| Overall Rating | Platinum |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 85.88 |
| Liaison | Sam Lubow |
| Submission Date | March 3, 2022 |
Stanford University
OP-9: Landscape Management
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
1.00 / 2.00 |
Melissa
Maigler Sustainability Coordinator Sustainability & Energy Management |
Total campus area:
Figures required to calculate the total area of managed grounds:
| Area (double-counting is not allowed) | |
| Area managed organically, without the use of inorganic fertilizers and chemical pesticides, fungicides and herbicides | 0 Acres |
| Area managed in accordance with an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program that uses selected chemicals only when needed | 2,108 Acres |
| Area managed using conventional, chemical-based landscape management practices | 0 Acres |
| Total area of managed grounds | 2,108 Acres |
A brief description of any land excluded from the area of managed grounds:
The footprint of the campus's buildings and impervious surfaces is approximately 1,164 acres, per Stanford's GIS map layers, which has been excluded from the totals above. In addition, approximately 61% of Stanford's land has been preserved as undeveloped oak woodland. Some undeveloped areas include Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, the campus arboretum, and small oak groves across campus.
Percentage of grounds managed organically:
A brief description of the organic landscape management program:
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:
Stanford first launched an IPM program in 1997 through Buildings & Grounds Maintenance (BGM). By taking an IPM approach, the Grounds department attempts to use the most environmentally sound methods for controlling pests that negatively impact the health of plant life on campus. Every attempt is made to find the most innovative and least toxic way of controlling pests, using chemicals only as a last resort.
Goals of the IPM Program at Stanford include:
- Reduce pesticide use and associated exposure risks
- Reduce the cost of pest control on campus
- Minimize harm to the environment
- Improve long-term plant protection
- Train and educate staff members about the Grounds IPM program
Monitoring for pests and beneficial insects on Stanford plants is one of the main approaches used by the Grounds department as part of our IPM program.
A brief description of the institution's approach to plant stewardship:
A brief description of the institution's approach to hydrology and water use:
Efforts have also been made to reduce non-potable water used for irrigation. For instance, many of these areas were intentionally "browned out," with signage explaining the water savings initiatives. Particular water-saving success stories came from the Department of Athletics, Physical Education, and Recreation (DAPER) and Residential & Dining Enterprises (R&DE). DAPER reduced irrigation at the Stanford golf course and golf practice facility, transitioned to turf fields, and removed ornamental lawns in favor of drought tolerant plants. These efforts led to a reduction in the department's potable water use by 37% compared to 2013 levels.
Please also see the "OP-21: Water Use" credit in this STARS submission for descriptions of many other tools and programs relevant to campus hydrology and water use.
A brief description of the institution's approach to landscape materials management and waste minimization:
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:
Website URL where information about the institution’s sustainable landscape management program is available:
Additional documentation to support the submission:
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
This data accounts for Stanford's main campus. Landscape Management practice information for other locations was not available.
This data accounts for Stanford's main campus. Landscape Management practice information for other locations was not available.
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.