| Overall Rating | Bronze - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 39.69 |
| Liaison | April Thompson |
| Submission Date | March 2, 2018 |
| Executive Letter | Download |
Creighton University
OP-9: Landscape Management
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
1.00 / 2.00 |
Total campus area (i.e. the total amount of land within the institutional boundary):
Figures required to calculate the total area of managed grounds:
| Area (double-counting is not allowed) | |
| Area managed in accordance with an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program that uses a four-tiered approach | 38 Acres |
| Area managed in accordance with an organic land care standard or sustainable landscape management program that has eliminated the use of inorganic fertilizers and chemical pesticides, fungicides and herbicides in favor of ecologically preferable materials | 0 Acres |
| Area managed using conventional landscape management practices (which may include some IPM principles or techniques) | 0 Acres |
| Total area of managed grounds | 38 Acres |
A brief description of any land excluded from the area of managed grounds (e.g. the footprint of buildings and impervious surfaces, experimental agricultural land, areas that are not regularly managed or maintained):
Land excluded from the area of managed grounds is due to building footprints and impervious parking surfaces.
Percentage of grounds managed in accordance with an IPM program:
A copy of the IPM plan or program:
A brief description of the IPM program:
Pest and disease issues are monitored (1. monitor and identify pests) and action only taken to control them when the health of the plant is in jeopardy (2. action threshold). Efforts are made to prevent pest problems through cultural practices, for example rotating species in annual beds and selecting species based on site conditions (3. prevent or remove conditions that attract pests). When pest pressure exceeds tolerance limits, the control method is chosen by balancing pest pressure with impact of the control method on non-target species and also the effectiveness of the control method (4. control).
Percentage of grounds managed in accordance with an organic program:
A brief description of the organic land standard or landscape management program that has eliminated the use of inorganic fertilizers and chemical pesticides, fungicides and herbicides in favor of ecologically preferable materials:
A brief description of the institution's approach to plant stewardship:
During the plant selection process native plants are given consideration. When they fit the required aesthetic and functional purposes of the design, native species or cultivars of native species are preferred over non-natives. Plant availability from vendors is a factor; natives specified in a design are not always available and substitutions are sometimes required.
A brief description of the institution's approach to hydrology and water use:
A brief description of the institution's approach to materials management and waste minimization (e.g. composting and/or mulching on-site waste):
All landscape waste is collected in 20-yard dumpsters and taken to a composting facility. Tree debris is chipped on-site and used as mulch for the campus greenhouse and community garden.
A brief description of the institution's approach to energy-efficient landscape design:
A brief description of other sustainable landscape management practices employed by the institution (e.g. use of environmentally preferable landscaping materials, initiatives to reduce the impacts of ice and snow removal, wildfire prevention):
Mechanical removal of accumulated snow, i.e. shoveling or using hydraulic brooms, pushers, or plows to clear snow from surfaces, is preferred to using deicer. Deicer is used as sparingly as possible, although our "zero tolerance" snow and ice policy requires regular use of deicers to completely clear surfaces of accumulated snow and ice once manually cleared. .
The website URL where information about the programs or initiatives is available:
Additional documentation to support the submission:
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.