Don Scavia Graham Family Professor and Director

1. Progress Update Don Scavia Graham Family Professor and Director Special Counsel to U-M President for Sustainability External Advisory Board October 18, 2013

2. Sustainability Cultural Indicators Translational Research Transformative Education Institutional Leadership Multi-year effort to measure and track the culture of sustainability on the University of Michigan’s (U-M) Ann Arbor campus. • Two questionnaires - one for staff and faculty, and one for students - with questions built around the U-M Sustainability Goal areas; Climate Action, Waste Prevention, Healthy Environments, and Community Awareness.    • In fall 2012, more than 4000 students, 1000 staff, and 1000 faculty participated in the survey representing a 43.6% overall response rate. Plans call for repeating the questionnaires each fall for the next 5 years. • Year 1 results are baseline measures against which data collected in subsequent years can be compared. Complete results at: http://graham.umich.edu/leadership/scip. • Results have been shared with key U-M campus sustainability program leaders.

3. Sustainability Cultural Indicators Translational Research Transformative Education Institutional Leadership Combinations of complimentary questions established 15 cultural indicators. Key findings include: • Students know more about transportation options available to them than either staff or faculty • Students are more engaged in sustainability activities on campus. • Faculty tend to act in a more sustainable manner with respect to conserving energy, preventing waste, purchasing food, and more generally, engaging in pro-environmental activities outside of the University. • Faculty members express a higher level of commitment to sustainability than others on campus. • Students tend to be less knowledgeable than staff or faculty about protecting the natural environment, preventing waste, and sustainable foods. • Staff members are most likely to be aware of the range of U-M’s sustainability initiatives. • Students are more aware than faculty about what is happening with regard to sustainability on campus.

4. Dow Sustainability Fellows Program Translational Research Transformative Education Institutional Leadership • All program components up and running • Year-one Distinguished Awards competition nearly complete • 1-year cohort of 40 Masters Fellows fully engaged in second semester of collaborative workshops and projects • 2-year cohorts of 10 new Doctoral and 6 new Postdoctoral Fellows began the program in September

5. Dow Postdoc Program Translational Research Transformative Education Institutional Leadership • Six top-notch fellows selected with backgrounds in engineering, sociology, public health, public policy, green chemistry, etc. • Present and discuss work at monthly lunch seminars • Participate in monthly dinners where a group of distinguished U-M sustainability faculty present their work • Collaborate on projects or contribute to the Michigan Journal of Sustainability during their fellowship tenure

6. Dow Postdoc Program – Selection Model Limitations Translational Research Transformative Education Institutional Leadership External call required applicants to identify U-M faculty willing to provide a 50:50 match for program funds, which: • Resulted in a small pool of “qualified” candidates • Excludes faculty without substantial grant funding—especially in humanities & some areas of social sciences • Does not allow for independent postdocs who bring novel research programs • Causes a perceived primary commitment to the mentor (program secondary)

7. Dow Postdoc Program –New Selection Model Translational Research Transformative Education Institutional Leadership

8. Dow Postdoc Program –New Model Benefits Translational Research Transformative Education Institutional Leadership Larger community: total of 16 (8 per cohort) Brings new research to campus, while leveraging existing current rich intellectual diversity Less funding required from home units/mentors, resulting in greater inclusion across the University All other aspects of program are the same, regardless of selection and funding mechanisms

9. Farm Bill Case Study Translational Research Transformative Education Institutional Leadership • Examines Farm Bill through lens of reducing fertilizer run-off to the Mississippi River to prevent significant hypoxia (“dead zones”) in the Gulf of Mexico. • Written from the perspective of an aide to a US Senator from Michigan who must make recommendations to her boss on key elements of the Farm Bill. • Balance farming, fishing, ethanol, fertilizer, chemical & environmental interests. • Fellows are assigned various roles (Senate aide and lobbyists for various interests: ethanol, farm, ENGO, others) for 50 minute role playing exercise. • Case study was introduced Sept. 16, “off-line” work between sessions, and role playing took place Oct. 15, with significant time for de-brief discussion. • Don Scavia shared his personal experience and observations.

10. Farm Bill Case Study –Learning Objectives Translational Research Transformative Education Institutional Leadership A success! Students were well-prepared, held excellent discussions, achieved the learning objectives and had fun. • Analyze a complex public policy opportunity with multiple, competing dimensions • Identify key stakeholders and actors and interpret, contrast, and cogently explain their advocacy positions • Formulate advocacy strategies, including potentially choosing allies and partnerships • Implement advocacy strategies, including negotiation as necessary, to achieve policy goals.

11. Water Center Tier II Grants Translational Research Transformative Education Institutional Leadership • Eight, two-year grants totaling $3.4 million to support Great Lakes restoration and protection efforts (selected from 90 proposals submitted) • Awarded to multidisciplinary teams led by researchers at universities in Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota and New York. • The projects will support efforts to: • restore native fish migrations across the Great Lakes Basin, • assess strategies to restore the health of Green Bay ecosystem under a changing climate, • improve water quality in the Western Lake Erie Basin, • guide ecological restoration of Saginaw Bay, • assess the effectiveness of wetlands restoration projects in the Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence River watershed, • determine the relative contributions of agricultural runoff and sewage discharge in fecal pollution entering lakes Michigan and Erie, and • map Great Lakes environmental stressors.

12. Lake Levels Integrated Assessment Translational Research Transformative Education Institutional Leadership • First discussed as a possibility at our last meeting, this would be a joint effort of the Graham Integrated Assessment Center and Water Center • Developed a draft plan to examine fluctuating water levels in the Great Lakes. • Identified more than 40 U-M faculty whose research and expertise aligns with this topic. • Met with Jon Allan of the Michigan Office of the Great Lakes who expressed great interest in the topic.

13. Lake Levels IA: Next Steps Translational Research Transformative Education Institutional Leadership October 28: we will hold a scoping meeting with U-M faculty to discuss the topic and determine the level of interest. Presenters will include: • Hydrology: Drew Gronewold, Physical Scientist/Hydrologist, DOC/NOAA/OAR/GLERL • Control Systems: John Allis, Chief, Great Lakes Hydraulics and Hydrology Office, US Army Corps of Engineers - Detroit District • Ecology: Al Steinman, Director, Annis Water Resources Institute, Professor of Water Resources, Grand Valley State University • Policy: Jen Read, Deputy Director, University of Michigan Water Center and Executive Director, Great Lakes Observing System The current frame for the IA involves an examination of the socially, politically, and economically feasible policy and management options associated with lake-level fluctuations. If there is sufficient U-M faculty interest we will continue to develop the plan and identify key decision makers and stakeholders

14. Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan IA Translational Research Transformative Education Institutional Leadership Guiding Question: What are the best environmental, economic, social, and technological approaches for managing hydraulic fracturing in the State of Michigan? Since the release of the 7 Technical Reports (Technology, Geology, Environment/Ecology, Public Health, Law/Policy, Economics, Public Perception) on September 5 there have been: Nearly 4000 views of the technical reports webpage, Over 1200 downloads of individual technical reports (ranging from 81-195 downloads per report), 263 downloads of the zip file containing all the reports, and Over 230 comments have been submitted for the IA

15. Hydrofracking IA: Next Steps Translational Research Transformative Education Institutional Leadership Finalizing the Plan for the IA Report which will include: • Identifying policy options based on themes from technical reports & public comments • Mapping options across impact areas (Environment, Economy, Community, Health) • Testing those results again various futures (i.e., level of activity, level of concern) • Developing suites of policy options (no regrets, water focus, economic focus, etc.) Developing plans for review and public input on Draft IA Report • Review by panel of experts • Opportunities for input from key stakeholder groups and the public Goal is to complete IA by late summer 2014

16. Hydrofracking IA: Framework Translational Research Transformative Education Institutional Leadership • Identify range of policy options Regulation & Permitting Public Engagement Preparedness For illustrative purposes only

17. Hydrofracking IA: Framework Evaluate policy options For illustrative purposes only

18. Hydrofracking IA: Framework Translational Research Transformative Education Institutional Leadership • Test the results under alternative futures • Would the impact of the policy vary if the future were different? If there was less uncertainty? High HVHF Activity High Activity & High Resistance High Activity & Low Resistance • Draws from Scenario Analysis • Define decision: How to manage HVHF? • Identify and select 2-3 most important and uncertain driving forces that will determine the future success of the decision. • Re-evaluate policies in each future • If Future A, then… • If Future B, then… Public Resistance High Low Low Activity & Low Resistance Low Activity & High Resistance Low For illustrative purposes only

19. Hydrofracking IA: Framework Translational Research Transformative Education Institutional Leadership Identify suites of policy options For illustrative purposes only