2018

Planning for a Sustainable Future at Central Washington University

Proposal to Reserve Land and Develop Programs for CWU Food Systems Cooperative

KATHERINE DOUGHTYSUSTAINABILITY PROJECTS SPECIALISTCWU AUXILIARY OPERATIONS

ContentsExecutive Summary..................................2

The Problem............................................2

The Motivation........................................2

Statement of purpose..................................3

Background Information..........................3

Important Terms and Definitions............3

Overview.................................................4

Other University Examples......................5

Proposed Plan for Central Washington University 7

Location..................................................7

Farm/Garden for Dining Services...........8

Greenhouses.......................................9

Field space........................................10

Composting...........................................11

Campus Community Garden and Education 14

Real Food as a Focus for CWU............16

Concerns and Solutions.........................17

Future Possibilities..................................18

Concluding Remarks..............................20

End Notes.................................................22

1

Executive Summary

CWU Auxiliary Operations and Dining Services have begun to examine new programming opportunities following discourse on how best to develop new programs that positively impact the community. Student interest in greater

environmental and social responsibility creates a need to expand conversations around sustainability and resiliency within all CWU departments. The question is how to build them into a growing university.

Developing sustainability and resilience programs reinforces possibilities for CWU to be a balanced, just, and responsible institution. Auxiliary Operations and Dining Services can be leaders in these conversations. Auxiliary programs (dining included) grow as the campus population grows—with community wellbeing and experience at the center of our work. The sustainability and resiliency of our systems need to be prioritized as we adapt to changing priorities. We look to develop programs focused on waste diversion, food production, and building strong campus-community connections.

2

The Problem

Agriculture, food waste, and transportation of food emit a significant amount of greenhouse gases (GHG)

Food waste is also water waste, resource waste, labor waste

Empty space can be better utilized to serve the campus population

The Motivation

Programs at other institutions are ahead of the curve

Programs analyzed as baselines for CWU programs are: located in Washington state, in a comparable environment, or of comparable size

CWU needs to join them as leaders in sustainable action

Social Justice, Sustainability, and accountability are priorities of CWU

The Solution

University programs in food waste diversion, cultivation, and community-based action will address CWU’s contribution to GHG emissions. It is vital that CWU—as one of the few higher education institutions in Washington state without explicit sustainability programming—begins telling the story of how it is accountable to local and global communities.

It is the responsibility of educational institutions to provide students with information that will enable them to facilitate effective systemic change as decision makers in the future. Food is at the center of life—and sustainability. Food systems awareness is paramount to conversations of environmental and social responsibility. Adjusting the CWU food system and implementing new programs within a CWU Food Systems Cooperative will provide tangible results for the university’s sustainability goals.

Statement of purposeFood intersects with all areas of sustainability—environment, society and culture, and economics. It puts vitality into our communities. It is how we connect socially, in ritual, across cultures. Our campus is a community within itself and as a part of the larger Ellensburg-Central Washington community. The social and ecological implications of our food system are fundamental to maintaining healthy communities and fostering a successful campus.

Background Information

Important Terms and Definitions

Sustainability—the ability to meet the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.1 The CWU Social Justice and Human Rights Dialogues committee cites sustainability as resilience, and agrees upon the definition of resilience provided below.

Resilience—the ability to recover from or adjust easily to change.2

Environmental Responsibility—a duty or obligation to operate in a way that is mindful of resource use and minimizes environmental impact.3

Social Responsibility—a duty or responsibility of an institution to operate for the benefit of communities instead of for profit or personal gain.4

Food System—the processes involved in keeping us fed. Including: growing, packaging, transportation, etc.5

Greenhouse Gas—Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.6

Food Waste—The FAO defines wasted food as food that is fit for human consumption, but is not consumed because it is or left to spoil or discarded by retailers or consumers is called food waste.

1 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Learn About Sustainability. N.d.

2 Central Washington University. Social Justice and Human Rights Dialogues. 2017.

3 Blackburn, William R. The Sustainability Handbook: The Complete Management Guide to Achieving Social, Economic, and Environmental Responsibility. Chapter 15: Approach to

Sustainability for Colleges and Universities. Washington D.C: 2007. Environmental Law Institute.

4 Schneider, Carol Geary and Richard H. Hersh. Fostering Personal and Social Responsibility on College and University Campuses.

5Cornell University. A Primer on Community Food Systems: Linking Food, Nutrition, and Agriculture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. N.d.

6 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. N.d.

3

For our purposes, we also add food scraps from pre-consumer kitchen prep. There are multiple levels of food loss and waste, but this definition provides sufficient context to this proposal.7

Composting—Providing ideal environments for bacteria and decomposing microorganisms to turn organic waste into usable fertilizer for farming and gardening.8

Real Food—Food which truly nourishes producers, consumers, communities and the earth.9 Real food can be judged based on criteria of: local (produced within 200 miles), humane (produced with the wellbeing of animals as a priority), fair (employee and labor rights are a priority), and ecologically sound (production practices prioritize environmental stewardship). This definitions are based off the Real Food Standards compiled by the Real Food Challenge and partner organizations.

Overview

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report that 30-40 percent of the U.S. food supply is wasted.10 It goes to landfills, where it does not properly decompose due to lack of oxygen, water, and beneficial bacteria—under these circumstances, it emits the GHG methane. Allowing food to go to waste in landfills not only adds to GHG emissions, but it essentially is a waste of the water, soil amendments, labor, time and energy that went into production. Recycling food waste in the form of compost is an active way for CWU to be accountable to local and global communities by reducing our contribution to atmospheric GHG concentrations and climate change.

Agriculture itself contributes to 10 percent of all GHG emissions in the United States.11 Production of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other growth aids; heavy machinery—all contribute to atmospheric concentrations of methane and other GHG.12 Producing food on campus—with the help of composted food waste—closes the nutrient loop and the consumer loop for Dining Services. Meaning, it eliminates the need for synthetic and chemical growth aids by returning nutrients from food waste into a usable fertilizer, and allows for a part of the campus food system to sustain within itself. Growing food in an environmentally responsible way puts the wellbeing of students and the environment as direct priorities for our program.

The CWU Food Systems Cooperative (CFSC) will incorporate three main components: A farm/garden for CWU Dining Services (name TBD), a composting program, and a focus on education through the Campus Community Garden previously established by Dr. Rebecca Pearson (public health) and a group of dedicated student and staff volunteers. The CFSC will expand existing programs and allow for CWU to implement more socially and environmentally

7 Food and Agriculture Organization. Food Loss and Food Waste. N.d. Web.

8 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Composting. N.d. Web.

9 Real Food Standards Council. Real Food Standards 2.0. 2016.

10 USDA. Food Waste Challenge FAQ. N.d. Web.

11 USDA. Agriculture and Climate Change. 14 Oct 2016. Web.

12 Agriculture and Climate Change. 4

responsible projects. The main components will be centrally located for easy collaboration and to establish a hub where folks can find community around food, gardening, and sustainability.

5

Other University Examples

Campus farm operations have been successful and increasing in prevalence for decades. At some institutions the campus food system is essential to the function of the university. They expand alongside academic programs, and with the broader community. CWU is not an agricultural school, thus some of the programs are outside the scope of our needs. The relevant and scalable information—labor structures, environmental solutions, student involvement, etc.—is presented here, then later adapted into the structure for CFSC programming.

Michigan State University13

Michigan State is significantly larger than CWU but in a similar climate. As such, it is used as a model for infrastructure and seasonal adaptability. The Student Organic Farm began with funding from a W.K. Kellogg Foundation grant, and has expanded to a 15 acre, nearly year-round functioning program. They have a 48-week CSA program—bear in mind they experience extremely cold winters. They produce for a campus farm stand, dining services, and wholesale orders. With their cultivation and storage infrastructure, they can make a significant impact on their community. The farm has a director, program managers, a paid student crew, and volunteers. Extensive food and agriculture programs in place at the school and in their community make it possible for their program, but it is possible to scale it down to a level more suited to CWU.

Relevant components: The grant funding for startup made expansion more possible in the future. Cold storage for root vegetables allows them to have produce available in the winter months. The farm utilizes high tunnel greenhouses (passive solar heating, no extra sources necessary), an energy efficient solution to season extension. There are greenhouses located closer to main campus that produce exclusively for the dining service while the main farm is farther away, making their operation accessible to the campus community.

University of Montana14

The University of Montana is more comparable to CWU in size and is located in a similar environment. Associations with academic departments and work opportunities for students contribute heavily to the success of their farm. Relevant programs in academic departments bring students to the farm space and hands-on work into the classroom—an interdisciplinary approach that broadens their reach across the university. Farm space is concentrated into three main uses—production for campus dining facilities, education and research, and plots students can rent for personal use. It also appears that the dining facilities use tools like the rocket composter that divert food waste back to their farm.

Relevant components: The garden exclusively for dining production—education is important, but a space that is intended specifically for production is key to our goal for a sustainable and resilient operation. Their staff structure makes sense for a smaller institution—a paid staff 13 MSU Student Organic Farm. Michigan State University. 2015. Web.

14 UM Sustainability. Food. University of Montana. n.d. Web.

6

person, student employees/interns, and volunteers. They have an ADA accessible section, creating an inclusive space. They utilize a passive solar greenhouse constructed with green building techniques and incorporating a vermicomposting system. They have aquaponics programs, produce microgreens for the dining halls, and participate in a program like the Real Food Challenge—the Farm-to-College program—where 25% of the food is from local sources. This program is very scalable to Central. This program is a close model for this proposal.

Cornell University15

The genesis of the Cornell garden—Dilmun Hill—was as a learning hub for interested students. It has expanded into sales and production for dining services as a natural progression of the program. Much of the takeaway information is the same as the previous universities. They utilize high tunnel greenhouses, and give students the opportunity to manage the program. Education is a focus more than production, however because the program has been around for over a decade, production is well established as a component of the farm structure. Their managers are responsible for different sectors of their farm—CSA program, greenhouse production, field production, wholesale.

Relevant components: The student managers are overseen by a farm coordinator, who also gives support to volunteers. My impression is that they receive more funding from the institution than CWU would be able to provide, however their staff structure is the most important takeaway from their operation. It provides more organized opportunities for students to be involved.

Western Washington University16

Western’s program is another that is jointly run with an academic program at Fairhaven College. It is smaller, more to the scale that CWU would need, at five acres. There are work-study positions available for students. They have an educational and philanthropic focus—growing food for their campus community and for community organizations. The gardens are organized for different purposes—market vegetables, medicinal herbs, and an experimental food forest. Because of their association with Fairhaven, the focus is heavy on education and experimentation rather than production. While that component is not necessarily applicable to Central, there are some important highlights.

Relevant components: The farm is also affiliated with their associated student body (ASWWU). That student connection is vital to the survival of the farm—students can save a campus farm from extinction. In theory, all campus actions should be in service to the students. As such, where there is student support it is far more likely a program will be sustained. The educational and experimental focus is also important to consider—part of sustainability is incorporating the research and trials that lead to innovation.

Warren Wilson College17

15 Dilmun Hill Student Farm. Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station. N.d. Web.

16 Outback Farm. Fairhaven College of Interdisciplinary Studies. Western Washington University. N.d. Web.

17 Warren Wilson College Farm. Warren Wilson College. N.d. Web.

7

This program is regarded as the best student farm program in the country. Warren Wilson is an entirely different institution than CWU. There is not much relevancy to start—their program is vast and long in the making. However, there is one component of their program that has contributed to their success that is worth highlighting: they center their program on common learning outcomes. Every student, faculty member, and department that engages with their farm understands and accepts those outcomes. It drives their mission and allows the program to function smoothly. Collaborations and development are built on mutual understanding, which is essential to sustainability. Finally, 34% of the food served on campus is produced on campus—it is possible to successfully localize a food system.

Hampshire College18

Hampshire College’s program is another held in high esteem. They have a well-established meat and vegetable CSA program. They see their spaces as living laboratories, meant to teach ecological stewardship, production methods and maintain an educational focus for their institution. They again have multiple staff persons for different sectors of their program—vegetable production director, meat production director, student leaders, etc.—and they work to produce as much as possible for their school.

Relevant components: They received a grant from the Henry P. Kendall Foundation to engage in a 100% Local Food Challenge. This is an extraordinary action, and while it may not be the solution for Central it plants ideas of possibility regarding food sustainability solutions. Additionally, they put a big focus on local foods and historical crops, engaging with students across disciplines and experiences—the cultural aspects of food cannot be forgotten.

Proposed Plan for Central Washington University

Location

Reserving space for these projects is of timely importance. Considering the pace of growth for the university and after review of the master plan, space is in high demand for development. A review of open areas owned by CWU was conducted using the CMP and the following criteria:

Proximity to main campus Accessibility to students Surrounding facilities and environment Previous uses Transportation requirements Development requirements

18 Hampshire College Farm. Hampshire College. N.d. Web.

8

The ideal option is the open lot that lies off Alder Street where Dean Nicholson Boulevard becomes 14th Street. This space is directly across from student housing, walkable from main campus, and visible to passing individuals—there are virtually zero accessibility concerns. It is spacious, with room for multiple growing mediums. Water should be accessible due to the proximity of the recreation/practice fields.

The highlighted area on the map is just under eight acres (determined from a measuring tool via ArcGIS online). At least five acres is recommended to be

set aside to ensure the success of the program. With extra space, there is plenty of room for expanding the program in the future. It is a large area to ask for—that much has not been ignored. However, it is important the health of the area and the health of any food production landscape is considered. If the whole acreage is not set aside for a food production project, it should be used by grounds or for a low impact project. Runoff from a building or parking structure could potentially contaminate soil or impact growth. I would hope that native plants, or plants that encourage beneficial insects and pollinators to establish populations in the area would be considered to fill in the space. While a growing campus demands new structures and buildings to support the community greenspace and diverse environments are also essential for the health of our campus system.

For the short-term, there are three main components of this project to focus on: Vegetable production, composting, community building and education.

Farm/Garden for Dining Services

Cultivating vegetables on campus produces an overall positive effect. Thousands of pounds of produce can be grown in just one acre of land over a season. Though a campus farm could not replace all produce ordered by dining, it can supplement those orders significantly. For example, in the week of September 1-9, 2017 Dining Services ordered 40 pounds of tomatoes. That much could be supplemented by a campus garden (during the season) provided sufficient space. Additionally, it is entirely possible that in the summer when less produce is needed a significant portion of the kitchens’ produce orders could be supplemented by on-campus growing efforts.

The goal of this project is to make a measurable difference on the nutritional profile of Dining Services and CWU contributions to carbon emissions. To ensure the program provides the most

9

Figure 1. Proposed farm location. Note: across from student housing, space to expand, and close proximity of irrigated areas. Size pending approval.

benefit the farm site should include, in addition to field production space: high tunnel greenhouses (passive solar heated) for season extension and winter growing, compost facilities, and cold storage for keeping vegetables and extending the availability of produce into the winter months.

Greenhouses are essential to extend the growing season in this climate and ensure students see the results of the program. For students to participate and see the benefits during the regular academic year, the garden space must be active during the fall and winter months. Program structure, location, and resources available will greatly impact this component of the project, however the following information is a baseline from which to move forward. It was compiled with passive solar greenhouses in mind—meaning, minimal use of artificial light or heating elements—for energy conservation and moving towards more carbon neutrality. Many university farms located in similar climates, such as Michigan State, have success with passive solar greenhouses—high tunnels, specifically.

As an example, a High Tunnel Kit19 purchased with all materials included except for end walls, doors, and the corresponding hardware for those projects will cost upwards of $6,000 for a 22’ x 48’ high tunnel greenhouse.20 This is the smallest size I would recommend to start out. This also is without including labor and installation. Thus, it is safe to plan for between $10,000-$20,0000 for a greenhouse project. Over time, I would recommend having a least three greenhouses on site. This allows for proper crop rotation21 and increases the efficiency of the space. Greenhouses are expensive projects, but the return on

investment comes in the form of tomatoes, eggplants, sweet potatoes, peppers, fresh greens in winter, and more opportunities for projects such as vermicomposting (the use of worms and other microorganisms for composting food waste), aquaponics, etc.

With student engagement as a priority for this project, it is also important to know what it looks like to build a greenhouse from scratch—in case the decision is made to have students lead the design and building process. Cost varies depending on size, design, etc., but the following example from the University of Washington represents a high tunnel greenhouse construction project that is student led from start to finish. The total requested budget of the project was $22,309.88 for a 15’ x 50’ hoop house. Included in that cost is all materials and labor. A team of engineering students led the project, which was funded by a grant from the Campus Sustainability Fund at UW. To note: this example was used because the information was

19 High Tunnel Greenhouse Kit | 22’ Width. Urban Farmer.

20 Price varies between distributors and time of year.

21 Crop rotation is the process of moving crops to different locations season to season. On an organic farm, it is an essential practice to discourage pest populations from getting

established and to make sure the nutrient profile of the soil remains balanced.

10

Figure 2. Interior high tunnel greenhouse via Urban Farmer.

available to public via the CSF22 website. If CWU chooses to construct from scratch, this cost could be different depending on a number of factors. However, $20,000 give or take a little is an accurate cost representation for a mid-sized high tunnel greenhouse with all materials and labor considered. In that sense, it does not seem that there would be much of a cost difference between building a greenhouse from scratch and purchasing a kit, all things considered. The difference comes down to time and resources available. A more solid decision can be made after budget guidelines are established.

One purpose of the high tunnel design is to be low impact. Meaning, alternative methods of heating and cooling are recommended. It is possible to put fans in the end walls of a high tunnel greenhouse, however an alternative approach is installing a rolling mechanism on the sidewalls to allow for outside air to flow through and cool the temperature of the greenhouse. Shade fabric is an additional tool for cooling temperatures without electricity. As for heating, using water barrels or other solar methods should be sufficient for maintaining heat. In this same vein, the previous budget figure of $20,000 could be brought down with considerations of recycled materials and minimalist designs.

Involving Construction Management, engineering or math students—or any other groups that might be interested in the project—is important. Furthermore, considering green design/building practices, alternative materials use, and potential grant funding opportunities will be important throughout the process. While the project may be completed in a timelier manner without extensive student involvement it presents excellent learning opportunities.

With a lack of buildings near the site, some sort of restroom will need to be incorporated into the cost. Whether that is a portable restroom or a more permanent structure, unless nearby buildings can be utilized by farm staff and volunteers there will need to be some sort of investment on our end for restroom facilities. To note: if a portable restroom is the answer, it should be located separate from field space and growing areas as a precaution.

Field space will allow for students to engage in cultivation over the summer—in work study, voluntarily, or with the cooperation of professors teaching relevant material during summer quarter. Production will be ecologically sound—following organic guidelines, Good Agriculture Practices, and with consideration of a “whole” system. Moreover, field space will allow for pollinator habitat, permaculture, and eventually, an apiary (bee hives). A general budget has been drawn up with the expenses dependent on growing practices marked.23 It should be noted that the expenses there are not set in stone—simply estimates—and can be addressed over time. They are based on general or average prices for the information available online or through other institutions. The final cost could be more than what is shown in that budget estimate—or less. Regardless, it will be a significant investment for the university—unless grant funding or donations can be secured to cover some of the expenses.

This is where social responsibility is put to the test. Will the environmental and social benefits outweigh capital value?

22 Full Proposal. University of Washington Farm Greenhouse. Campus Sustainability Fund, University of Washington. 2014.

23 See endnotes.

11

Composting

Options for the compost project are laid out in the end notes with the financial information available. The main systems considered were the A900 Rocket Composter from Tidy Planet and the Earth Tub or IM20 from Green Mountain Technologies. There are a number of factors that influence which system is most suitable to CWU’s needs. Financial input, naturally; amount of waste generated; contributions—i.e. how many dining facilities can contribute, if grounds wants to contribute, etc.—space available, transportation, work force. In theory, Dining Services, Grounds, and Facilities would be able to coordinate and pool resources to ensure the success of the program. It would be an opportunity for either student or staff jobs as well, in the collection of waste and system maintenance. Transportation is a main concern for this component of the project. If Grounds or Facilities does not have a vehicle available for use (a truck would suffice), a vehicle would need to be purchased internally.

The decision on which compost system is best for CWU will be based on the food waste figure that is currently in the works to be measured with the assistance of CWU Chefs and the Central Environmental Club (CEC). As of yet there is not a plan in place but we are working to set one up. It was previously measured that pre-consumer waste from the SURC is 55-75 gallons per day. However, that was at least a year ago, and the number might be different. Additionally, CEC would like to measure post-consumer waste and will be taking initiative on that process. To be sure the right system is procured this figure needs to be accurate. Ideally, we can work up to collecting waste from all dining facilities. With all the information, we could determine how to divert as much waste as possible.

A visit to the Kittitas County transfer station’s composting facility brought up new questions that we had not considered surrounding legal issues. After a review of state codes24—which the county follows closely—I believe our operation would be conditionally exempt due to the small scale and the intended use. To be sure, an inquiry is out to the Public Health Department to confirm. We would have to comply with performance standards25 however each of the systems we are considering should make that a simple task. In the unlikely case that we are unable to compost on site the transfer station sells compost for $60/ton, which we could utilize if we have no other options.

It is also recommended to provide room for more traditional compost piles or vermicomposting at the garden site. Because these would not add much to the volume on site, it would not change our status for permit requirements, but that can be addressed when the time comes. The idea is to allow students to engage in multiple methods of composting. Being able to see the process happen and witness the microbial action is a valuable lesson in both the process of decomposition as well as the diversity and complexity of life processes.26

Sample Procedure Draft for implementing Compost Program

24 Washington Administrative Codes. 173-350-220. Composting Facilities. 25 WAC 173-350-040.

26 It is disputed amongst scholars—by which I mean one professor at the University of Washington and myself—whether one has truly farmed or truly lived before eating nachos cooked within an active compost pile. The desired temperature for decomposition is upwards of 120 degrees, which is coincidently prime cheese melting temperature.

12

To Dining Services, Catering, and SURC staff:

With the implementation of the Rocket Composter, the following policies and procedures must be understood by all concerned staff. Failure to understand on the part of any staff person may disrupt a healthy decomposition processes and jeopardize the final product. Please review before required training and contact Katherine.doughty@cwu.edu with further questions.

Rocket Composter: Purpose and Overview Greenhouse gas emissions from landfills are partially due to improperly decomposing food waste.

It is the goal of CWU to reduce the contribution of our institution to those emissions by diverting food waste from the land fill back into our system.

o The resulting compost from this process will go to the new CWU Food Systems Cooperative and CWU Grounds. It is important to facilitate the creation of healthy, nutritional matter for the health of the beneficiary’s respective spaces.

The machine works to provide a controlled environment for quick decomposition. o Food waste is mixed with wood chips in a 1:1 ratio to ensure a balance of carbon and

nitrogen in the finished compost as well as to provide structure. There must be enough structure so the decomposing matter is properly aerated.

o The waste/chips are dumped into the machine at the waste inlet. It then runs off a small motor, for one minute each hour, to turn the shaft and heat the system. The heating elements are only on for a short time, and only at the beginning of the cycle because the microbial activity should be enough to maintain the proper level of heat otherwise.

The machine does not make much noise, do not take that as an indication of functionality.

Policies All waste from fruit and vegetable production will be collected to feed into composter. All waste from meat and fish production will be collected to feed composter.

o Exception: Do NOT put bones or fat trimmings in the composter. They facilitate the growth of harmful bacteria and generate bad smells.

All bread and baked goods waste will be collected to feed composter. All coffee grounds will be collected to feed composter. Past due fruits, vegetables, breads, etc. will be collected to feed composter.

o Exception: yogurt, milk, custard, other dairy heavy products.

13

Compost Outlet

Vent for air and water vapour

Stainless steel inner cylindar

Waste Inlet

Heated Area

Mixer shaft

Electrical control box

All end of service leftovers that cannot be saved will feed composter.o Exception: Soup, sauce, gravy, other liquid heavy products.

DO NOT put plastic, metal, or paper into composter. o Examples: cling film, foil, paper towels, plastic packaging, napkins, wooden stir sticks,

cups, paper plates, plastic cutlery DO NOT put liquid-heavy or dairy-heavy food products into composter.

o Example: soup, gravy, milk, yogurt.o This will negatively affect the structure and composition of the finished compost, as well

as facilitate the growth of harmful bacteria.o IF draining is possible (chunky vegetable soups or bean dishes) then the solid matter can

be put in the composter. DO NOT put food waste in composter without mixing with wood chips. Waste should be added to composter 2-3 times per day.

o Suggested: after morning prep, lunch prep, end of the day. NO MORE THAN 65 GALLONS should be added to composter in a day. PLEASE KEEP

TRACK OF HOW MUCH WASTE IS ADDED. If something seems wrong with composter, contact Kate Doughty or compost maintenance staff.

One of us will evaluate further action.

Procedures Each station have bins designated for compost collection. Waste from these bins will be pooled into larger bin outside. These will be collected and taken to

the composting site. Record how much waste was added each time so we can keep track of how much we are feeding.

The machine has a 65 gallon/day capacity. If waste exceeds 65 gallons on a given day, save for next day by placing the bin in the freezer

(prevent pests) in DESIGNATED compost area.

Contacts

Kate DoughtySustainability Projects SpecialistKatherine.doughty@cwu.eduMobile: 509-607-3433Office: _______

Logistics

The above was an example of guidelines for composting programs. There are options for how the program is structured:

1. The composter is housed outside of the SURC, where waste can be easily added. A stock of woodchips is kept next to the composter, delivered when requested by Grounds or garden staff. Waste is added from the SURC, catering, and other dining facilities if collection can be organized internally or with Grounds. Finished compost is then taken to the farm/garden site to cure, under shelter (shared with wash station), where it can be easily accessed by staff when curing process is finished.

2. Composter is housed at the farm/garden site. Food waste bins are collected from dining locations and brought to farm site where it is mixed with woodchips stored there (higher

14

capacity). The rest of the process takes place on site. Transportation needs would potentially require paid student positions so the composter is fed properly and waste is collected consistently.

3. Compost process all takes place outside of the SURC and cured compost is collected from there and brought to farm/garden site.

Any of these options would require collaboration with Grounds, or paid positions. Once we have an idea for their capacity to participate, we can decide which option makes the most sense for our purposes. There are still some unknowns when it comes to this component of the project, however I am confident that they will be solved shortly.

Campus Community Garden and Education

Food is at the center of our cultures and communities. Food systems work extends beyond cultivation—health, social equity, labor, and other issues are directly connected with the way food systems are structured. Partnering with academic departments to incorporate as many aspects of food systems awareness into the program as possible is an essential strategy to center students in the big picture. It will attract allies and introduce the CFSC into the university culture. This is where the Campus Community Garden led by Dr. Rebecca Pearson is an integral part of the CFSC.

The community Dr. Pearson has built within the garden needs to exist on campus—a program based in education, creativity, and building connections through food. It is vital to the success of this project to transfer the existing structure of the community garden to the location with the compost and dining garden facilities so it can grow its impact on students. Additionally, the community garden has $12,000 per year for four years from S&A funding. With the future of their location up in the air, they have not invested much of those dollars. Our goal is to collaborate with them and determine how we can work together to fund these projects. We hope to develop a strong partnership between Auxiliary, Dining, and Health Sciences through the work of the CFSC to develop a truly spectacular system at CWU. Accessibility and inclusivity needs to be at the core of this space—there is room for students of all cultures and abilities to be connected to food and the soil from whence thrive. People are at the center of food and agriculture; students are at the center of CWU. We need to center the students in our food and sustainability work.

As a further point of motivation: sustainability programs are attractive to prospective students. Knowing a university is invested in the well-being of their students makes the institution more competitive to prospective students. Most other Washington state higher education institutions promote their sustainability efforts—both generally and specifically in dining services. CWU will inevitably have to follow suit. It is better to start now, while the university is in a period of growth and has the opportunity. Beyond the fact that working in a garden with soil is beneficial to both mental and physical health27 or that it is an environmentally responsible action—it is good for CWU’s standing as an institution of higher education.

27 Community Food Centers Canada. Mental Health Benefits of Community Gardening. N.d. Found at http://thepod.cfccanada.ca/sites/thepod.cfccanada.ca/files/Gardening

%20%26%20Mental%20Health%20Outcomes.pdf

15

The Role of Dining

To ensure food produced on campus gets introduced in the dining halls, a station in Central Marketplace or Holmes could be dedicated to campus foods—for example, vegetarian dishes where 75 percent of the ingredients are grown within a mile of campus. While I would recommend incorporating campus grown produce into as many kitchen stations as possible, this could provide options for concerned students, vegetarians, and vegans who struggle to get adequate nutrition elsewhere. Salads, stir fries, sandwiches, pizzas—there are plenty of options. It would be a promotion station for Central’s sustainability efforts while serving a specific population of the Central community.

Incorporating the programs established with this project will require significant protocol shifts. In collecting food waste, bins will need to be set up at the proper stations and staff (and students, if applicable) will need to be aware of what is and is not compostable. Menus may need to be adjusted to incorporate campus produce. Ordering and contracts will need to be reexamined.

Additionally, as per the Farmer’s Fridge28 business model, grab-and-go “vending machines” could be incorporated as a destination for campus produce. The logistics of this model are still unclear—how they would be set up, how people would purchase the items—but I think it has great potential. They could be grab and go stations at the C Store or coffee stands. They could be sold out of the food truck. This is mostly to illustrate there are efficient options for incorporating campus grown produce into our system, and it would be appealing to students and faculty alike.

Finally, growing fresh herbs and microgreens in a refrigerator in the dining facilities—visibly to students if possible—would be an additional action to take for sustainable production, nutritional diversity, and expense cuts. Growing herbs would cut down on purchasing costs and provide a sustainable solution for seasonal limitations (for example, fresh basil in the winter). This is not an immediate priority, however it would be another way to show patrons of CWU Dining that their experience and nutritional input is an immediate concern.

Additional Notes

For this size and scale, a full-time coordinator with the assistance of student work-study positions, interns, or volunteers is necessary. The coordinator would oversee program operations, planning, facilities, and volunteers/student employees. More details are included in appendix B, but it should be noted that no less than a full-time coordinator is recommended. With farm operations and administrative duties there is easily 35-40 hours of work per week, if not more. Most campus farm programs have a full-time employee.

Real Food as a Focus for CWU

28 Farmer’s Fridge. Our Story. 2017.

16

Our purchasing decisions have a real impact on industry and social inequity.29 Food system dynamics in affluent regions directly affect the dynamics in oppressed regions—on a national and international scale. Our actions have a real impact on the nations that built the world as we know it. Purchasing decisions hold a social responsibility for being accountable to the ways in which those nations have lost sovereignty over their systems, and an environmental responsibility to reduce our impact on the ways in which food systems contribute to atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and climate change.

Food can travel over a thousand miles from its original source to the consumer in the United States. For example, we order foodstuffs through different distributors. That means, the food travels from its original location to the distributor—a difficult journey to track, most distributors do not provide that information on their websites—then from the distributor to the consumer. It’s difficult to know for any person—especially a large institution that relies on bulk deliveries from distributors—how far food travels. However, agriculture and transportation are top contributors to atmospheric greenhouse gases. In that sense, purchasing food as locally as possible—where it also is in line with other priorities of real food—is an important consideration for an environmentally responsible institution.

The Real Food Challenge, a national organization committed to revitalizing university campus food systems, has broken purchasing priorities into four areas: Local and Community Based, Humane, Ecologically Sound, and Fair. While the Real Food Challenge requires student initiative and involvement to use their tools and participate in their program, the standards and definitions used by the Real Food Challenge in their public resources are a solid base to begin developing a program of our own. If students show interest in food sustainability and the Real Food Challenge, it would be great to have a team of students spearheading the effort. However, if that is not something that can realistically be followed through, we can begin evaluating our purchases ourselves.

CWU works with Sysco, Food Services of America, and Spokane Produce. From my exploration of their websites, there is little transparency of where their products are sourced. However, it is my understanding that Sysco and FSA will work with its partners on finding products that align with their values. We have the option to take ownership over our system. We have choice in how we embody the commitments of the university. Our system is dynamic, and there is no way to maintain a stagnant system when change is inevitable—as the university progresses and grows, we must grow. It is prudent to make these choices now. While the university goes through other significant changes, we have the opportunity to make significant changes in our department.

Moreover, the disconnect between CWU and the Ellensburg-Kittitas County community has often been polarizing in decision making and moving forward. Establishing connections between community partners and CWU ingratiates the university to county residents and encourages collaborative relationships. In some cases there is a lack of understanding of the realities of university life, and vice versa, that conflates our actions and goals. The goal of purchasing real food on campus is not just for the benefit of our students and immediate community, but for the local and regional community as a whole. Environmental benefits have an effect on everyone, 29 Lutz, Juliana and Schachinger, Judith. Do Local Food Networks Foster Socio-ecological Transitions towards Food Sovereignty? Learning from Real Place Experiences. 7

November 2013. Sustainability. ISSN: 2071-1050. 17

and purchasing products from community suppliers boosts our economy, as well as closes our loop as much as we can. If we cannot raise livestock on our campus, we can purchase livestock that was raised close to us. If we cannot bake bread ourselves, we can purchase from a local business.

The main takeaway from this information is that we should be conscious of how our purchasing decisions impact people and planet, especially as we build the structure of new projects and programs with that in mind.

Concerns and Solutions

With any space on campus there are certain concerns that need to be addressed. Vandalism, hazardous materials (ex: drug paraphernalia), theft—all likely situations in a public space. The questions that need to be considered is how to reduce likelihood and impact of such problems without affecting the accessibility of the space to interested students. There are preventable measures, but that will require infrastructure. The benefit of an empty lot is plenty of space to work with—the drawback, no existing structure to support the program. Building infrastructure will be a significant cost to the program. While water is not a main concern because of the recreation fields nearby, power will be a concern (for greenhouses, compost facilities, storage facilities).

Perhaps of most importance is the soil quality of the lot. Starting to cultivate on that land will be immensely difficult. The biggest “if” is whether the soil is safe to grow in. Then, there is the issue of it being heavily compacted; it will have a significant seed bank of weeds in the soil; there isn’t much protection from wind or habitat for pollinators or other beneficial insects. It will mean a huge amount of work. For the sake of being thorough I am recommending the SOD Farm out by Brooklane is kept in the back of the mind as another option, in case there are too many issues with the Alder lot. It has been tilled, there is protection from wind, and the soil is likely of better quality. However, I understand that there are other ideas in mind for it. This is just to introduce what the main concerns will be moving forward.

It will be important to look at these ideas with innovation in mind, but through a critical lens so as to prevent relying on ideas and technologies that become damaging to the land. Industrialized agriculture is the product of streamlined processes and adapted habits. It is important to think about ways to grow the program and maximize efficiency without adopting similar processes and habits. Time is an important consideration on the farm, but so are energy inputs and carbon outputs. All tools and machinery have an embodied energy—how much power went into their creation—and a carbon output that might be contrary to environmental responsibility. In farming, sometimes we must pick our battles. This is where the critical lens comes into play. But, with the opportunities we have to collaborate with campus and extended community, we have options.

Future Possibilities

18

The mission of the CFSC would be to provide services in education, food production, waste diversion, community development and social responsibility. By prioritizing collaboration and community-driven action. Dining Services, Auxiliary Operations, CWU farm and composting facilities, academic departments, and other stakeholders would join together to combine existing programs as well as develop new, community-based programs such as a campus food bank. In the interest of holistic thinking and innovation, the following are further ideas for what the future of food sustainability programs could be at CWU. The projects should be considered a long-term project, as they will constantly be evolving, but these particular suggestions are meant to plant seeds of future possibility after the initial stages have been implemented. With growth, community accountability, environmental and social responsibility as priorities CWU can be a leader in systemic change.

By pooling resources and ideas, these stakeholders would promote CWU’s commitment to sustaining the health of students and the environment; encourage local community development and resiliency; establish a collaborative environment based on social responsibility and justice; educate students on issues relevant to multiple disciplines and every human body on this planet. It is essential that food systems awareness becomes a normalized value in our society.

A cooperative approach to establishing these programs and projects ensure equal consideration to all projects, despite profitability. If one project has excess funding it can filter some of that into a program that does not generate capital—such as a food bank or educational workshops. In my opinion, a food bank or food pantry on campus would be a major move in social responsibility. The most important takeaway is a cooperative approach allows for expanding the reach of the program and creative problem solving.

To reiterate: this is merely to plant the seed that there is an opportunity to develop an innovative campus food system by incorporating different disciplines and needs in different sectors of the food system. The diagram below is one option. There are a number of other projects that could be included, or some that might not be necessary. The point is wherever this project goes in the coming years, it should always be approached with a future of social equity and institutional integrity in mind. That is how we innovate. That is how we face growth efficiently. That is how we become a leader in higher education.

19

Figure 3. CWU Food Systems Cooperative concept map. Displays possible stakeholders and relationships between them.

Future needs and ideas for the CWU Farm/garden

Cold storage—to prolong the availability of fresh produce. Examples could include a root cellar, a refrigeration room for fresh produce that utilizes natural temperature of the earth.

Livestock—meaning, chickens or goats. This is a complicated subject where animal welfare considerations and financial impact is concerned. However, it is also true that animals are an essential part of a healthy ecosystem.

Geothermal heat pumps—to heat a greenhouse. Opportunity to involve academic departments.

Composting toilet—to solve the issue of restroom proximity in a sustainable way. There are contained composting toilet units that we can look into (meaning, we do not directly handle waste, there is an area underground). One concern with this would be the water table in the county is high, but still something to consider.

Apiary—pollinator presence is invaluable. Bringing bees to campus, and having the opportunity to provide dining and coffee facilities with local honey? No question as to the benefit of that. Will require more infrastructure additions and logistical planning.

20

Future Grant Opportunities

Grant funding will make all the difference in the success of these projects. The following are some of the grants that we could be eligible for in implementing these programs. The list is not comprehensive and the future of some of the programs—particularly government programs—is uncertain, but still it is important to keep an eye on when application cycles open.

Program Title Host Purpose Requirements Application Cycle

Local Food Promotion Program—Planning or Implementation

USDA Support local and regional food business collaborations that develops opportunities for farm and ranch operations serving local markets.30

-25% funding match-Specific plan to support local goods or products, no generalized goals.

2018 cycle unknown

Farm to School—Planning, Implementation, or Training

USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Improve access to local food in schools.31

-25% funding match

Closed for 2018. Check back in summer or fall.

Various Grant Programs

Western Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Grant programs

Support needs in regional sustainable agriculture efforts.

n/a Check back April 2018 for Call for Proposals.

Grant UNFI Foundation

Increase number of organic farms/farmers in the U.S.

n/a LOI period open April 2018.

Concluding Remarks

Prioritizing composting, food waste education campaigns, and food production is an immediate action item for CWU. Within the next five years there could be a successful and established sustainable food system on campus. These projects benefit CWU students, faculty, and the community as a whole. This project can be a catalyst for sustainability efforts on campus. More conversations start when students start thinking about environmental issues. All topics are connected—considerations of food sustainability can lead to considerations of waste, water use,

30 USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. Local Food Promotion Program. N.d. Web.31 USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Community Food Systems: Farm to School Grant Program. N.d. web.

21

etc. Furthermore, expenses can be saved where menus, purchase orders, and contracts are amended to include sustainability initiatives.

Our goal is to close the systemic loop at CWU that much further. We can be an innovator in what community and education can be at the institutional level. Related academic departments—Environmental Studies, Biology, Chemistry, Geography, Sociology, Integrated Energy Management, Construction Management, Nutrition, and any department that finds relevant opportunities to study food—would have the opportunity to engage with the implementation and long-term development of these projects. It is a project of collaboration—it depends on collaboration—to be truly successful.

With the right infrastructure for season extension and growing practices, the campus farm could be producing almost year round. With community building and educational efforts, a future of more possibility is attainable. The initial input will seem like a lot—it will be difficult to look at numbers and justify the investments. However, they can be spaced overtime, grants can make a significant impact, and the benefit has greater value than those measured by capitalism. Capitalism often casts a shadow over social and environmental positivity. There is no doubt, however, that committing to this project and putting community well-being at the forefront of our work will have a positive impact on Central as a whole.

22

End Notes

Farm BudgetThis is a tentative budget projection. The starred items are dependent on farm practices, and the prices are averages based on online research.

Approximate start-up budget here is $162,291.50. This number would change depending on a number of factors noted on the spreadsheet

Approximate annual budget is $36,566.12—main annual cost is employee salary. This number may change due to unforeseen expenses

Other notes:o Irrigation

Cost shown on budget is an average based on drip line system Alternative center point Low Energy Sprinkler Application system

recommended, will change price slightly though displayed cost still reasonable estimate

CWU pays 1.76/1000gallons for the first 100,000 gallons of water used; 1.46/1000gallons for subsequent gallons

Gallons used varies depending on water needs of different cropso Soil tests range from $15-3032from UMASS soil testing center. Still waiting for

quote from soiltest and Edge Analytical laboratories Highly necessary to determine safety of growing

o Eventual costs: fencing, storage, farm vehicle, additional labor

32 Ordering Information and Forms. The Center for Agriculture, Food, and Environment. University of Massachusetts Amhearst.

23

24

SectorM

aterialA

mount/U

nitC

ost/Unit

Units N

eededSubtotal

Tax (10%)

Predicted Initial Cost

Actual Initial C

ostD

ifferencePredicted A

nnual costsA

ctual Annual C

ost3-5 year cost

Difference

Notes

ToolsR

ound Point Sovel1/individual

9.994

39.963.20

43.16

square point shovel1/individual

9.992

19.981.60

21.58

stirrup hoe1/individual

17.991

17.991.44

19.43

scuffle hoe1/individual

37.991

37.993.04

41.03

hori knife1/individual

15.005

75.006.00

81.00

broadfork1/individual

100.001

100.008.00

108.00

hamm

er1/individual

4.001

4.000.32

4.32

rubber mallet

1/individual6.99

213.98

1.12

15.10rake

1/individual19.99

479.96

6.40

86.36pitchfork

1/individual29.99

4119.96

9.60

129.56file

1/individual7.49

17.49

0.60

8.09w

heelbarrow1/individual

69.992

139.9811.20

151.18

69.99tarps

1/individual13.00

226.00

2.08

28.0828.08

gloves1/individual

3.9910

39.903.19

43.09

11.97post driver

1/individual33.00

133.00

2.64

35.64hand trow

el1/individual

9.992

19.981.60

21.58

wheel hoe

1/individual100.00

1100.00

8.00

108.00w

atering can1/individual

10.002

20.001.60

21.60

hand waterer

1/individual14.99

114.99

1.20

16.1950 ft hose

1/individual12.98

112.98

1.04

14.02100 ft hose

1/individual50.00

150.00

4.00

54.0054.00

Plantingrow

cover1/roll

60.005

300.0024.00

324.00

324.00seeder

1/individual99.99

199.99

8.00

107.99trays/seed plates

100/case59.00

159.00

4.72

63.7263.72

seedsvaries

variesvaries

1000.0080.00

1100.00

1100.00Estim

atepots

0.00-

0.00

potting soil1/bag

8.994

35.962.88

38.84

8.99liquid fertilizer

1/gallon29.95

259.90

4.79

64.6964.69

tape measure

1/individual15.99

231.98

2.56

34.54w

ooden stakes1/individual

0.8920

17.801.42

19.22

19.22seeding benches

1/table161.00

2322.00

25.76

347.76popsicle sticks

200/pack5.59

211.18

0.89

12.075.59

handheld soil blocker1/individual

29.991

29.992.40

32.39

seed broadcaster1/individual

50.0050.00

4.00

54.00tw

ine1/roll

33.001

33.002.64

35.64

33.00anchoring pins

1000/package60.00

60.004.80

64.80

64.80tiller

1/individual799.99

1799.99

64.00

863.99tractor*

1/individual20,000.00

120,000

1,600.00

21600.00Estim

atetractor im

plements*

varies2,000.00

varies2,000

160.00

2160.00fuel

-1,000.00

--

--

1000.00tw

ist ties1/roll

3.991

3.990.32

4.31

4.31H

arvestharvest knives

1/individual13.27

453.08

4.25

57.33harvest bins

bulk200.00

1200.00

-200.00

shears1/individual

9.502

19.001.52

20.52

pruners1/individual

5.994

23.961.92

25.88

scale1/individual

50.001

50.004.00

54.00

equipment upkeep

--

--

--

5000.00Infrastructure

power to site

n/a25000.00

n/a25000.00

n/a25000.00

water to site

-25000.00

-25000.00

-25000.00

wash station

3 sinks/unit500.00

1500.00

40.00

540.00greenhouse**

1/individual20000.00

360000.00

4,800.00

64800.00storage shed

1 shipping container3500.00

13500.00

280.00

3780.00shelter**

110000.00

110000.00

N/A

10000.00vehicle**

120000.00

120000.00

1,600.00

21600.00C

urb cut/access-

25000.00-

25000.00-

25000.00utilities

-10000.00

--

--

10000.00pow

er/water

irrigationM

ainline extension-

5581.71-

5581.71-

5581.71D

ripline/LESA system

per acre2000.00

5.0010000.00

800.0010800.00

2000.00A

dditional lineper 100 ft

0.00soil

A900 R

ocket Com

poster1/individual

52200.001

52200.0052200.00

Power for com

poster1/kw

H0.06

120 (month)

7.20-

86.40w

ood chip storage-

3000.00-

3000.00-

3000.00

LaborFarm

manager salary(full tim

e)$18.23/hour

40 hours/week

135000.00

- -

35000.00B

enefits10500.00

- -

10500.00Student Staff

13/hour20/w

eek (May-N

ovember)

212480.00

--

12480.00C

ontingency1000.00

Predicted Initial TotalActual Initial Total

Predicted Annual Total275638.39

78294.95

Other compost options:o Earth Tub: We would use it in a similar capacity as the A900 Rocket. It can

handle up to 100lbs of food waste per day. Space and power requirements are comparable to the A900—and, it is far less expensive. Drawbacks: it requires a little extra effort, maintenance wise. When new food waste/wood chips are added, there is a mechanism on the lid that must be turned manually, so the new waste is mixed in with the previous day’s additions. The mixing auger is connected to a motor, which kicks in to turn the compost additionally throughout the day. The marginal difference in daily maintenance does not seem to be enough that it outweighs the cost difference. The process takes a little longer. It goes through the system in around 2-3 weeks, and an additional 20 days is recommended for curing. This is not much longer than the Rocket, and is still far less than outdoor compost piles.

o Earth Flow Intermodal system: more advanced, included it for big picture thinking. I have been pushing for either the A900 Rocket or the Earth Tub because it makes sense to me to start slowly, get people used to new ideas and procedures. However, if the eventual goal is to get all food waste on campus diverted from the landfill, this option is one to consider (in addition to outdoor compost piles). The 20’ IM (my recommendation) has a capacity of over 1,000 pounds. It could accommodate waste from all dining facilities, residence halls, and some from grounds, most likely. My hesitation is in that it might be a hair too much for what our needs are. However, the IM is not much more expensive than the Rocket, especially considering the difference in size.

Material Amount/Unit Cost/Unit Units Needed Subtotal Expected Additional Expenses? Start-Up Cost (first month) Annual CostA900 Rocket Composter 1 machine 52,200 1 52,200 Yes* 52,200 n/a

Power 1 kwH ~$0.0569/kwH 30 kwH/week $1.71/week Yes** $6.83 $81.9452,206.83 $81.94

*It is my understanding that shipping is included in this price, however maintenance may be required at times. **May be more than 30kwH/week, and cost may fluctuate season to season.

Material Amount/Unit Cost/Unit Units Needed Subtotal Expected Additional Expenses? Start-Up Cost (first month) Annual CostEarth Tub 1 Tub 9,975 1 9,975 Yes* 9,975 N/A

Set up(optional, recommended) 1 2,500 1 2,500 No 2,500 N/APower 1 kwH 0.0569/kwH 90kwH/month 5.12 Yes** 5.12 61.45

12,480.12 61.45*Further maintenance and shipping may be required.

**Minimum power imput, may be more month to month. Subject to seasonal change in cost.

Material Amount/Unit Cost/Unit Units Needed Subtotal Expected Additional Expenses? Start-Up Cost (first month) Annual CostEarth Flow Intermodal 20 1 vessel 59,950 1 79,950 Yes* 59,950 0

Extented Warrenty** (optional) 1 year 2,980 1 2,980 No 0 298059,950 2980

*Installation, shipping, and power consumption are not included in this price. That information was not immediately available.**Standard warrenty is parts-only for one year. This extension is defective parts-only for one year at a time.

25