sustainable landscaping and composting at the...

Sustainable Landscaping and Composting at the University of Kansas

Mare Bayless

Brandy Fogg

Derek Hannon

Marc Kingston

Kraig Stoll

Levi J Winegar

May 10, 2010

EVRN 615

Landscaping and Composting 1

Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..2

History and Tradition Considerations……………………………………………………………..2

Case Studies……………………………………………………………………………………….4

Haskell Indian Nations University………………………………………………………...4

Michigan State University………………………………………………………………...6

Tufts University…………………………………………………………………………...7

Pendleton’s Country Market…………………………………………………………..…..8

City of Lawrence, Kansas…..……………………………………………………………..9

Areas of Focus…………………………………………………………………………………….9

Incorporation of Native and Perennial Plants……………………………………..……..10

Reduction of Runoff and Erosion………………………………………………………..11

Turf Maintenance ………………………………………………………………………..13

Pesticide Use…………………………………………………………………………..…14

Composting………………………………………………………………………..……..16

Conclusion and Key Recommendations……………………………………………………...….17

References………………………………………………………………………………………..19

Appendix………………………………………………………………………………..………..24


Introduction

With nearly one thousand landscaped acres, the landscaping practices of the University of

Kansas (KU) could have a major impact on the natural environment. This report seeks to

examine current KU landscaping practices and to make recommendations that could improve

landscaping sustainability. In order for a landscaping practice to be sustainable, it should first

minimize any negative impacts that it might have on the natural environment, preferably even

replacing them with environmental benefits. Secondly, the practice must not be prohibitively

expensive for the university. Many of the practices examined in this paper could have long term

financial benefits over the current practices of the university. These practices must also take into

account the history of, functions of, and desires for campus landscaping. The KU campus is well

known for its beauty, and its grounds serve as a place for social gatherings and many other

functions; any suggested modifications should preserve these important aspects of landscape

design. This report will first outline the historical landscaping features of KU. It will then

examine a number of case studies to show how other universities and local operations have

implemented sustainable practices. Finally, the report will highlight five areas of focus and make

recommendations for improving landscaping sustainability.

History and Tradition Considerations

The University of Kansas has long prided itself on having one of the most beautiful

campuses in the country. Many of the elements that make the university’s landscape such a

source of pride date back more than one hundred years. Marvin Grove was originally planted on

Arbor Day, 1878 (KU 2008). The boulevard layout that the university has today was developed

in 1904 by the renowned landscape architect George Kessler. By the early 1920’s, under the

further guidance of Kansas City landscape architects Hare and Hare, Jayhawk Boulevard had


developed the parkway setting, with trees lining the street, that it retains today (Image 1,

Appendix). The landscaping efforts of the university were to develop a ―landscape ideal… that

was institutionally mature, visually rich and park-like as a place for learning‖ (KU 2008). This

concept of a park-like environment led to the creation of many of the open lawns and ordered

flower beds that exist today, and these elements should continue to be integral parts of the

university’s landscaping plan. However, many opportunities exist to make their implementation

more sustainable. The most recent campus plan proposed many efforts towards increasing the

sustainability of the campus’s landscape (JLBC et al. 2002). These included:

Looking at the native flora and plant communities that once existed or that

naturally occur in the area and establishing or reestablishing regenerative planting

strategies.

Utilizing buffalo grass or solid stands of native grasses for low maintenance areas

or severely sloped areas where turf grass maintenance is difficult.

Restoring Prairie Acre through the removal of volunteer trees and its design

concept should be expanded to the surrounding area

Plant materials chosen should be native or introduced plants that meet the

requirements of the Master Plan and are adaptable to the campus without

requiring special soil conditions and supplemental watering after establishment.

Larger open areas of passive use should be considered for nontraditional turf

cover including a wide range of natives, from improved buffalo grass to taller

prairie grasses or open meadows with flowering wildflowers and forbs.


Case Studies

While developing a comprehensive action plan of sustainable landscaping practices for

KU, it is helpful to examine other programs, including those of other universities and those used

locally. The successes of specific methods and applications may depend on a range of different

variables, like climate and desired land use, but the results of local and university sustainable

landscaping programs can offer guidance about practices that may be appropriate for KU.

Haskell Indian Nations University, Michigan State University, and Tufts University differ in

student body size and geographic location, so a survey of the sustainable landscaping techniques

of each gives an overview of some potential practices (HINU 2008; MSU 2010; TU 2009). The

different composting methods used by Pendleton’s Country Market and the City of Lawrence,

Kansas provide local examples for modifying KU’s program. A combination of selected

techniques could be used to tailor KU’s method to suit the type of materials composted and the

amount of time, equipment, and human resources available to manage the composting process.

Haskell Indian Nations University

The landscaping at Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU) is limited by space and

funding, yet the efforts of the Facilities Management Department could still be useful to KU.

Upon entering the Haskell campus, visitors quickly notice the lack of meticulously-maintained

lawns. Many of the plants and trees that can be found in the older areas of the campus are native

to Kansas. Because of the presence of native Kansas vegetation, less water is necessary to

maintain these areas. Some of the newer areas, such as the courtyard, contain more exotic tree

species. Areas surrounding the administration building and the courtyard require the highest

amount of water on campus.


The overall layout of the HINU campus is more representative of Kansas’ nature. The

campus includes large open fields that are mowed around the edges but for the most part are

allowed to grow wild. The Facilities Management Department keeps the edges of other open

areas on campus cut shorter than the fields. This management strategy represents a compromise

among different opinions on campus regarding how much the land should be managed. In many

cases, the clippings from the edges of the open areas are spread over the field, returning some

nutrients to the soil. By not manicuring some of the open areas on the KU campus and simply

maintaining the edges, the university could save money on the cost of mowing and reduce

gasoline use.

HINU has a history of being an agricultural school. For this reason, various areas on

campus have been devoted to growing fruits and vegetables. The apple and pear trees that can be

found around the campus are used as food by the students. There are five different garden plots

located on south side of campus. These areas are used by students to grow their own vegetable

gardens. Not far from this area is the greenhouse. The greenhouse serves many different

purposes and is widely used by different departments. Science programs and food production

projects have been conducted in this greenhouse. The newest project being implemented at

HINU is the medicinal garden. At this stage, research is being done to decide which plants would

be best to plant considering the limited space and the desire for variety.

While certain areas of campus are allowed to basically grow wild with limited

maintenance, other areas demand more attention. For example, there are small tulip beds outside

the administration building and certain departments. These areas are much smaller than the vast

tulip arrangements at KU but bring a lot of beauty to the outsides of buildings. Tulips appear to

be the flower of choice for the areas that are small but important. The different departments have


varying levels of landscaping outside the entrances. Smaller projects for individual buildings

instead of largely maintained common areas could add to the uniqueness of different departments

on KU’s campus. Information about HINU landscape and landscaping practices was obtained

from Allen, Ben, Gords, Hanes, and Stevens (2010).

The most important things that can be learned from examining the landscaping at HINU

are the different ways of managing large open areas and the benefits of small-scale designs.

Since significant areas of the KU campus consist of large, open areas, the management

techniques being used for similar areas at HINU could easily be implemented at KU and may

reduce the amount of labor and resources needed. Infrastructure changes would not be necessary;

instead there would be a change in the techniques used. Changing of infrastructure could prove

to be more expensive than changing the preferred ways of managing the open areas.

Michigan State University

The Michigan State University (MSU) sustainable landscaping program was initially

developed by students with the help of Terry Link, MSU’s Sustainable Coordinator, and now is

managed by Gerry Dobbs of Landscape Services. According to Dobbs, MSU uses or has plans

to use multiple sustainable landscaping practices and tools, including a focus on using native

species, an underground drip irrigation system, and storm water oil separators, to lessen its

environmental impacts (Table 1, Appendix). The development of ―Grow Zones‖ is one of the

focuses of the Center for Sustainability at MSU. These ―Grow Zones‖ are areas of unmowed,

native vegetation that border the waterways around campus. The original intent of

implementing these riparian buffer zones was to decrease the amount of mowing required on

campus as well as to help beautify the area. The ―Grow Zones‖ also provide the added benefits

of helping improve the health of the stream and increasing biodiversity in these areas (Dobbs


2010). KU could implement similar buffer zones around Potter Lake; buffer zones could help

filter out pollution and sediment while helping to reduce the amount of mowing necessary in the

areas.

According to Gerry Dobbs, the topsoil reclamation program is one of MSU’s most

successful practices. All excavated topsoil on campus is saved and then later reused for on-

campus purposes. The reuse of topsoil eliminates the need to purchase new topsoil and reduces

topsoil waste. Another key component to MSU’s sustainable landscaping is managing

landscaping waste. By mulching grass clippings and fallen leaves instead of collecting and

bagging the debris, MSU saves time and human resources. The majority of the compost used on

MSU’s campus comes from a local farm in partnership with the university. MSU’s sustainable

practices have been so complete and have had such a dramatic change to campus appearance and

environmental impact over the past decade that they were awarded the Association for the

Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education’s Campus Sustainability Leadership Award

in 2007 (Dobbs 2010).

Tufts University

MSU has an impressive and successful sustainable landscaping program, but the

sustainable landscaping practices of some universities struggle to proceed past the pilot program.

In 2008, Tufts University began an organic turf management pilot program. The pilot program

was directed towards two acres of land that are used both by students and by the general public.

The two acres included a community youth soccer field and the varsity baseball diamond. In the

program, application of herbicides and pesticides was abandoned in favor of microbes, insects,

worms, and other organisms used to prevent weeds and other damage to the crops. However, in


2009, a resurgence of weeds in the baseball diamond prompted the athletic department to revert

back to using herbicide and pesticide treatments (TU 2010).

The different outcomes of MSU’s and Tufts’ sustainable landscaping efforts illustrate the

role of university support in promoting success. Unfortunately, Tufts’ sustainable landscaping

practices lacked the backing of the university needed to allow the organic turf program to fully

develop. MSU fully backs sustainable efforts of not only the landscaping, but also of energy

efficiency and building engineering (Dobbs 2010). These examples emphasize the importance of

university support for a successful KU sustainable landscaping program.

Pendleton’s Country Market

Pendleton’s Country Market, a local family-run farm, composts various agricultural

wastes, like plant clippings and produce trimmings, on a farm in eastern Lawrence. Some leaves

are occasionally included. The waste is placed in a pile, which is turned approximately monthly

by a tractor with a front end loader. Temperature, moisture, pH, and other parameters of the

compost are not monitored during decomposition. The finished compost is available after

approximately 3 months and is used on-site for fertilizing flower and produce beds (PCM n.d.;

Pendleton 2010).

Pendleton’s composting method is attractive because it requires relatively little

investment of labor or materials and has been successful in this area for decades. The Pendletons

only spend an estimated average of 15 minutes per week tending the composting process

(Pendleton 2010). However, modifications may need to be made to reflect different types of

materials composted and different circumstances. For example, most of the compost at

Pendleton’s Country Market is agricultural waste, like plant trimmings from crops, which

generally has a relatively low carbon to nitrogen ratio compared to leaves (Rynk 1992). The


majority of KU’s landscaping waste is composed of leaves, though some plant clippings are also

composted (Lang 2010).

City of Lawrence, Kansas

The City of Lawrence, Kansas composting program provides another example of a

successful local operation. The municipal program composts and mulches yard waste from

residents and commercial landscaping operations at a facility in eastern Lawrence (Richardson

2010). Compost is produced using the windrow method: ―green‖ waste (mostly grass clippings)

is combined with ―brown‖ waste (mostly leaves), and the mixture is formed into long piles on an

asphalt pad. A tub grinder is sometimes used to reduce the size of the debris, creating a more

compact mixture to reduce volume and increasing the rate of decomposition. The piles are

monitored for temperature, pH, salinity, clopyralid herbicide content, and compost maturity; test

results are used to coordinate turning of the windrows. Once the compost is mature—after

approximately 4 months—the compost is screened to remove large pieces and to create a salable

product available to the community (Richardson 2010). The types of waste composted by the

Lawrence municipal program are likely more representative of those that are currently being

composted at KU. Unlike KU, the City of Lawrence has a specific employee responsible for

managing the composting process, so more time and attention can be devoted to the composting

method (Richardson, 2010; Lang 2010).

Areas of Focus

Considering some of the proposals in the most recent campus Landscape Master Plan and

expanding to include other aspects of sustainable landscaping, five areas of focus have been

identified for further attention: incorporation of native and perennial plants, reduction of runoff

and erosion, turf maintenance, pesticide use, and composting.


Incorporation of Native and Perennial Plants

The choice of plants is critical when planning a project. Where possible, native and

perennial plants should be used instead of annual plants. Native plants, which are often also

perennial, offer several advantages over non-native vegetation. Because they are generally well-

suited for the climates of the areas to which they are native, these plants often require less inputs,

including water, pesticides, and fertilizer, compared to non-native species. Native plants may

also have deeper roots than non-native plants, which contribute to their ability to reduce erosion

(STM n.d.). Besides potential savings from reduced water, fertilizer, and pesticide requirements,

native plants that are perennials have the potential to reduce spending on new plants as they can

be divided to yield more plants (UM 2006). There are many plants native to northeast Kansas

that could bring beauty to the campus. Possible native Kansas plants that could be planted on

campus include annual sunflower (Helianthus annuus), aromatic aster (Aster oblongifolius),

finger coreopsis (Coreopsis palmata), butterfly milkweed (Asclepias tuberosa), and great blue

lobelia (Lobelia silphilitica) (CSKU 2009, 1).

Several areas could benefit from the addition of environmentally sustainable plantings.

The areas suggested below have been selected so as to minimize impact on open lawns most

often used by the student body and to highlight potential benefits for the university.

Naismith Drive

Creating tall native grass understory plantings on the lawn in front of Murphy

Hall and planting the medians on Naismith drive with grasses and wild flowers would

create a series of visual impact points in a high traffic area and could be used as a

highly visible example of sustainable landscaping at the university. This would serve


as an aesthetically pleasing gateway to the main part of campus for drivers entering

via Naismith Boulevard.

The West Slope Region

This region is the southeast-facing hillside behind Joseph R. Pearson Hall. It

represents a large, steep, mowed zone. Mowing on the steep slope can lead to

increased erosion. Using native grass understory plantings as suggested in the

Campus Heritage Plan (Figure 2, Appendix) has the potential to increase

sustainability through reduced erosion and decreased overall mowed area.

Reduction of Runoff and Erosion

Reducing the amount of surface runoff and soil erosion could improve the sustainability

of KU landscaping. This could be accomplished through planting native vegetation or installing

modern technologies in erosion-prone areas. Native plants have already been incorporated into

the campus landscape to reduce runoff. A notable example is the KU Student Rain Garden,

recently constructed near the Ambler Student Recreation Center. Rain gardens aid in water

absorption and recharge into the soil. The 5,200 square feet garden, which is contains 2,500

native plants, reduces maintenance and operation costs, maintains native ecology, and improves

water quality and soil infiltration. The construction of the campus rain garden was initiated by

students and can raise environmental awareness on campus (CSKU 2009, 1). Funding from a

combination of various sources, including governmental agencies, university groups, and a

corporate sponsor, and collaboration between several university entities provide an example for

the feasibility of further projects (CSKU 2009, 2).

The use of native plants in the KU Student Rain Garden is encouraging, and there are

other areas of campus that could benefit from increased plantings of native vegetation. In an


effort to restore the beauty of a traditional campus landmark, KU will be investing $125,000 to

dredge Potter Lake in summer 2010. The dredging is intended to remove sediment deposits and

excess vegetation, partly the results of erosion and nutrient-rich runoff. An additional $200,000

will be used to upgrade the infrastructure associated with Potter Lake, including installation of a

sedimentation basin (KU News 2010). Altering landscaping practices near Potter Lake could

provide further protection against re-eutrophication, potentially saving time and money by

avoiding or delaying future dredging projects. Currently, turf is mowed right up to the edge of

the lake; planting a buffer zone of deep rooted native plants around the lake could help limit the

amount of sediment and nutrient deposition in the lake as well as enhance the lake scenery. As

members of the Potter Lake Project, students have also been involved in efforts to improve the

conditions of Potter Lake (KU News 2010).

In high traffic areas where native plants might not be appropriate, use of new,

commercially-available products can help reduce erosion and runoff. ScourStop mats, made out

of semi-rigid polymer, can provide an alternative to rock rip rap, an arrangement of rocks in

areas subject to water discharge, in curb and stormwater pipe outfalls and other erosion-prone

areas (Images 2 and 3, Appendix) (ET 2008, 1; IDEQ 2005). Holes in the mat allow growth of

vegetation, which generally gives a natural appearance (ET 2008, 3). ScourStop has been

rigorously tested by Colorado State University and has been shown to reduce erosion better then

rip rap under high-flow conditions (ET 2008, 2). Benefits of installing ScourStop mats include

immediate soil protection, filtration of pollutants, and groundwater recharge. On a life-time cost

analysis, the ScourStop system can be less expensive to maintain than other alternatives (ET

2008, 3).


Erosion can also potentially be limited by decreasing stormwater runoff through the use

of porous pavement. One type of porous pavement, pervious concrete, contains voids that allow

water to flow through and enter the ground, reducing runoff (Image 4, Appendix) (EPA 2010, 1).

Pervious concrete has been recorded to discharge 5 gallons of water per square foot per minute.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has labeled the use of pervious concrete a

Best Management Practice (BMP) for runoff management purposes (NRMCA 2010). Because

the appearance of pervious concrete differs from that of traditional concrete (Image 5, Appendix),

it would be best suited for replacing large areas of damaged pavement in less-visible areas of

campus instead of repairing smaller sections in more prominent locations.

Turf Maintenance

Turf maintenance currently accounts for 37% of the university’s landscaping budget and

70% of its annual manpower requirements (Table 2, Appendix). The university has developed a

zoning system for areas that require differing levels of maintenance with four categories,

Performance A requiring the most maintenance with two visits per week and Performance D

requiring the least with only one visit per season or year. The percentage of the landscape

covered by each of these zones is available in Table 3 (Appendix). Performance Area B covers

the largest portion of the campus by far. Performance A acreage requires a disproportionately

high amount of maintenance effort; Performance A areas have significant visual importance and

must be maintained in peak condition (JLBC et al. 2002). Therefore, our focus is on the acreage

in Performance B. Changing some of the turf in Performance B to Performance C would greatly

reduce the maintenance inputs required for turf. This could also be done by changing the turf to a

slower growing grass such as buffalo grass. Maintenance could be further reduced by planting

some of these areas with native plants other than turf grasses.


Lawn maintenance currently consumes 37% of Facility Operations’ 1.2 million dollar

annual landscaping budget. Watering and chemical spraying make up another 3.9% of the budget

(Table 4, Appendix) (Green 2010). The 2002 Campus Master Plan reported that the national

average cost of maintenance per acre on university campuses was $4,175. The university’s

spending at the time was approximately $687 per acre (JLBC et al., 2002). This number could

potentially be reduced even further: reducing the more than six hundred acres of turf by planting

more ornamental native species and the frequency of mowing by substituting slower-growing

turf types could lower this yearly cost and allow maintenance workers to focus on other areas.

Changing the seed types and creating the new native plantings may require an increased material

cost, but funding could potentially come from the newly established revolving green fund

because of the money it would eventually save on mowing.

Pesticide Use

The U.S. EPA defines pesticides as ―any substance or mixture of substances intended for

preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest‖ (EPA 2010, 2). Insecticides,

herbicides, and fungicides therefore all qualify as pesticides. Whether a living organism is

designated a ―pest‖ depends on how it interacts with certain human activities, such as agriculture,

animal husbandry, and urban living, and thus is a matter of cultural interpretation rather than

scientific consensus.

The problem is that the intentional, targeted toxicity of pesticides often result in

unintentional, non-targeted toxicity in other organisms, including humans (Deneer 2000).

Even when applied judiciously, pesticides have the tendency to travel through various media

such as air, water, soil, food, and even clothing. Once they reach a given ecosystem, pesticides

can be ingested, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin of sensitive biota. Eventually, if sufficient


quantities accumulate in an organism’s system, this can lead to birth defects, non-Hodgkin’s

lymphoma, nervous system damage, and other diseases (Conners and Black 2004; Fleming et al.

1995; Garry et al. 2002; Greenlee et al. 2004; Kross et al. 1996; Sack et al. 1993).

Many assume that agricultural industries drive this process, but in fact urban land in

America receives an average of ten times or more pesticides per acre than agricultural land

(Kermath 2007). Landscaping, therefore, ranks with agriculture as one of the most pesticide-

intensive industries. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that certain targeted species can

become resistant to pesticides. In 1998 University of Florida-Gainsville entomologist Marjorie

A. Hoy wrote that ―[m]ore than 500 arthropod species have become resistant to insecticides and

acaricides, with many species having become resistant to the major classes of such products‖

(1998).

Fortunately, there are ways to mitigate the environmental and resistance problems of

pesticides. The most common technique is Integrated Pest Management (IPM), a comprehensive,

ecosystem-centered approach to managing pests. Instead of indiscriminately spraying a given

area, the IPM practitioner clearly differentiates pests from innocuous organisms, decides the

quantity of a pest that warrants a response, engages in preventative measures such as mowing,

planting pest-resistant vegetation, and managing water and nutrient flows, employs targeted

mechanical or chemical interventions, including trapping, weeding, noise projection, and

pheromone disruption, and, as a last resort, uses small quantities of pesticides. As the EPA notes,

however, IPM is ―best described as a continuum‖; practitioners vary in how many IPM methods

they use and to what degree (EPA 2010, 3).


Composting

Thoughtful planning of campus green spaces, responsible management of landscaped

areas, and implementation of technologies to reduce runoff and erosion can increase the

sustainability of university landscaping systems, but to progress further, sustainable practices

should extend beyond landscape maintenance. The consideration of landscaping waste disposal

is critical in the effort to encourage sustainable campus landscaping practices in a broader sense.

Up until approximately nine years ago, KU landscaping waste was placed in a landfill;

landscaping debris is now composted or mulched.

The landscaping department of KU Facility Operations currently composts approximately

4800 cubic feet of landscaping waste—mostly leaves and plant clippings. An additional 3200

cubic feet of wood chips are produced from tree trimmings and used as mulch on campus. No

employees are specifically charged with composting responsibilities, so landscaping staff tend to

the process as time allows. This is reflected in the method presently used to turn landscaping

waste into composting, which only requires about thirty to forty hours of employee labor

annually. The debris is taken to a site west of the Multidisciplinary Research Building (MRB)

on the KU’s West Campus. Landscaping waste is placed in piles and turned approximately three

or four times a year. The piles are not monitored for temperature, pH, or other parameters (Lang

2010).

Usable compost is generally available in about a year, although precipitation levels may

affect the time needed for maturation. The final yield of compost is predicted by landscaping

supervisor Mike Lang to be approximately ten percent of the initial volume of landscaping waste.

This amount is adequate for satisfying KU’s compost needs; no purchase of commercial compost

is required (Lang 2010).


At this time, it appears that the current method of composting satisfies the University of

Kansas’ landscape waste disposal and compost production needs. There is adequate space for

the composting process, the yield of mature compost satisfies the volume required for application,

and the availability of finished compost coincides well with the demand for its use. However,

new buildings continue to be built on West Campus, and the future land use needs of the

university may change (Lang 2010). With this in mind, slight modifications to the current

composting method could reduce the amount of space needed for a given amount of compost,

increase the rate of decomposition, and possibly improve the quality of the finished product.

Progress may be made towards these objectives by monitoring, and in some cases,

optimizing, composting conditions. Temperature, acidity, moisture, surface area, nutrient ratios

and oxygen content influence decomposition rate; the quality of the final product is also

dependent on some of the same parameters. Nutrient ratios and surface area can be altered prior

to piling the compost by mixing various types of waste with different carbon-to-nitrogen ratios

and by grinding debris (Sherman n.d.). Oxygen content and acidity can be manipulated by

aeration, provided by mixing the pile using a front end loader—available to KU Facility

Operations—or by installing perforated pipes in the piles to allow for passive air circulation

(Sherman n.d.; Lang 2010). Adequate aeration can also reduce odors, an important consideration

if the land adjacent to the composting site is developed in the future (Sherman n.d.).

Conclusion and Key Recommendations

Aspects of current KU landscaping practices reflect historical ideals, and recognizing the

traditional visions for campus landscaping is crucial for proposing viable university actions. A

review and evaluation of local and other university landscaping practices provided insight into

potential changes in KU landscaping methods that could result in reduced impact on the


environment while being financially feasible. Five areas of focus were identified for more in-

depth attention. An increase in native perennial vegetation plantings could decrease the costs

and environmental impact of maintenance and in some cases, reduce erosion. Erosion-prone

areas could also be protected by installing a commercial product, such as ScourStop. The use of

pervious materials to reduce runoff warrants further consideration if the traditional pavement in

sidewalks or parking lots requires replacement. The environmental impacts of lawn maintenance

could be reduced through transitioning to slow-growing grasses that require less frequent

mowing or replanting turf with native perennials. Responsible pest management is an additional

segment of sustainable landscaping. The current composting techniques are sufficient for

producing the amount of compost used for campus applications; suggested composting

modifications could be useful in the future if land use or compost quantity needs changed. As

illustrated by the KU Student Rain Garden, students are willing and able to help create and

maintain sustainable landscaping features. Engaging the student body in landscaping efforts

could contribute to the financial feasibility of sustainability improvements.

Current KU landscaping efforts and practices have multiple strengths, including

installation of the KU Student Rain Garden and composting or mulching landscaping waste. To

further build on these sustainable actions, we offer a few key recommendations:

• Incorporate more native and perennial plants into campus landscaping

• Plant a buffer zone around Potter Lake

• Utilize pervious materials to reduce runoff

• Consider integrated pest management techniques

• Engage students in sustainable landscaping efforts

• Continue composting landscaping waste with slight modifications to current method


References

Allen V (Director, Facilities Management, Haskell Indian Nations University). 2010. Personal

communication.

Ben N (Haskell University student). 2010. Personal communication.

Conners DE, Black MC. 2004. Evaluation of lethality and genotoxicity in the freshwater mussel

Utterbackia imbecillis (Bivalvia: Unionidae) exposed singly and in combination to

chemicals used in lawn care. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicity

46(3):362-71.

[CSKU 2009, 1] Center for Sustainability, University of Kansas. 2009. KU student recreation

center rain garden [Internet; cited 2010 May 8]. Available from:

http://www.sustainability.ku.edu/raingarden/about.shtml

[CSKU 2009, 2] Center for Sustainability, University of Kansas. 2009. KU student rain garden

[Internet; cited 2010 May 9]. Available from:

http://www.sustainability.ku.edu/raingarden/.

Deneer JW. 2000. Toxicity of mixtures of pesticides in aquatic systems. Pest Management

Science 56:516-20.

Dobbs G (Landscape Services Manager, Michigan State University). 2010. Personal

communication.

[EPA 2010, 1] Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Porous pavements: Managing

rainwater runoff [Internet; cited 2010 May 9]. Available from:

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/news/news102008.html

[EPA 2010, 2] Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. About pesticides [Internet; cited 2010

May 5]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/.


[EPA 2010, 3] Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Integrated pest management (IPM)

principles [Internet; cited 2010 May 5]. Available from:

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ipm.htm

[ET, 1] Erosion Tech LLC. 2008. What is ScourStop™ transition mat? [Internet; cited 2010

May 6]. Available from: http://scourstop.com/about.php

[ET, 2] Erosion Tech LLC. 2008. Proven results [Internet; cited 2010 May 10].

Available from: http://scourstop.com/results.php

[ET, 3] Erosion Tech LLC. 2008. Why use the ScourStop™ system? [Internet; cited 2010 May

10]. Available from: http://scourstop.com/why-use-scourstop.php

Fleming WJ, Augspurger TP, Alderman JA. 1995. Freshwater mussel die-off attributed to

anticholinesterase poisoning. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14(5):877-79.

Garry VF, Harkins ME, Erickson LL, Long-Simpson LK, Holland SE, Burroughs BL. 2002.

Birth defects, season of conception, and sex of children born to pesticide applicators

living in the Red River Valley of Minnesota, USA. Environmental Health Perspectives

110(3):441-9.

Gords W (Facilities Management, Haskell Indian Nations University). 2010. Personal

communication

Green S (Facility Operations, University of Kansas). 2010. Personal communication.

Greenlee AR, Ellis TM, Berg RL. 2004. Low-dose agrochemicals and lawn care pesticides

induce developmental injury in murine preimplantation embryos. Environmental Health

Perspectives 112:703-9.

Hanes C (Facilities Management, Haskell Indian Nations University). 2010. Personal

communication.


[HINU] Haskell Indian Nations University. 2008. About Haskell [Internet; cited 2010 May 9].

Available from: http://www.haskell.edu/about.html

Hoy MA. 1998. Myths, models and mitigation of resistance to pesticides. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences 353(1376):1787–95.

[IDEQ] Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. 2005. Riprap

slope and outlet protection [Internet]. Boise (ID): Catalog of Stormwater Best

Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties, September 2005 [cited 2010 May

9]. Available from:

http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/data_reports/storm_water/catalog/entire.pdf

[JLBC et al.] Jeffrey L. Bruce & Company, Forcade & Associates, Mark M Mahady &

Associates, Turf Diagnostics & Design. 2002. The landscape master plan [Internet].

Lawrence (KS): The University of Kansas Design and Construction Management

[updated 2002 August; cited 2010 April 9]. Available from:

http://www.dcm.ku.edu/planning/landscape.shtml

Kermath B. 2007. Why go native? Landscaping for biodiversity and sustainability education.

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 8(2):210-23.

Kross BC, Burrneister LF, Ogilvie LK, Fuortes LJ, Fu CM. 1996. Proportionate mortality study

of golf course superintendents. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 29:501-6.

[KU 1997] University of Kansas. 1997. The campus plan, fall 2007. Lawrence (KS): The

University of Kansas.

[KU 2008] University of Kansas. 2008. Campus heritage plan. Lawrence (KS): The University

of Kansas Office of Design and Construction Management.


[KU News] University of Kansas News. 2010 April 8. Chancellor approves project to dredge,

restore Potter Lake [Internet; cited 2010 May 9]. Available from:

http://www.news.ku.edu/2010/april/8/potter.shtml

Lang M (Landscape Manager, Facility Operations, University of Kansas). 2010. Personal

communication.

[MSU] Michigan State University. 2010. MSU Facts [Internet; cited 2010 May 9]. Available

from: http://www.msu.edu/about/thisismsu/facts.html

[NRMCA] National Ready Mixed Concrete Association. 2010. Pervious concrete pavement: An

overview [Internet; cited 2010 May 6]. Available from:

http://www.perviouspavement.org/.

Pendleton K (Pendleton’s Country Market). 2010. Personal communication.

[PCM] Pendleton’s Country Market. N.d. Pendleton’s country market (homepage) [Internet;

cited 2010 April 1]. Available from: http://www.pendletons.com

Richardson K (Waste Reduction and Recycling Operations Supervisor, Public Works

Department, City of Lawrence, KS). 2010. Personal communication.

Rynk R, editor. 1992. On-farm composting handbook, NRAES-54, Table A.1, Appendix A

[Internet]. Ithaca (NY): Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Engineering Service [cited

2010 April 27]. Available from:

http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html

Sack D, Linz D, Shukla R, Rice C, Bhattacharya A, Suskind R. 1993. Health status of pesticide

applicators: Postural stability assessments. Journal of Occupational and Environmental

Medicine 35(12):1196-202.


Sherman R. N.d. Large-scale organic materials composting [Internet]. Raleigh (NC): Biological

and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University [cited 2010

April 27]. Available from:

http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/topic/vermicomposting/pubs/ag593.pdf

[STM] Springfield Township Michigan Native Vegetation Enhancement Project. N.d. Going

native, Sheet #1, Homeowner’s series [Internet; cited 2010 May 10]. Available from:

www.epa.gov/ecopage/springfieldtwp/Sheet1.pdf

Stevens M (Haskell University student). 2010. Personal communication.

[TU 2009] Tufts University. 2009. Get to know Tufts [Internet; cited 2010 May 9]. Available

from: http://www.tufts.edu/home/get_to_know_tufts/.

[TU 2010] Tufts University. 2010. Sustainable landscaping [Internet; cited 2010 April 14]

Available from: http://sustainability.tufts.edu/?pid=14&c=22

[UM] University of Minnesota. 2006. Dividing perennials. Sustainable urban landscape

information series [Internet; cited 2010 May 9]. Available from:

http://www.sustland.umn.edu/implement/DividingPerennials.htm


Appendix

Image 1: 1928 Depiction of the General Boulevard Layout of Main Campus University of Kansas. 2008. Campus heritage plan. Lawrence (KS): The University of Kansas. Office of Design and

Construction Management.


Figure 2: West Slope Campus Heritage Plan


Sustainable Practice Description

Underground Drip Irrigation System

(Currently Being Installed)

Being installed near newly planted trees and in lawns.

Will help maximize water usage as well as decrease

excess and unnecessary runoff.

Mulching

MSU has a partnership with a local farm that

produces and provides a majority of the campus’

compost.

Spring: All MSU lawnmowers are equipped with

recycling mowing decks. These break down grass

clippings and are spread back over lawn as a form of

organic material and compost. This helps with

natural fertilization of the lawns.

Fall: Fallen leaves are ground up and spread over

lawns as organic fertilizer. This reduces needed

resources to rake and bag all of the leaves as well as

reducing organic waste.

Accu-Brine System

MSU recently purchased the Accu-Brine system that

replaces traditional salt with a 23% salt to water

solution. This dramatically decreases the amount of

salt needed for the winter months. Also the

decreased amount of needed salt helps lessen the

negative environmental impacts of salt.

Storm Water Oil Separator

A system that has been installed for the central river

that runs through MSU’s campus. The separator

filters all of the runoff water and ensures that oil does

not pollute the river.

Storage of Topsoil

MSU stores all of the excavated topsoil from

construction projects all across campus. Currently

there is over $5 Million worth of topsoil at MSU

storage facility. This not only saves money but

reduces the waste of topsoil.

Native Species

MSU has a firm belief in using native species. Using

native species decreases the amount of maintenance

and chemicals used in their upkeep.

Rain Gardens

Many buildings on campus use reclaimed water from

their roof to sustain rain gardens. Rain gardens help

decrease the amount of runoff of water being emptied

into sewers.


Greener Maintenance Equipment

MSU’s maintenance equipment all uses 5% biodiesel

fuel. Preventative maintenance is also implemented

to ensure the highest level of efficiency.

Biodegradable cleaners are currently being used on

all of the equipment reducing the amount of toxic

chemicals released into the environment.

Recycling of Asphalt

MSU accepts asphalt grindings from all over East

Lansing. These grinding are then reused in the

paving of new roads. This helps decrease the cost of

roadwork.

(Future Plans)

No Net Loss of Green Space

A Policy is currently underway to have a no net loss

of green space when there is new construction. This

policy will ensure that there is never a decrease in

amount of green space across the campus, helping

decrease the carbon footprint of MSU.

Table 1: Sustainable Landscaping Practices at Michigan State University

Image 2: Rock Rip Rap Image 3: ScourStop

Homeowner’s Friend Podcast. July 2009 ACF Home. 2010.

http://www.livestockandland.org/ http://acf-bmps.com/Erosion/ScourStop/Scourstop01.jpg

Demonstration_Sites/images/CulvertStewart-01.jpg


Image 4: Performance of Pervious Concrete Image 5: Comparison of Pervious Concrete to

Traditional Concrete and Gravel Permeable Pavers. Sustainable Stormwater Pervious concrete. San Juan Island Conservation

District. Management. May 2007. 2010.

http://stormwater.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/ http://www.sanjuanislandscd.org/District_Programs/

porus-paving-au.jpg EcoBuilding/files/pervious%20concrete%20sea %20island%20sand%20and%20gravel.jpg

Table 2: Facilities Operations Landscape Acreage and Manpower Requirements (University of

Kansas, 1999; from JLBC et al., 2002)

Tree/Shrub Turf Flowers Total

Acreage 240 685 85 960

Percent of Total

Acreage 25% 71% 4% 100%

Percent Manpower

Required 25% 70% 5% 100%


Table 3: Facility Operations percent of total and difficult maintenance acreage in each

performance standard (University of Kansas, 1999; from JLBC et al., 2002)

Category Amount Spent Percent of Budget

Lawn Maintenance $462,255 37.36%

Shrub/Tree/Plant $202,280 16.35%

Watering $19,184 1.55%

Raking $54,095 4.37%

Greenhouse/Nursery $293 0.02%

Chemical Spraying $29,892 2.42%

Other Equipment Maintenance $32,233 2.60%

Total Budget $1,237,445 100.00%

Table 4: Amount of Budget Spent on Various Landscaping Categories, Expressed in Dollars and

as Percent of Budget (Green, 2010)

Performance A* Performance B* Performance C* Performance D*

% of % of % of % of

Total Difficult Total Difficult Total Difficult Total Difficult

Acres Acres Acres Acres

Tree/

Shrub 12 30.1

1 32 20 6 0 50 50

Turf 6 80 81 50 3 0 10 Lied

Center

Flowers 71 80 27 0 2 0 0 0 1 Represents the percentage of difficult to maintain area within a performance standard (e.g. 30% of the

tree/shrub acreage in Performance A is difficult to maintain)

* Performance A: A minimum of two maintenance visits per week (e.g. The Chancellor's Residence)

* Performance B: One maintenance visit per week

* Performance C: One maintenance visit per month

* Performance D: One maintenance visit per season or year.

sustainable landscaping and composting at the...

Documents