COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT (COE)

ANNUAL REPORT

2003-2004

Tim Bryson, Chair

April 27, 2004

COE’s charge since its inception in 1990 has been twofold: to review capital projects for environmental impact and to submit policy recommendations. Capital projects in this academic year have been fewer in number than in previous years and the Campus Planning office has devoted much of its attention to the Campus Plan Update. We have tried to take advantage of this convergence to improve the review process and to strengthen Emory’s commitment to environmental stewardship.

Project Reviews. Perhaps our most difficult discussions centered on the student-initiated proposal to install street lights along Starvine Way; we were concerned about stress on wildlife habitat and about incremental incursions into the Lullwater forest but accepted the administration’s solution which incorporated our suggestions to minimize the impact. More straightforward was the proposal to renovate the Visual Arts Center on Peavine Creek Drive which we approved after FM convinced us there was no way to avoid loss of some trees. Most recently we approved a proposal to reconfigure the Oxford/Dowman intersection as part of the Emory Village renovation; the project entails loss of some trees but promises to prevent an increase of through-traffic on campus and FM agreed to make the restoration of the streambank in that area a demonstration project involving natural vegetation rather than concrete blocks.

One of our goals this year was to refine our new relationship with FM. John Wegner, as Campus Environmental Officer, now provides us a monthly “Report on the Emory Ecosystem,” which covers small projects that never reach COE for review and follow-up on projects, such as the B-School addition, that we reviewed and approved contingent on certain environmental protections and improvements. Another COE member, Chip Bullock, works with Campus Planning. He has rewritten their documentation to incorporate green building (LEED) standards and COE concerns into FM guidelines for architects and contractors. Laura Case, also with FM, developed an LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) scorecard which we are now requesting for each new building proposal. Much to our delight, Emory is acquiring a national reputation for its early involvement with the LEED program. For example, Atlanta City Council President Cathy Woolard invited Laura Case to help her incorporate LEED building standards into the city planning structure. In addition to the LEED scorecard, we have asked FM to supply with each capital project a Fact Sheet which outlines justifications for a project, projected use, and parking impacts and a Total Ecological Impact Scorecard which estimates impacts on campus noise, traffic patterns, infrastructure, and energy usage.  At this point, I think it can be said that environmental planning is now for the most part truly a collaborative venture between COE and FM.

Policy. Our main policy focus this year has been on the Campus Plan Update and the accompanying Comprehensive Transportation Study. Our own Chip Bullock leads the Transportation Study. The initial goal is to investigate all possible issues, analyze trends in demand versus service, and take into account growth projections among major stakeholders in the immediate Emory area and parallel initiatives by planning bodies in the metro area at large. The Implementation Plan will include feasibility studies, environmental impact studies, and studies of alternative transportation options. We receive regular updates from Chip. In addition, he is helping us to organize a meeting with Emory’s Alternative Transportation leaders to discuss current campus policy.

For the Campus Plan Update, our strategy has been to propose that environmental values be incorporated into the vision articulated for the Plan and to submit some practical guidelines for management of Emory’s natural heritage and for selection of building sites. Again, we have enjoyed a sense of collaboration with campus planners – and not only the staff under Jen Fabrick with whom we meet each month; we have also had access when needed with Mike Mandl and Bob Hascall. Already, we have agreed on the addition of an environmental Guiding Principle to the existing ones. And they participated in the public brainstorming forum “Can Emory Grow Smarter?” which we organized a month ago in collaboration with the Campus Development Committee among others. At that time, Mr. Mandl introduced his own initiative to seek partnerships with third parties to subsidize housing close to campus and expressed willingness to entertain proposals for a fund to reward campus environmental initiatives. For our part, COE seeks to contribute a Forest Map of campus that will show the location of Emory’s forested areas and describe their value to university life as well as their role in the campus ecology. We hope also to propose some specific criteria to help the administration select building sites in line with the university’s commitment to environmental stewardship. Finally, we suggested that the Campus Plan Update include management plans for our forests, stormwater, energy usage, and air quality. We plan to meet monthly through the summer as we usually do to pursue these initiatives.

COE continues to communicate informally with other campus environmental leaders and groups, in particular with Peggy Barlett for the Ad Hoc Committee on Environmental Stewardship and the Piedmont Project, and with Nancy Seidemann for the Friends of Emory Forest. These groups include faculty, FM and Administration staffers, other staff, students, alumni and neighbors. They have continued to organize ivy pulls and tree plantings, and just last month one group of these individuals successfully obtained approval from the Board of Trustees to name four of Emory’s twelve perennially flowing streams. There appears to be a growing interest from the grass roots level to the highest levels of the administration in protecting our natural heritage.