University Environment Committee

2/28/08

 

Presiding: Charles Hodson

Regular members in attendance: H. McKinnon, D. Lawrence, M.Glascoff, J. Twark, C. Hodson, M. Montgomery

Ex officio members in attendance: B. Koch, P. Cox, M. Schmidt, T. Atkinson, J. Gill

Visitors: S. Sheta, R. Chin

 

The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm.

 

Actions of Meeting

 

1.  Approval of minutes of 1/23/08

 

There was a motion to approve the minutes.  The minutes were approved with one change.

 

2.  Report on drought (Gill)

 

The governor’s mandated water restrictions are in effect.  Most irrigation has been stopped, although some critical watering to protect investments continues with collected rainwater.  Grounds is taking proactive steps like the installation and use of a 500-gallon cistern and the use of retention ponds around the north recreation fields.  Bartlett Tree Experts is being consulted about counteracting the effects of drought in existing oak trees and root excavations are underway to let water penetrate to roots. 

 

Discussion:

Atkinson asked about Bartlett’s location.  Gill replied that they are in Raleigh and have contracts with Duke and NC State as well as contracts in eastern NC.  Glascoff asked about the status of Barefoot on the Mall.  Gill replied that the event is still planned for the mall, and Glascoff suggested that the bottom of College Hill would provide better parking and protect the mall.  She noted that t-shirts could be printed to raise awareness.  Gill said that he would follow-up on this idea.  McKinnon noted that with Mendenhall construction, College Hill might be a better location, as it is still a high-traffic area.

 

3.  Unfinished reports to Faculty Senate

 

The committee is working to finalize two reports for Faculty Senate, the survey Schmidt conducted in her biology class and the list of Environment Committee Recommendations for ECU Campus Sustainability.  Glascoff noted that the committee needs to get on the agenda for Senate and should also share these reports with the UNC Tomorrow committee, as they will be making budgeting priorities and requests.  UNC Tomorrow needs to receive the reports right away so that they can take them into consideration.    

 

Discussion:

Glascoff raised doubts about the percentages in the Schmidt report.  Schmidt replied that her report mainly shows that students want to be involved, even in working on solar panels.  Her data was generated from free essay responses, so all responses were volunteered by students.  They were not provided with a list of ideas to choose among.

 

Koch suggested that the recommendations list should tie environmental goals to teaching, research, and service.  McKinnon noted that we can pair the recommendations list and Schmidt report and Montgomery added that we should use the Schmidt report to support the recommendations.  Glascoff suggested changing the Schmidt report title so that it does not include the phrase “student opinions,” which might lead to confusion with the SOIS surveys.

 

There was discussion of the recommendation that ECU fund a sustainability coordinator position.  Koch emphasized that, in the recommendations list, we should aim high on sustainability coordinator position.  This person could beef up design standards, especially in light of the possibility that the General Administration could begin dictating LEED certification or standards for new buildings.  Sheta noted that the coordinator should coordinate more than buildings and should be connected to research, teaching, governance and use AASHE resources and tracking.  Koch suggested that the coordinator should be an engineer and noted that ECU has recently joined AASHE.  Lawrence pointed out that we seem to want two different people: an engineer and a PR/academic outreach person.  Montgomery suggested that rather than requesting a position, maybe we should request a staffed office.  Cox argued that the coordinator needs to be integrated into Facilities Services and Koch responded that the university will likely set efficiency priorities and tell Facilities to fund it themselves.  Hodson noted that the coordinator position should generate savings for the university and in theory pay for itself.

 

Glascoff offered the reminder that the UEC is an academic committee and the report should be sent to UNC Tomorrow via Austin Bunch and Deirdre Mageean if funding is needed.  She also suggested replacing “objectives” with “recommendations” in the title of the report.  Hodson suggested that we add a recommendation that ECU form a sustainability committee.

 

Action taken: Hodson moved to form task forces to finalize each report.  After the task forces complete their work, Hodson will send both reports to Faculty Senate and to UNC Tomorrow.

 

Schmidt task force: Schmidt, Hodson

Recommendations task force, which will make revisions via e-mail: Twark, Koch, McKinnon, Atkinson, Montgomery

 

4.  Parking Resolution #02-43/Energy Conservation Report

 

Hodson reported that the parking resolution requires an annual report from Administration and Finance be provided to Faculty Senate. Glascoff explained that the report can be one-page and suggested that the current resolution is obsolete.  The UEC might propose new, simpler resolution.  Koch volunteered to put together a new resolution.

 

Hodson noted that Faculty Senate also needs to receive a report about energy conservation, prepared by Koch in consultation with the UEC.    Gill volunteered to work with Koch on this.

 

5.  Sheta sustainability project

 

Twark asked Sheta about the status of his planned survey on campus sustainability.

Chin reported that there was a technical glitch with the survey engine.

 

Sheta shared his large educational posters about sustainability.  Hodson suggested putting these posters up at a Faculty Senate meeting.

 

6.  Belk building project

 

Atkinson raised concerns about the plan to remove three river birches as part of the Belk building renovation.  These birches will be replaced by seven oak trees. 

 

Discussion:

Atkinson asked if the oaks will be near power lines.  Gill replied that they are 25 feet from the power lines and won’t interfere.  Hodson noted that the relandscaping of the Belk building was discussed last year.  Gill responded to Atkinson’s concerns about the patio location, nothing that this was decision of the building’s used and not within the purview of the UEC.  All work on the landscaping has been postponed pending the UEC’s discussion of Atkinson’s concerns.

 

Atkinson talked to an arborist who claimed that there is no evidence that the birches have only 5-15 years left.  Moreover, the birches are only dropping small branches, which are not a safety issue.  The trees provide needed buffer between the building and the street.

 

Gill responded that his arborist saw large dead branches, and Gill himself has 15 years of experience as a landscaper.  Another landscape architect agrees that birches do not have long to live.  Gill emphasized that he is willing to hear recommendations from the UEC.

 

Koch noted that the UEC can set certain important trees off limits, as we have with green space.

 

Twark asked whether new trees can be planted with old trees left in place.  Gill responded that this isn’t feasible, as the trees will compete.  Atkinson asked how the new oaks would be watered.  Gill replied that Gatorbags will be used.

 

Gill emphasized that all other trees on the site except river birches will be kept, although some will be relocated.

 

Hodson noted that the UEC’s scope is limited and we have never been involved with new buildings.  The river birches were probably put in because they were quick and cheap.  Hodson favors putting in new trees.  Gill reported that elm trees will also be added.  Lawrence agreed that oaks are more appropriate to the site than river birches.

 

 

 

There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting was adjourned at 4:50pm.

 

 

Next meeting: 3/27/08, 3:30 pm

 

Items to be discussed:

Select subcommittee members to identify landmark trees on campus.

Discuss committee plans for next year.

Discuss Committee’s draft annual report.