, please visit:
www.ohio.edu/pacsp