Sustainable Campus Committee (SCC) Meeting Minutes
Monday, March 7, 2011 : UC 215, 12:10pm – 1:10pm
Members Present: Mike Panisko, Cherie Peacock, Brian Kerns, Jennifer Hill-Hart, Jeff Renz, Steve Siebert, Patrick Rhea, Aleta
Jokisch, Robin Saha
Other’s Present: Brad Hall, Liz Roosa Millar, Jacob (?) - student
Old Business
The previous meeting minutes were approved
New Business
The agenda was reviewed.
1.
Introduction of candidates for committee
1. Brad Hall – Assistant Director, Residential Life Services.
a. Main duties include all maintenance, remodeling, and upgrading of all residential dwellings on campus and
south of campus.
b. Extensive field experience with new energy efficient products and sustainable approaches like Interface
carpet tiles, which contain recycles content and can be recycled.
2. Liz Rooza Millar – Associate Director (Acting Director), University Center (UC)
a. Liz has attended many SCC meetings over the years as she expressed a sincere interest in sustainability issues
on campus and in the UC but also is interested in the recycling footprint on campus.
Cherie will visit with John McCormick about his potential candidacy and report back to the group and proceed
with voting by email.
Biomass Letter – discussion
 Cherie started the discussion by asking for short responses and wanted to hear from each member that
attended. She handed out the latest draft (attached here) which had 11 points.
 Patrick – wanted to give his comments at the meeting, not via email. He has concerns with the current language
and is not in favor of an endorsement letter at this time. He thinks it is premature.
 Robin – wanted to focus on substance versus process. Thought there were some bumps in the road with the
exchanges of emails. Is passionately interested in the committee pushing hard for clarity and longevity of a
Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS). He wanted to make sure public health is protected, especially
the air shed near the proposed biomass plant. He would not vote to send out a letter at this time.
 Brian – Continuous monitoring would be nice but it is expensive and not required by law. There is a wide range
of monitoring possibilities, especially particulate monitoring. Computer modeling will be used in the permitting
process and compared to actual emissions when the plant runs, which may affect the operation of the plant.
 Steve – Monitoring has capital limitations. Air quality impact will be enforced. There is no increase in air
pollution to the Missoula valley with the addition of two trucks per day.
 Jeff – Noted the draft letter as written endorses the development effort, not the final design of the plant. The
permitting process will address air quality. That process, which includes public involvement, and governing
agencies including DEQ, will ensure best available controls are in place. Wants SCC to encourage this process.
 Aleta – supports good monitoring of the project. This project is a step toward success of a sustainable campus
and understands the politically consequences of this project.
 Jen – endorses the actual biomass project, but more importantly the idea of the plant development as noted in
the Climate Action Plan. She also thought the SCC should focus on sustainable education and research in its
curriculum and this might relate to the plant on campus.
The draft of the letter was tabled by the committee. Jeff and Jen will work on the wording of the letter and present to
the SCC via email and/or through discussion at next month’s meeting. It was unclear whether the letter should
endorse the plant at this time or wait until more information is available during the permitting process.
3.
Green House Gas Inventory Update - Cherie
 Cherie handed out a summary (4 pages) of graphs and bullet points on the latest information
regarding green house gas inventory figures from 2000 through 2010.
 Shift upward in whole graph due to methodology changes in how #’s are calculated (main impact
from purchased electricity), also, athletics’ air travel is now included.
 Final graph indicates that over the last three years the RATE OF CHANGE for total emissions is
FLATTENING OUT!
4. SCC’s Mission Statement – revision UPDATE
A. Jennifer is leading a small group to offer some edits to existing mission statement and will report back at the next meeting.
Brian and Steve are in the small group.
5.
Student from Environmental Studies?

Jacob, a student from Robin’s Environmental Citizenship course reported to the committee that his group
will be studying how departments on campus purchase recycled paper and the associated costs. They will
come back to the committee with a summary of their findings at the end of the semester.
NEXT SCC MEETING: APRIL 4, 2010 at 12:10am – 1:10pm UC 215 (note new start time)