The Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee
Sustainability Across Boundaries:
The Greater Yellowstone Area
Climate Action Plan
Photo Credit: Alaska Basin, Courtesy of Grand Teton National Park
June, 2011
This publication was produced for the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee
(GYCC), pursuing opportunities of mutual cooperation and coordination in the
management of the core federal lands in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem since 1964.
i
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Greater Yellowtone Area
Climate Action Plan
Written by :
Michael Fiebig, GYA Climate Action Plan Coordinator and USFS Presidential Management Fellow
Reviewed and Edited by:
The GYCC Sustainable Operations Subcommittee (SOS) and GYA Unit staff officers
June, 2011
ii
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Acknowledgements
This plan would not have been possible without the support and assistance of the following groups and
individuals:
The Facilities Engineers, Fleet Managers, District Rangers, Division Chiefs, Green Team members,
and other federal employees dedicated to sustainability across the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem who gave their time, energy, and expertise to craft the greenhouse gas emissions
reduction actions contained in this plan
The Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee (GYCC)
The Members of the Sustainable Operations Subcommittee (SOS) of the GYCC
Anna Jones-Crabtree, Executive Director the USFS Sustainable Operations Western Collective
Matthew Schultze, USFS Greenhouse Gas Intern and Montana State University Engineering
Student, who compiled the “Assumptions and Calculations” list in Appendix 2, and was integral
to the creation of our Climate Action Plan Excel spreadsheet
Rebecca Aus, Forest Supervisor (retired) of the Shoshone National Forest and sustainability
advocate
Virginia Kelly, GYCC Executive Coordinator
Alicen Kandt, Eliza Hotchkiss, and the rest of the team at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL): Ryan Daley, Kristin Day, Andrew Hudgins, and John Nangle
The U.S. Forest Service Presidential Management Fellows (PMF) program
ECOS Consulting, creators of the Yellowstone National Park GHG Inventory
Montana State University and the Emerson Center for the Arts and Culture for hosting the
Interagency Working Session
iii
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Executive Summary
The Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) is one of the largest intact ecosystems in the contiguous United
States. This region encompasses 13 million acres of federal land across three states, containing six
National Forests, two National Parks, and two National Wildlife Refuges. The GYA is one of the most
highly visited natural regions in the United States, with upwards of 4 million visitors to the ecosystem
each year.
The three federal land-management agencies that operate within the GYA have a long history of
working together to coordinate management of the ecosystem across boundaries and to reduce the
environmental impact of their operations. In 1964, the National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) formed the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee (GYCC), which was joined by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in 1999. The GYCC was formed to allow representatives from the
three agencies to pursue opportunities of mutual cooperation and coordination in the management of
core Federal lands in the GYA. The GYCC consists of the Park Superintendents, National Wildlife Refuge
Managers, and Forest Supervisors of 10 federal agency units in the GYA. The GYCC accomplishes
collaborative projects through a committee/sub-committee structure.
The GYCC Sustainable Operations Subcommittee (SOS) is composed of staff representatives from the
individual units. In 2007, the Sustainable Operations Subcommittee (SOS) of the GYCC began the process
of inventorying greenhouse gas emissions from federal operations in the GYA. This was accomplished
by the six Forests and the two Refuges using the “EPA Climate Leaders” Tool. The two Parks used the
“Climate Leadership in Parks” (CLIP) Tool, part of the Climate Friendly Parks Program. All units originally
used Fiscal Year 2007 for their baseline GHG emissions, though Yellowstone National Park has since
made 2003 their baseline. Aggregated in early 2009, the Fiscal Year 2007 GHG emissions from GYA
agency operations were 26,162 MTCO2e1 overall, not including concessionaires/permittees.
The GYCC managers and the SOS began collaboratively planning for GHG emissions reduction in June,
2009, utilizing a Climate Action Plan Coordinator provided through a 2-year Presidential Management
Fellowship with the U.S. Forest Service. In order to guide the action planning process, the GYCC
managers created a “Definition of Success,” which included the following provisions:
1. Set and meet a credible, realistic, and ecosystem-wide GHG emissions reduction goal.
2. Ensure the capacity and leadership intent to meet that goal once it is set.
3. Develop and document the methodology used for GHG accounting and reduction to serve as a
model for other footprint areas, other agencies, and the public.
The creation of this definition was critical to the success of the process as a whole, listing qualitative
measures that were used to help create a process from which quantitative measures could be derived.
It continues to be the standard by which the success of this project is measured.
1
Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
iv
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Developing credible and realistic goals required significant input from each agency unit to identify GHG
reduction activities that were appropriate and achievable. This, when combined with the interagency
nature of land management across the GYCC and the decentralized leadership structure of U.S. Forest
Service,2 supported a “bottom-up” approach to creating the Climate Action Plan. This meant that GHG
emissions reduction projects were identified by each individual GYCC agency unit, aggregated into goals
for each unit, and then in turn aggregated into ecosystem-wide GHG emissions reduction goals to be
approved by the GYCC managers.
As a way to provide leadership intent and show the importance of these efforts at the unit level, the
GYCC managers pledged a minimum goal of reducing GHG emissions by 20% by 2020 on each of their
units. This pledge not only helped to motivate unit personnel to engage in action planning, but also
matched our place-based efforts to anticipated federal GHG reduction requirements in the draft version
of E.O. 13514 (even though hard targets were later omitted in the final version). This decision by
managers to designate a minimum reduction goal was a critical step in the communication of the
leadership’s dedication to the initiative. What was most important to this process was not just the
selection of a percentage as a reduction goal but combining that leadership engagement with the
development of a realistic list of actions by the units. The resulting GYA-wide goals are much greater
than the original 20% pledge. In this way, one could say that “bottom-up” and “top-down” methods
actually met in the middle, setting realistic and credible goals along with the leadership intent and
capacity to meet those goals.
Using this bottom-up methodology, while keeping in mind the 20% minimum pledge, action planning
staff (Climate Action Plan Coordinator and GHG Intern) engaged each agency unit individually, recording
emissions reduction actions in three separate categories: (1) actions that units had completed since the
GHG inventory baseline year, (2) actions that were ongoing or already planned, and (3) future actions
that project managers thought would be particularly suited to the agency unit. All actions have a 2020
target date for completion, consistent with benchmarks set in E.O. 13514.
The strength of this approach lies in the collaborative formulation of goals that will be more attainable
and accurate at the ground-level than a set of emissions reduction goals set by leadership alone. This
methodology also encourages the creation of GHG emissions reduction action plans that are as
ambitious as possible for each GYCC agency unit. Each unit not only has complete ownership over the
emissions reduction actions contained in its portion of the Climate Action Plan, but it also has control
over its implementation timeline and the project managers for each action. In this way the individual
unit plans will act as roadmaps to meet the ecosystem-wide emissions reduction goals, giving these
overall goals a very high probability of being met.
The biggest challenge during action planning was ensuring the capacity and intent to engage in this
planning process. Barriers within the GYA included a general lack of understanding about GHGs and
anthropogenic climate change, a low feeling of empowerment and buy-in to create GHG emissions
reduction action plans, and a perception of insufficient time and resources to complete the plan. To
2
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) manages six of the ten agency units in the ecosystem, attached to three different
USFS Regional Offices.
v
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
address these barriers, action planning staff used a $250,000 Federal Energy Management Program
(FEMP) technical assistance grant from the Department of Energy to contract with the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to increase capacity and disseminate knowledge. Together, action
planning and NREL staff collaboratively planned and hosted a GYA-wide Working Session in Bozeman,
Montana.3 This was preceded by an eight-part webinar series, as well as ongoing coordination with the
GYCC units to prepare for the workshop. The goals of the Webinars and the workshop were threefold:
Educate and empower employees around climate change response and action planning.
Create a rough climate action plan for each unit, and for the ecosystem as a whole.
Create a leadership and project management cohort across the GYCC agencies and staff
disciplines.
This strategy was immensely successful, resulting in over 60 attendees from across the ecosystem,
including representatives from a variety of functional areas and all 10 GYCC agency units. Attendees
completed draft climate action plans for their home units, as well as a prioritized list of GYA-wide
coordinated implementation projects. A number of interagency implementation teams are currently
working on these GYA-wide projects in fleet, facilities, and other footprint areas.4 The workshop helped
to empower agency staff and create ownership in the GYA Climate Action Plan.
As of December, 2010, the ten GYCC agency units have planned 83 separate types of GHG emissions
reduction projects across the three scopes of emissions,5 for 218 total GHG emissions reduction projects
scheduled for completion by 2020. After converting the actions into physical GHG emissions reductions
(in terms of MTCO2e and percentage below 2007 baseline), the GYA GHG emissions reduction goals
were compiled in a 22-page Excel spreadsheet. The resulting goals are summarized in Table 1.6
3
The “GYA-Wide Working Session” was a workshop held April 19 – 22, 2010, at the Emerson Cultural Center and
Montana State University in Bozeman, MT.
4
The originally labeled “Scope 3,” this functional group is now called “Other Actions” in the action plan
spreadsheet. This is an attempt to amend the inaccuracy of the original name because both the Fleet and the
Facilities dealt with Scope 3 emissions as well.
5
Please see Figure 2 for definitions of Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions.
6
Emissions reduction metrics have been normalized across all agency units. Both the baseline GHG emissions
footprint and the GHG emissions reductions used in these metrics are from agency operations only. Concessionaire
and permittee emissions footprints and reductions, though originally included by some units in their GHG
inventories, have been removed in order to provide for a consistent plan, implementable through federal agency
management actions. As such, one may notice that the reduction goals have changed slightly from earlier drafts of
the plan.
vi
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Scope:
Overall GYA Reduction Goal
Scope 1 (Agency Owned/Controlled)
Scope 2 (Agency Purchased)
Scope 3 (Agency-Related)
Percentage Below 2007
Baseline:
21-36%
11-23%
33-57%
6-9%
Actual Reduction in
MTCO2e:
5568 - 9499 MTCO2e
1382 - 2910 MTCO2e
3164 – 5449 MTCO2e
204 – 304 MTCO2e
Table 1: GYA-Wide GHG Emissions Reduction Goals by 2020 Benchmark
Detailed break-downs of each unit’s GHG metrics by emissions reduction action are contained in the
following document. Each of these actions has the following values attributed to them by the units
where possible:
Action/Project
Scope
Included in Baseline (Y/N)?
Project Status (not yet started, started, ongoing, completed)
Project Lead
GHG Savings (MTCO2e) – low/high
Percentage Reduction by Scope – low/high
Percentage Reduction by Functional Area – low/high
Percentage Reduction Overall in Unit Footprint
A more detailed document archive of the history, methodology, calculations, results, and analysis of the
GYA Climate Action Plan and planning process can be found on the GYCC SOS website.7
7
Archived resources used during the Climate Action Planning process can be found on the GYCC’s website,
including webinars, presentations, agendas, briefings, notes, and spread sheets.
See: http://www.fedgycc.org/SOSGHG.htm
vii
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Acronyms
CFL
CFP
CH4
CLIP
CO2
DOE
EISA
EO
EPA
ESPC
EV
FEMP
FWS
FY
GHG
GSA
GYA
GYE
GYCC
HFC
HVAC
LED
LEED
M&V
MPG
MOU
MTCO2e
N2O
NPS
NRCS
NREL
PFC
PIHEV
PPA
REC
ROA
SF6
SOS
USFS
UTV
VMT
VOC
VTC
WCF
Compact Fluorescent Light
Climate Friendly Parks
Methane
Climate Leadership in Parks (GHG Tool)
Carbon Dioxide
U.S. Department of Energy
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
Executive Order
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Energy savings performance contract
Electric Vehicle
Federal Energy Management Program
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fiscal Year (Oct. – Sept.)
Greenhouse Gas
U.S. General Services Administration
Greater Yellowstone Area
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee
Hydrofluorocarbons
Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling
Light-Emitting Diode
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Monitoring and verification
Miles per Gallon
Memorandum of Understanding
Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
Nitrous Oxide
National Park Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Perfluorocarbons
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Power Purchase Agreement
Renewable Energy Certificate
Reductions Options Analysis
Sulfur Hexafluoride
Sustainable Operations Subcommittee (of the GYCC)
U.S. Forest Service
Utility Terrain Vehicles
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Volatile Organic Compound
Video Teleconferencing
Working Capital Fund
viii
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Contents
Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... iv
Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................... viii
Contents ....................................................................................................................................................... ix
1.0 Introduction: The GYCC and Sustainability ............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Action Planning Approach....................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Scope and Scale....................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 A Collaborative Action Planning Process ................................................................................................ 8
3.0 Timeline................................................................................................................................................. 10
4.0 Action Plan Results: Ecosystem-Wide GHG Emissions Reduction Goals ............................................. 10
5.0 Unit Plan: Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest ............................................................................... 13
5.1 Unit Plan: Bridger-Teton National Forest ............................................................................................. 15
5.2 Unit Plan: Caribou-Targhee National Forest ......................................................................................... 17
5.3 Unit Plan: Custer National Forest.......................................................................................................... 19
5.4 Unit Plan: Gallatin National Forest ....................................................................................................... 21
5.5 Unit Plan: Grand Teton National Park ................................................................................................... 23
5.6 Unit Plan: National Elk Refuge .............................................................................................................. 25
5.7 Unit Plan: Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................................. 27
5.8 Unit Plan: Shoshone National Forest .................................................................................................... 29
5.9 Unit Plan: Yellowstone National Park ................................................................................................... 31
6.0 Coordinated Implementation ............................................................................................................... 33
7.0 Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................................... 34
8.0 Conclusion: Creativity, Innovation, and Ownership ............................................................................. 35
9.0 Links to Resources and References ....................................................................................................... 37
Appendix 1: GYCC Signature Page .............................................................................................................. 38
Appendix 2: GHG Emissions Reduction Calculations .................................................................................. 39
ix
1.0 Introduction
Leading by example is a powerful tool for creating positive change. The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
itself plays this role in people’s lives regularly, touching over 4 million visitors every year with its beauty,
grandeur, and indigenous wildlife. It follows that the Federal Government agencies operating within
Greater Yellowstone have an incredible opportunity to lead by example through the implementation of
positive projects to help promote a clean energy economy, preserve the interests of taxpayers, address
environmental harms, protect water resources, and strengthen the vitality and livability of surrounding
communities.8 It is under this backdrop that the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee (GYCC)
chose to embark upon an initiative to inventory and reduce the greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by
federal land management agency operations in Greater Yellowstone. This is not only good
environmental and land management policy, but good fiscal policy as well, for most of the emissions
reduction actions contained in this plan more than pay for themselves in less than five years, saving
money, improving air quality, increasing energy independence, reducing waste, and educating others, in
addition to helping to mitigate global climate change.9 The three federal land management agencies in
the GYCC already have agency-level climate change response strategies that include the mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions. Through this Climate Action Plan, the GYCC furthers those strategies, in
addition to working toward healthier social, economic, and environmental systems in Greater
Yellowstone.
The Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee (GYCC) was formed by the National Park Service and
U.S. Forest Service in 1964 through a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU provides
for mutual cooperation and coordination in the management of core federal lands in the Greater
Yellowstone area. The 2003 MOU revision reflected the inclusion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
the Coordinating Committee. Park Superintendents from Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks;
Forest Supervisors from the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer, Gallatin,
and Shoshone National Forests; and Refuge Managers from the National Elk Refuge and Red Rock Lakes
National Wildlife Refuge now make up the GYCC membership.
GYCC priorities include the following, which are addressed through the GYCC interagency subcommittee
structure:
Ecosystem Health - including Air quality, Climate Change, Disease, Invasive Species, Species on
the Brink, and Water Quality and Flow
Sustainable Operations
Protecting Landscape Integrity
Connecting People to the Land
8
See also: Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance.
Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 194, October 8, 2009 (FR Doc. E9-24518). Available at:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-24518.pdf
9
For more information, see: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. “Projected Climate Change
and It’s Impacts,” Section 3.2.1 – 3.2.5, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
(AR4), 2007. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html
1
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
The GYCC’s GHG emissions reduction initiative is a cross-cutting program, addressing two of the four
priorities: Ecosystem Health and Sustainable Operations. The initiative has three phases:
1. Inventorying baseline GHGs emissions from agency operations
2. Action planning to reduce GHG emissions by a 2020 benchmark
3. Implementation, monitoring, and expansion of the Climate Action Plan
GHG emission inventories for the 10 agency units in the GYA were completed in the spring of 2009. The
action planning process began shortly thereafter. Both the inventory and the action planning process
are discussed in Section 1.1.
The overall GHG emissions footprint of the GYA, though not insignificant, is relatively small when
compared to more urban or industrial areas in the United States. As such, a large part of the power and
promise of this initiative is the example that it sets for what can be done when separate organizational
entities work together across a large area to respond to complex problems like climate change. Do not
be mistaken: this initiative makes real and meaningful reductions in GHG emissions, environmental
footprints, and operational costs; but it might ultimately inspire much more progress through leading by
example. The purpose of this document is to help forward this idea by explaining the action planning
process used in the GYA, the lessons learned during the process, and the challenges for the future.
2
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Figure 1: The Greater Yellowstone Area and the 10 GYCC Agency Units
1.1 Background
Prior to embarking on the process to create the GYA Climate Action Plan, the GYCC Sustainable
Operations Subcommittee (SOS) oversaw the creation of independent GHG emissions inventories on all
10 agency units in the GYA. All inventories used a Fiscal Year 2007 baseline except for Yellowstone
National Park, which used a Fiscal Year 2003 baseline. The Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife both
used the EPA Climate Leaders GHG inventory tool, while Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks
used the Climate Leadership in Parks (CLIP) tool, provided by the Climate Friendly Parks program. The
inventories were completed in April, 2009.10
All inventories measured the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and
nitrous oxide (N2O) from agency operations. Emissions are typically separated into Scope 1, Scope 2,
and Scope 3 emissions, as shown in Figure 1 below.
10
A document describing the GHG inventory results for the six National Forests in the GYA can be found at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/sustainableoperations/documents/GHG-Report6NatlForestsInGYA.pdf
3
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Figure 2: GHG Emissions Scopes, Courtesy of NREL
The following sources were included in the Baseline GHG Inventories in the GYA:
Stationary sources
Purchased electricity
Mobile sources
Employee air travel
Employee commuting
Concessionaire Emissions were included in the original GHG Inventories for the two Parks, but
not in those of the Forests or the Refuges
At the same time, the following emissions sources were not included in the Baseline GHG Inventories,
largely because they were judged to either be de minimis at the time, or not yet “ripe” for
measurement:
Prescribed fire & wildfire suppression
Refrigerants
Fire extinguishers
4
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Gas waste stream
Imported heat
Product transport
Off-site waste disposal
Together, the baseline GHG emissions footprints of each GYCC unit can be seen in Figure 3 below. One
should note that this figure reflects the relative operational sizes of units as well as their differing
missions and mandates. The largest emissions source for Yellowstone National Park was Scope 2
emissions (purchased electricity); while roughly 60% of the emissions of the six Forests were Scope 1
emissions (mostly from fleet operations).
14000
12000
10000
8000
Scope 1
Scope 2
6000
Scope 3
Total
4000
2000
0
Figure 3: 2007 Baseline GHG Emissions for the 10 GYCC Agency Units
1.2 Action Planning Approach
Early in the process it was decided that a “successful” climate action plan would need to measure much
more than a qualitative reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. In order to guide this process, the GYCC
managers and action planning staff created a three-part “Definition of Success” to guide the process.
5
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
This included setting and meeting a collective, realistic and credible ecosystem-wide GHG reduction
goal; ensuring the capacity and leadership intent to meet that goal; and developing and documenting a
methodology for GHG accounting and reduction that serves as a model for other footprint areas, other
agencies, and the public.
GYA Climate Action Plan “Definition of Success”
Setting and meeting a collective, realistic and credible ecosystem-wide GHG
reduction goal
Ensuring the capacity and leadership intent to meet the goal
Developing/documenting a methodology for GHG accounting and reduction
that serves as a model for other footprint areas, other agencies, and the public
Meeting this definition though, proved to be challenging initially. The GYCC is made up of 10 agency
units spread across 13 million acres and three states, including three federal agencies, spanning two
executive branch departments. Furthermore, the units range from Yellowstone National Park with
thousands of employees, to Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge with less than a dozen, most of
which are seasonal. This decentralized leadership structure required a “grass-roots” type approach to
action planning.
2.0 Methods
Given the interagency nature of the climate action plan and the decentralized leadership model of the
land management agencies in the GYA, a bottom-up, collaborative approach to action planning seemed
to be the best method to meet the GYCC’s Definition of Success. This meant that GHG emissions
reduction projects would be created by each individual GYCC agency unit, and then aggregated into
ecosystem-wide GHG emissions reduction goals that were realistic and credible. This method contrasts
with the standard top-down methodology that is popular in the private sector – essentially the
leadership picks a reduction goal, and then staff works to meet that goal through planning and
implementing GHG emissions reduction projects.
As a way to show leadership intent and the importance of this effort, the GYCC managers pledged a
minimum 20% GHG emissions reduction by 2020 for each of their units. This pledge not only helped to
motivate unit personnel to engage in building a plan that was implementable, but also matched our
GYA-based efforts to larger federal requirements (i.e. a 20% reduction in GHG emissions) in what was
then the draft of Executive Order 13514. This emissions reduction goal was later omitted in the final
version of the executive order, but it was an important starting point for the GYA GHG emissions
reduction goals nonetheless. The decision by managers to designate a minimum reduction goal was a
critical step in communicating leadership’s dedication to the project. What was most important in this
process was not the selection of a specific reduction goal, but making sure that whatever goals were
6
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
ultimately chosen would be backed up by specific, unit-generated lists of actions. As a result, the GYAwide goals are greater than the original 20% per unit minimum pledge. In this way, one could say that
“bottom-up” and “top-down” methods actually met in the middle, setting realistic and credible goals
along with the leadership intent and capacity to meet those goals.
Using this methodology, while at the same time keeping in mind the 20% minimum pledge, the Climate
Action Plan Coordinator engaged each agency unit individually, recording emissions reduction actions in
three separate categories: (1) emissions reduction actions that units had completed since the GHG
inventory baseline year, (2) actions that were ongoing or already planned, and (3) future actions that
project managers thought would be particularly suited to the agency unit. All actions have a 2020 target
date, consistent with the benchmarks set in E.O. 13514.
The strength of this approach lies in the collaborative formulation of goals that will be more attainable
and accurate at the ground-level than a strictly top-down goal setting model would have been. This
method also encouraged the creation of GHG emissions reduction action plans that were as ambitious
as possible at the unit level. Each GYCC agency unit not only had complete ownership over the emissions
reduction actions contained in its portion of the Climate Action Plan, but it also had control over its
implementation timeline and the project managers for each action. In this way the individual unit plans
will act as roadmaps to meet the ecosystem-wide emissions reduction goal, giving the GYA-wide goal a
very high probability of being met.
Approval
Action Planning
Creation of a
Methodology;
Outreach and
Education
GHG emissions
reduction
projects
formulated by
GYA unit staff
GHG
Emissions
Inventories
across GYA
Figure 4: GYA Action Planning Process
7
Compilation
Projects are
given metrics
and compiled
into reduction
goals, tiered
both to the unit
and the GYA
level
Climate Action
Plan goals and
projects are
approved by
GYCC
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
2.1 Scope and Scale
The GYA Climate Action plan addresses Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
from the operational footprint of the federal land management agencies that are members of the
Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee (GYCC). 11 Agency units represented in the action plan
are those of the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service. The
action plan uses a 2007 emissions baseline year (except for Yellowstone National Park, which used a
2003 baseline), keying reduction goals to a 2020 benchmark. GHG emissions reduction actions/projects
and individual unit-level action plans will be implemented by staff in a place-based fashion according to
capacity, funding, and emerging agency policies. All actions are broken into functional areas, falling
under either “fleet,” “facilities,” or “other” footprint areas. It should be noted that this action plan,
though non-binding, is a good-faith attempt to mitigate GHG emissions, conserve resources, save
money, and provide for the continued health and well-being of those who live in Greater Yellowstone.
As such, the plan is subject to declining budgets, political will, available resources, and changing laws
and policies.
2.2 A Collaborative Action Planning Process
From early on in the action planning process, staff realized that the collaborative nature of the model
would be very important. Both primary staff members in the initiative, the Climate Action Plan
Coordinator and the GHG Intern, were working under short-term appointments.12 All other staff working
on the initiative, including members of the GYCC Sustainable Operations Subcommittee, have done so as
a “collateral duty” (i.e. duty outside of their normal program of work). This unique situation, when
combined with the decentralized nature of the GYCC units, made it important to create a collaborative
plan whose emissions reduction actions were created by the people on their units who would ultimately
be responsible for the plan’s implementation.
The biggest challenge to implementing this strategy was ensuring the capacity and communicating the
leadership intent to meet each goal. Barriers within the GYA included a general lack of understanding
about GHGs and anthropogenic climate change, a low feeling of empowerment and buy-in to create
GHG emissions reduction action plans, and a perception of insufficient time and resources to complete
the initiative. In the end, staff came up with an innovative solution to help surmount these barriers.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) was an integral partner in this solution. To address
these barriers, GYCC staff used a $250,000 Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) technical
assistance grant from the Department of Energy (DOE) to contract with the NREL to help increase
11
Naturally occurring, biogenic, and natural resources management-based GHG emissions were not included in the
emissions inventory or the climate action plan. The focus of the initiative was federal agency operations.
12
The Climate Action Plan Coordinator was working under a 2-year Presidential Management Fellowship, while the
GHG Intern was working under a 1-year USFS Student Temporary Experience Program internship.
8
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
capacity and disseminate knowledge across the ecosystem. Together, action planning and NREL staff
collaboratively planned and hosted an Interagency Climate Action Plan Working Session in Bozeman,
Montana.13 This was preceded by an eight-part webinar series, as well as ongoing coordination with the
units to prepare for the Working Session.14 GYCC unit staff members were divided into three functional
groups: “Fleet,” “Facilities,” and “Other Footprint Areas,” in order to better reflect how work actually
gets accomplished on the ground, as opposed to emissions scopes which cut across all three functional
groups.15 The goals of the Webinars and the workshop were fivefold:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Educate and empower employees around climate change response and action planning.
Create a project management cohort across the GYCC agencies and staff functional areas.
Share and leverage resources across the GYA.
Create a rough Climate Action Plan for each GYCC unit, tiered to the ecosystem as a whole.
Identification by participants of GYA-wide pilot projects that would further coordinated
implementation of the plan. These projects received seed funding from GYCC and USFS grants
allocated for that purpose (approximately $35,000 in total).16
This strategy was immensely successful, resulting in over 60 attendees from across the ecosystem,
including representatives from a variety of disciplines and all 10 GYCC member units. Attendees
completed draft action plans for their home units, as well as a prioritized list of GYA-wide emissions
reduction projects. A number of interagency implementation teams are currently working on these GYAwide projects in the Fleet, Facilities, and Scope 3 footprint areas. 17 The workshop helped to create
agency staff empowerment and ownership of the GYA Climate Action Plan, critical to the planning
methodology chosen.
In addition, the Working Session also seems to have empowered those who were new to sustainability
to become engaged, while empowering the existing sustainability participants to become leaders. Other
intangibles also came out of the workshop. Many participants said that it was the first time that they
had ever met or talked with their counterparts at some of the other GYCC agency units (e.g. fellow Fleet
Managers or Facilities Engineers). This network of peers is already being utilized to plan projects across
boundaries, coordinate implementation between units, and to expand and share existing projects.
As of May, 2011, the ten GYCC agency units have planned 83 separate types of GHG emissions reduction
projects across the three emissions scopes, for 218 total GHG emissions reduction projects scheduled
13
April 19 – 22, 2010.
The webinar series included: GHGs and Climate Change 101(twice), GHG Emissions for Fleet, GHG Emissions
for Facilities, GHG Emissions for Scope 3, Planning for Emissions Reductions – Fleet, Planning for Emissions,
Reductions – Facilities, and Planning for Emissions Reductions – Scope 3. Webinar slides are available at:
http://www.fedgycc.org/GHGApril2010.htm.
15
E.g. A typical emissions reduction project for “Facilities” might result in an emissions reduction across all three
scopes of GHG emissions.
16
This seed money was later matched over 4:1 through grants, agreements, and in-kind donations totaling over
$150,000.
17
The “Scope 3” functional group is now called “Other” in the action plan spreadsheet. This is an attempt to amend
the inaccuracy of the original name because both the “Fleet” and the “Facilities” dealt with Scope 3 emissions as
well.
14
9
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
for completion by 2020. After converting the actions into physical GHG emissions reductions (in terms
of MTCO2e and percentage below baseline), the GYA GHG emissions reduction goals were compiled in a
22-page Excel spreadsheet. The resulting goals are summarized in Section 4 of this document.18
3.0 Timeline
The GHG inventory process began in 2008, measuring the GYCC units’ operational emissions from Fiscal
Year 2007. This process was completed in April, 2009. Soon thereafter, the Climate Action Plan
Coordinator was hired to lead the next phase of the initiative. An action planning strategy, process,
funding, and the technical assistance grant with NREL were worked out over the remainder of 2009. The
GYA Interagency Working Session to plan GHG emissions reduction actions was held in April, 2010,
following 3 months of webinars and preparation work. Following the Working Session, the GHG Intern
was hired to help with GHG accounting metrics and aggregation of the reduction actions into an Excel
Workbook. After a number of iterations, the GYCC managers approved the aggregated goals in the
Climate Action Plan on December 23, 2010. The written version of the plan was crafted during the spring
of 2011, followed by final approval, a press release, and outreach. Coordinated implementation of the
plan has been ongoing and will continue throughout the life of the action plan. Due to the consensusbased, collaborative nature of the planning process across a large geographic and administrative area,
two years was an appropriate timeline to move from initiation to completion.
4.0 Action Plan Results: Ecosystem-Wide GHG Emissions Reduction Goals
The draft GYA plan went through a number of iterative steps to review and edit the reduction actions
and metrics for each unit plan on its way to becoming a final product. The list of reviewers and
contributors is very long, but includes the members of the GYCC SOS, the GYCC Executive Coordinator,
and the Facility Engineers, Fleet Managers, and Green Team Members on each unit. Amendments to the
plan, GHG accounting, and metrics were compiled by the Climate Action Plan Coordinator and the GHG
Intern, using primary documents, online tools, and subject matter experts as references (please see
Appendix 2). Most calculations were done using the EPA Climate Leaders Tool available online, and
widely regarded as utilizing up-to-date metrics and measures (including eGRID Sub-regions).19 After
review, the GYCC managers unanimously signed the GHG reduction goals as they appeared in the
original electronic spreadsheet that was used to compile all of the reduction actions (Please see
Appendix 1). These goals are reproduced in the tables below.
18
Emissions reduction metrics have been normalized across all agency units. Both the baseline GHG emissions
footprint and the GHG emissions reductions used in these metrics are from agency operations only. Concessionaire
and permittee emissions footprints and reductions, if originally included by some units, have been removed in order
to provide for a consistent plan, implementable through agency management actions. As such, one may notice that
the numbers have changed slightly from earlier drafts.
19
Please see the “EPA eGRID Sub-regions” link in Section 9.0.
10
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Overall goals were written in terms of both a reduction percentage below the 2007 GHG Inventory
baseline, and in terms of the actual amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions that are reduced or
offset through implementation of the actions, compared with the 2007 baseline GHG emissions. This
same format was used at the unit level, displaying the unit goals both by emissions scope and by
functional group (Fleet, Facilities, or Other). Unique to this plan is the variability or “error bar” in both
percentages and actual reductions. This variability is derived from the bottom-up method of goal
formulation that was used, and reflects both the degree of accuracy in the GHG accounting metrics used
for each action, and the degree of certainty in the data projections provided by the GYCC units. For
example, depending upon the calculations used and the degree to which the project is implemented, a
particular emissions reduction action on a GYCC unit might produce a range of GHG emissions
reductions. Actions with the most detail or certainty have smaller “error bars,” while those that are
more difficult to measure or have more flexibility in their plans have larger ones. Either way, the range
of variability provides a “low” and a “high” project implementation scenario, as well as a larger and
more accurate target for the units to meet during implementation.
Scope of Emissions
Overall GHG Emissions
Reduction Goal
Percentage Below 2007
Baseline
21-36%
Actual Reduction in
MTCO2e
5568 - 9499 MTCO2e
Scope 1
11-23%
1382 - 2910 MTCO2e
Scope 2
33-57%
3164 – 5449 MTCO2e
Scope 3
6-9%
204 – 304 MTCO2e
Table 2: GYA-wide Climate Action Plan Goals/Results by Scope
GYA Agency Unit
Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF
Bridger-Teton NF
Caribou-Targhee NF
Custer NF
Gallatin NF
Grand Teton NP
National Elk Refuge
Red Rock Lakes NWR
Percent Reduction Below
2007 Baseline
11 - 31%
11 - 28%
18 - 38%
21 - 44%
12 - 28%
34 - 39%
23 - 53%
23 - 34%
11
Actual Reduction in MTCO2e
143 - 410
227 - 575
387 - 813
86 - 184
178 - 417
1239 - 1422
113 - 261
28- 41
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Shoshone NF
Yellowstone NP
20 - 44%
22 - 37%
227 - 506
2923 - 4836
Table 3: GYA Unit Climate Action Plan Overall Goals/Results
GYCC Agency
National Parks
National Wildlife Refuges
National Forests
Percent GHG Reduction by
2020 (Overall)
25% - 39%
23% - 50%
15% - 34%
Metric Tons CO2e Reduction
by 2020
4162.2 – 6257.8
140.6 – 302.0
1248.8 – 2905.1
Table 4: GYCC Agency Climate Action Plan Overall Goals/Results
The GYCC agency units’ individual climate action plans are summarized in the Sections 5.0 – 5.9.
Contained in these tables are the original GHG emission reduction actions created before, during, and
after the GYA GHG Working Session, although they have been simplified to fit under common, more
standardized headings than GYCC staff will find in their unit’s individual action plan. Each unit has a
longer, “working” version of their action plan (that they created and have modified) from which these
projects were pulled and compiled. Many of the projects have already been started, and some have
already been completed during the time between 2007 and the date of this report. Likewise, some of
the projects that are in the plan will take additional resources and funding in the future in order to be
implemented – resources that are not at all secure in the difficult economic climate that the U.S. is
currently experiencing.
12
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
5.0 Unit Plan: Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest
GYCC Unit
GHG
Baseline
Year
GHG
Baseline
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2007
1331
BeaverheadDeerlodge NF
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Percentage Below Baseline
(%)
Low
High
Low
High
143.2
409.7
10.8%
30.8%
GHG Emission Reductions by Scope:
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
79
234.3
60
171.2
4
4.3
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
9.3
27.6
13.1
37.5
16.5
16.5
GHG Emission Reductions by Functional Group:
GHG Emissions Reduction
Functional
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Area
Baseline
Low
High
Fleet
526
57.5
137.7
Facilities
779
81.4
267.7
Other Areas
26
4.3
4.3
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
10.9
26.2
10.4
34.4
16.5
16.5
Emissions
Scope
Emissions
Baseline
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
848
457
26
GHG Emissions Reduction Actions/Projects:
Action/Project
Fuel Tracking
System
Downsizing and
Rightsizing
Cultural and
Behavioral
Education (Mobile)
Reduce Unit Vehicle
Speed by 5 mph of
Posted Speed
Replacing Low mpg
Vehicles with High
mpg Vehicles
MPG Interactive
Tracker
Included
Scope(s)
in
Baseline?
Project
Status
Project
Lead
Fleet
Managers
Fleet
Managers
1
Yes
Not Yet
Started
1
Yes
Ongoing
1, 3
Yes
Ongoing
1
Yes
1
GHG
Savings
(MTCo2e)
Low High
% Reduction
Functional
Area
Low
High
% Reduction
Total Unit
Footprint
Low High
7.0
11.4
1.3%
2.2%
0.5%
0.9%
7.0
11.4
1.3%
2.2%
0.5%
0.9%
Fleet
Managers
7.0
11.4
1.3%
2.2%
0.5%
0.9%
Ongoing
Fleet
Managers
7.0
11.4
1.3%
2.2%
0.5%
0.9%
Yes
Ongoing
Fleet
Managers
7.0
11.4
1.3%
2.2%
0.5%
0.9%
1
Yes
Not Yet
Started
7.0
11.4
1.3%
2.2%
0.5%
0.9%
VTC
1
Yes
Ongoing
10.0
40.0
1.9%
7.6%
0.8%
3.0%
Idle Reduction
1, 3
Yes
Started
5.5
17.6
1.0%
3.3%
0.4%
1.3%
1
Yes
Completed
0.0
11.7
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
0.9%
1, 2, 3
Yes
Ongoing
13.0
28.5
1.7%
3.7%
1.0%
2.1%
Key Tags (Red,
Yellow, Green)
Conservation
Education
Fleet
Managers
Green
Team
Green
Team
Fleet
Managers
Green
Team
13
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Turning Computers
Off at Night and
Weekends
Smart Thermostat
and Lower Temp
Upgrade Lighting
and Exit Lights
Light Sensor
Installation
HVAC Regular
Inspection
2
Yes
Ongoing
1, 2
Yes
Ongoing
2
Yes
2
Yes
1, 2
Yes
Ongoing
PV Systems
2
Yes
Completed
Bio-diesel Furnace
1
Yes
Micro-hydro
Projects
2
Yes
Energy Audit
1, 2
Yes
Wind Power
2
Yes
Smart Meters/Install
Meters On All
Buildings
1, 2, 3
Yes
Xeriscaping
3
Green
Team
13.0
28.5
1.7%
3.7%
1.0%
2.1%
13.0
28.5
1.7%
3.7%
1.0%
2.1%
7.0
16.0
0.9%
2.1%
0.5%
1.2%
7.0
16.0
0.9%
2.1%
0.5%
1.2%
7.8
23.4
1.0%
3.0%
0.6%
1.8%
9.0
9.0
1.2%
1.2%
0.7%
0.7%
2.2
2.2
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
1.3
1.3
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
7.8
89.0
1.0%
11.4%
0.6%
6.7%
TBD
0.3
0.3
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Started
Green
Team
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No
Ongoing
Facility
Managers
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1, 2, 3
Yes
Ongoing
Green
Team
0.0
25.0
0.0%
3.2%
0.0%
1.9%
3
Yes
Ongoing
4.3
4.3
16.5%
16.5%
0.3%
0.3%
Waste Reduction
3
No
Ongoing
0.2
1.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Recycling
3
No
Ongoing
0.4
2.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Decrease
Transmission Losses
3
No
Ongoing
0.6
0.6
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Recycling- Propane
3
No
Ongoing
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Incorporate Energy
Efficiency in New
Leases/ Remodels
Employee Shuttle
(carpool)
Not Yet
Started
Not Yet
Started
Not Yet
Started
Not Yet
Started
Not Yet
Started
Not Yet
Started
Green
Team
Facility
Managers
Facility
Managers
Facility
Managers
Facility
Managers
District
Ranger
Facility
Engineer
Facility
Engineer
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
14
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
5.1 Unit Plan: Bridger-Teton National Forest
GYCC Unit
GHG
Baseline
Year
Bridger-Teton NF
2007
GHG
Baseline
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2081
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Percentage Below Baseline
(%)
Low
High
Low
High
227.3
575.2
10.9%
27.6%
GHG Emission Reductions by Scope:
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
139
375.2
69
149.4
19
50.6
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
10.4%
28.1%
12.4%
26.8%
10.2%
27.2%
GHG Emission Reductions by Functional Group:
GHG Emissions Reduction
Functional
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Area
Baseline
Low
High
Fleet
1050
103.0
282.5
Facilities
845
115.9
258.9
Other Areas
186
8.4
33.8
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
9.8%
26.9%
13.7%
30.6%
4.5%
18.2%
Emissions
Scope
Emissions
Baseline
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
1337
558
186
GHG Emissions Reduction Actions/Projects:
Action/Project
Downsizing and
Rightsizing
Cultural and
Behavioral
Education (Mobile)
Replacing Low mpg
Vehicles with High
mpg Vehicles
Scope(s)
Included
in
Baseline?
Project
Status
Project
Lead
Low
High
Low
High
%
Reduction
Total Unit
Footprint
Low High
19.2
49.9
1.8%
4.8%
0.9%
2.4%
GHG
Savings
(MTCO2e)
% Reduction
Functional
Area
1
Yes
Ongoing
Fleet
Manager
1, 3
Yes
Started
Green
Team
0.0
6.3
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.3%
1
Yes
Ongoing
Fleet
Manager
6.3
43.9
0.6%
4.2%
0.3%
2.1%
VTC
1
Yes
Ongoing
27.3
54.6
2.6%
5.2%
1.3%
2.6%
Idle Reduction
1, 3
Yes
Started
19.2
49.9
1.8%
4.8%
0.9%
2.4%
Key Tags (Red,
Yellow, Green)
1
Yes
Completed
6.3
43.9
0.6%
4.2%
0.3%
2.1%
Conservation
Education
1, 2, 3
Yes
Ongoing
8.5
42.3
1.0%
5.0%
0.4%
2.0%
Utility Bill Clean Up
1, 2
Yes
Started
8.5
84.5
1.0%
10.0%
0.4%
4.1%
Create a “Green
Team” (with a
Detailed Action
Plan)
1, 2, 3
Yes
Completed
10.4
41.6
1.2%
4.9%
0.5%
2.0%
Green
Team
Green
Team
Action
Planning
Staff
Green
Team
Facilities
Managers
Green
Team
15
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Upgrade Lighting
and Exit Lights
Building
Conveyance
2
Yes
Ongoing
Green
Team
4.0
6.0
0.5%
0.7%
0.2%
0.3%
1, 2, 3
Yes
Started
Leadership
84.5
84.5
10.0%
10.0%
4.1%
4.1%
HVAC Regular
Inspection
1, 2
Yes
Facilities
Manager
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Replace Appliances
1, 2
Yes
Green
Team
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
Yes
Started
Green
Team
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1, 2, 3
Yes
Included
in Conserv
Education
Green
Team
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
No
Started
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3
Yes
Started
8.0
33.0
4.3%
17.7%
0.4%
1.6%
3
No
Started
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Low Flow Products
3
No
Not Yet
Started
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Bicycling/Walking to
Work Programs
3
Yes
Ongoing
0.4
0.8
0.2%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
Turning Computers
Off at Night and
Weekends
Install Smart
Thermostats and
Lower
Temperatures
Xeriscaping
Employee Bus
Passes
Separation of Yard
Waste
Included
in Conserv
Education
Included
in Conserv
Education
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
16
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
5.2 Unit Plan: Caribou-Targhee National Forest
GYCC Unit
GHG
Baseline
Year
Caribou-Targhee
NF
GHG
Baseline
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2007
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
2117
Percentage Below Baseline
(%)
Low
High
Low
High
387.4
813.2
18.3%
38.4%
GHG Emissions Reductions by Scope:
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
290
622.4
95
178.8
2
12.1
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
19.1%
41.0%
29.2%
54.8%
0.8%
4.4%
GHG Emissions Reductions by Functional Group:
GHG Emissions Reduction
Functional
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Area
Baseline
Low
High
Fleet
1270
216.8
484.9
Facilities
573
170.4
324.7
Other Areas
274
0.2
3.6
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
17.1%
38.2%
29.7%
56.7%
0.1%
1.3%
Emissions
Scope
Emissions
Baseline
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
1517
326
274
GHG Emissions Reduction Actions/Projects:
Included
Action/Project Scope(s)
in
Baseline?
Downsizing and
Rightsizing
Cultural and
Behavioral
Education (Mobile)
Tire Pressure
Education and Tire
Gauges in Vehicles
Using Ethanol-10
Fuel Pumps
MPG Interactive
Tracker
VTC
Idle Reduction
Key Tags (Red,
Yellow, Green)
Turning Computers
Off at Night and
Weekends
Create a “Green
Team” (with a
Detailed Action
Project
Status
Project
Lead
Low
High
% Reduction
Functional
Area
Low
High
127.0
254.0
10.0%
20.0%
6.0%
12.0%
GHG Savings
(MTCo2e)
% Reduction
Total Unit
Footprint
Low High
1
Yes
Started
Fleet
Manager
1, 2, 3
Yes
Ongoing
Engineer
12.7
25.4
1.0%
2.0%
0.6%
1.2%
1, 3
Yes
Not Yet
Started
Fleet
Manager
6.4
25.4
0.5%
2.0%
0.3%
1.2%
1
Yes
Ongoing
12.7
12.7
1.0%
1.0%
0.6%
0.6%
1,3
Yes
Started
30.9
60.7
2.4%
4.8%
1.5%
2.9%
1
Yes
Ongoing
9.1
18.3
0.7%
1.4%
0.4%
0.9%
1, 3
Yes
Started
18.0
52.7
1.4%
4.1%
0.9%
2.5%
1
Yes
Completed
0.0
35.7
0.0%
2.8%
0.0%
1.7%
2
Yes
Ongoing
Facilities
Manager
3.3
16.3
0.6%
2.8%
0.2%
0.8%
1, 2, 3
No
Not Yet
Started
Facilities
Manager
10.6
42.3
1.8%
7.4%
0.5%
2.0%
Fleet
Manager
SOS
Member
Engineer
Fleet
Manager
Fleet
Manager
17
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Plan)
Upgrade Lighting
and Exit Lights
Window
Replacement
Energy Savings
Performance
Contracts
Not Yet
Started
Not Yet
Started
Facilities
Manager
Facilities
Manager
Yes
Ongoing
Yes
2
Yes
1, 2
Yes
1, 2
Energy Audit
9.8
16.3
1.7%
2.8%
0.5%
0.8%
11.5
11.5
2.0%
2.0%
0.5%
0.5%
Facilities
Manager
57.3
114.6
10.0%
20.0%
2.7%
5.4%
Ongoing
Facilities
Manager
43.5
43.5
7.6%
7.6%
2.1%
2.1%
Not Yet
Started
Facilities
Manager
11.5
57.3
2.0%
10.0%
0.5%
2.7%
Not Yet
Started
Not Yet
Started
Facilities
Manager
Facilities
Manager
SOS
Member
SOS
Member
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
22.9
22.9
4.0%
4.0%
1.1%
1.1%
0.2
3.6
0.1%
1.3%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Smart
Meters/Install
Meters On All
Buildings
1, 2, 3
Yes
Xeriscaping
3
No
1, 2
Yes
3
Yes
Ongoing
3
No
Not Yet
Started
Improve Insulation
in Buildings
Employee Shuttle
(carpool)
Low Flow H2O
Fixtures
18
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
5.3 Unit Plan: Custer National Forest
GYCC Unit
GHG
Baseline
Year
Custer NF
2007
GHG
Baseline
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
417
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
Percentage Below Baseline
(%)
High
85.8
Low
184.3
High
20.6%
44.2%
GHG Emissions Reductions by Scope:
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
43.9
7.1%
53.2
7.1%
12.4
9.0%
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
18.4%
17
41.6%
9
24.8%
5
GHG Emissions Reductions by Functional Group:
GHG Emissions Reduction
Functional
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Area
Baseline
Low
High
Fleet
170
15.0
38.9
Facilities
197
11.0
58.2
Other Areas
50
4.5
12.4
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
8.8%
22.9%
5.6%
29.5%
9.0%
24.8%
Emissions
Scope
Emissions
Baseline
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
170
197
50
GHG Emissions Reduction Actions/Projects:
Action/Project
Utilize Hybrid
Vehicles When
Possible
Cultural and
Behavioral
Education
Travel Trailers as
Remote Duty
Stations
Use of ATVs to
reduce vehicle miles
Scope(s)
Included
in
Baseline?
Project
Status
Project
Lead
Low
High
Low
High
%
Reduction
Total Unit
Footprint
Low High
GHG
Savings
(MTCo2e)
% Reduction
Functional
Area
1
Yes
Ongoing
Green
Team
2.5
2.5
1.5%
1.5%
0.6%
0.6%
1, 2, 3
Yes
Ongoing
Primary
Staff
7.2
15.1
4.2%
8.9%
1.7%
3.6%
1
Yes
Ongoing
District
Ranger
0.6
1.5
0.4%
0.9%
0.1%
0.4%
1
Yes
Ongoing
0.3
2.1
0.2%
1.2%
0.1%
0.5%
VTC
1
Yes
Ongoing
1.4
2.2
0.8%
1.3%
0.3%
0.5%
Idle Reduction
1, 3
Yes
Ongoing
3.0
9.3
1.8%
5.5%
0.7%
2.2%
1
Yes
Completed
0.0
6.2
0.0%
3.6%
0.0%
1.5%
1, 2
Yes
Completed
Facilities
Manager
0.0
0.2
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
1, 2
Yes
Completed
Facilities
Manager
0.0
0.2
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
Key Tags (Red,
Yellow, Green)
Upgrade buildings –
New Roof at Shop
(District Offices)
Upgrade buildings –
New Windows,
Insulation, and
Admin.
Clerk
Admin.
Clerk
Facilities
Manager
Fleet
Manager
19
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Siding
Energy Audit;
Upgrade lighting
and Exit Lights
Upgrade Boiler/
HVAC
Light Sensor
Installation
1, 2
Yes
Ongoing
1, 2
Yes
Completed
2
Yes
Ongoing
1, 2
Yes
Ongoing
2
Yes
Completed
1, 2
No
Not Yet
Started
1, 2
No
PV Systems (District
Offices)
Micro-hydro Project
(Rock Creek Work
Center)
Turning Computers
Off at Night and on
Weekends
2
Upgrade buildings
(Meyers Creek)
Upgrade lighting
and Exit Lights (Rock
Creek Work Center)
Micro hydro
Projects (Meyers
Creek spring box)
Solar Hot Water
Heater (District
Bunk House)
Replace Phone
Switches (District
Offices)
Replace Appliances
Vending Misers
Upgrade buildings
(Sage Creek Work
Center)
Upgrade buildings
(District Office
Remodel)
Telecommuting
Employee Shuttle
(carpool)
Provide Services to
Reduce Commuting
Waste Reduction
Green Purchasing
Low Flow Products
Double Sided
Printing Set as
Default
Bicycling/Walking
Facilities
Manager
4.6
4.6
2.3%
2.3%
1.1%
1.1%
1.0
3.9
0.5%
2.0%
0.2%
0.9%
0.2
0.5
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.1%
0.5
1.7
0.3%
0.9%
0.1%
0.4%
1.5
1.5
0.8%
0.8%
0.4%
0.4%
Forest
Engineering
0.3
1.1
0.2%
0.6%
0.1%
0.3%
Not Yet
Started
Forest
Engineering
0.3
1.1
0.2%
0.6%
0.1%
0.3%
No
Not Yet
Started
Engineer/
Green
Team
0.0
24.6
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
5.9%
2
No
Not Yet
Started
Forest
Engineering
0.0
5.7
0.0%
2.9%
0.0%
1.4%
2
No
Started
Primary
Staff
1.3
5.1
0.7%
2.6%
0.3%
1.2%
1, 2
No
Not Yet
Started
0.3
1.1
0.2%
0.6%
0.1%
0.3%
2
No
Not Yet
Started
0.6
1.1
0.3%
0.6%
0.1%
0.3%
2
No
Not Yet
Started
Forest
Engineering
0.0
5.3
0.0%
2.7%
0.0%
1.3%
1
No
Not Yet
Started
Engineer/
Green
Team
0.4
0.5
0.2%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
2
No
Not Yet
Started
Green
Team
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1, 2, 3
Yes
Ongoing
3.9
7.8
7.8%
15.6%
0.9%
1.9%
3
No
0.6
0.6
1.2%
1.2%
0.1%
0.1%
3
No
0.0
2.0
0.0%
4.0%
0.0%
0.5%
3
Yes
Ongoing
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3
Yes
Ongoing
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3
Yes
Ongoing
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3
No
Ongoing
Admin
Clerk
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3
Yes
Ongoing
District
Ranger
0.0
2.0
0.0%
4.0%
0.0%
0.5%
Not Yet
Started
Not Yet
Started
Facilities
Manager
Facilities
Manager
Facilities
Manager
Facilities
Manager
Facilities
Manager/
Engineering
Facilities
Manager/
Engineering
Primary
Staff
Green
Team
District
Ranger
Primary
Staff
Admin
Clerk
Facilities
Manager
20
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
5.4 Unit Plan: Gallatin National Forest
GYCC Unit
GHG
Baseline
Year
Gallatin NF
2007
GHG
Baseline
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
1470
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Percentage Below Baseline
(%)
Low
High
Low
High
177.8
416.8
12.1%
28.4%
GHG Emissions Reductions by Scope:
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
132
308.1
28
72.0
18
36.8
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
13.3%
31.1%
10.1%
26.2%
9.0%
18.0%
GHG Emissions Reductions by Functional Group:
GHG Emissions Reduction
Functional
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Area
Baseline
Low
High
Fleet
982
112.7
257.8
Facilities
2103
46.7
122.2
Other Areas
546
18.4
36.8
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
14.6%
33.4%
9.5%
24.8%
9.0%
18.0%
Emissions
Scope
Emissions
Baseline
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
990
275
205
GHG Emissions Reduction Actions/Projects:
Action/Project
Included
Scope(s)
in
Baseline?
Project
Status
Project
Lead
GHG Savings
(MTCo2e)
% Reduction
Functional
Area
Low
High
% Reduction
Total Unit
Footprint
Low High
Low
High
13.8
39.8
1.8%
5.2%
0.9%
2.7%
34.5
65.8
4.5%
8.5%
2.3%
4.5%
39.0
65.8
5.1%
8.5%
2.7%
4.5%
1.3
4.9
0.2%
0.6%
0.1%
0.3%
7.2
21.7
0.9%
2.8%
0.5%
1.5%
7.2
36.2
0.9%
4.7%
0.5%
2.5%
1, 3
Yes
Ongoing
Green
Team
1
Yes
Not Yet
Started
Fleet
Manager
1, 3
Yes
Ongoing
1
Yes
Completed
1
Yes
Ongoing
Low Friction Tires
1
Yes
Not Yet
Started
VTC
1
Yes
Ongoing
1
Yes
Ongoing
1
Yes
Not Yet
Started
Fleet
Manager
4.7
13.8
0.6%
1.8%
0.3%
0.9%
1
Yes
Process
Started
Fleet
Manager
3.8
3.8
0.5%
0.5%
0.3%
0.3%
Idle Reduction
Explore Idle
Reduction
Technologies
Cultural and
Behavioral Education
Key Tags (Red,
yellow, Green)
Downsizing and
Rightsizing
Using Ethenol-10
pumps
Tire pressure
education/ tire
gauges in vehicles
Purchase of PIHEV
and install of PV
system to offset
vehicle charging
Green
Team
Fleet
Manager
Fleet
Manager
Green
Team
Green
Team
Fleet
Manager
21
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Using re-refined oil
Carpooling to
meetings
Improve Insulation in
Buildings
Window
Replacement
HVAC Regular
Inspection
Winterization of
Buildings When not
Used in Winter
Upgrade lighting and
Exit Lights
Replace Appliances
Turning Computers
Off at Night and
Weekends
Light Sensor
Installation
Low Flow Products
Xeriscaping
Energy Tracking
"bring the bills
home"
New Leases/
Remodels
Incorporate Energy
Efficiency
Telecommuting
Recycling- Propane
Double Sided
Printing Set as
Default
Recycling
3
No
Ongoing
1
Yes
Ongoing
1, 2
Yes
Ongoing
1, 2
Yes
1, 2
Yes
1, 2
Yes
Ongoing
2
Yes
Ongoing
2
Yes
Ongoing
2
Yes
Ongoing
2
Yes
Ongoing
3
No
Completed
3
No
Ongoing
1, 2
Yes
Not Yet
Started
1, 2
Yes
Not Yet
Started
3
Yes
Ongoing
3
No
Ongoing
3
No
Ongoing
3
No
Ongoing
Not Yet
Started
Not Yet
Started
Fleet
Manager
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Facilities
Manager
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2
6.0
0.2%
0.8%
0.1%
0.4%
18.3
18.3
3.7%
3.7%
1.2%
1.2%
3.1
6.3
0.6%
1.3%
0.2%
0.4%
4.9
14.8
1.0%
3.0%
0.3%
1.0%
11.8
11.8
2.4%
2.4%
0.8%
0.8%
3.7
3.7
0.8%
0.8%
0.3%
0.3%
2.0
5.0
0.4%
1.0%
0.1%
0.3%
2.7
11.0
0.5%
2.2%
0.2%
0.7%
0.2
2.0
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Green
Team
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Green
Team
0.0
49.3
0.0%
10.0%
0.0%
3.4%
18.4
36.8
9.0%
18.0%
1.3%
2.5%
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Green
Team
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Green
Team
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
22
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
5.5 Unit Plan: Grand Teton National Park
GYCC Unit
GHG
Baseline
Year
Grand Teton NP
2007
GHG
Baseline
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
3631
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Percentage Below Baseline
(%)
Low
High
Low
High
1239.0
1421.5
34.1%
39.1%
GHG Emissions Reductions by Scope:
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
198
349.3
198
349.3
158
189.2
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
9.0%
15.9%
9.0%
15.9%
28.9%
34.6%
GHG Emissions Reductions by Functional Group:
GHG Emissions Reduction
Functional
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Area
Baseline
Low
High
Fleet
982
69.7
200.2
Facilities
2103
1308.4
1349.4
Other Areas
546
31.5
63.0
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
7.1%
20.4%
62.2%
64.2%
5.8%
11.5%
Emissions
Scope
Emissions
Baseline
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
2202
883
546
GHG Emissions Reduction Actions/Projects:
Included
Action/Project Scope(s)
in
Baseline?
Project
Status
1
Yes
Ongoing
1, 3
Yes
Ongoing
1, 3
Yes
Ongoing
1
Yes
Not Yet
Started
1
Yes
Completed
1, 3
Yes
Not Yet
Started
1
Yes
Ongoing
1
Yes
1, 2, 3
Yes
1
Yes
2
Yes
Hybrid Vehicles
Idle Reduction
Cultural and
Behavioral
Education (Fleet)
Downsizing and
Rightsizing
Key Tags (Red,
yellow, Green)
MPG Tracker (e.g.
Kiwi Gages)
Replacing low mpg
with high mpg
vehicles
VTC
LEED Building
Smart Thermostat
and Lower Temp
Light Sensor
Not Yet
Started
Started
Not Yet
Started
Not Yet
Project
Lead
Green
Team/
Facilities
Green
Team
Green
Team
Facilities/
Fleet
Action
Planning
Staff
Fleet
Manager
Fleet
Manager
GHG
Savings
(MTCo2e)
Low High
% Reduction
Functional
Area
Low
High
% Reduction
Total Unit
Footprint
Low High
11.0
15.8
1.1%
1.6%
0.3%
0.4%
13.6
40.0
1.4%
4.1%
0.4%
1.1%
6.6
30.8
0.7%
3.1%
0.2%
0.8%
6.6
30.8
0.7%
3.1%
0.2%
0.8%
6.6
30.8
0.7%
3.1%
0.2%
0.8%
6.6
30.8
0.7%
3.1%
0.2%
0.8%
16.1
16.1
1.6%
1.6%
0.4%
0.4%
Facilities
Manager
Facilities
2.6
5.1
0.3%
0.5%
0.1%
0.1%
420.6
420.6
20.0%
20.0%
11.6%
11.6%
Facilities
4.8
45.8
0.2%
2.2%
0.1%
1.3%
Green
23
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Installation
Turning Computers
Off at Night and
Weekends
Micro hydro
Projects
Limiting/
Eliminating
Personal
Appliances
Meters On
Buildings
Leak Detection
(water)
Winterization of
Buildings When not
Used in Winter
Pipe Insulation
(winterization of
water system)
Employee Shuttle
(carpool)
Recycling
Flexible Work
Schedules
Telecommuting
Visitor Idle
Reduction Program
Started
Team
2
Yes
Ongoing
NPS Sust
Ops
2
Yes
Not Yet
Started
Green
Team/
Facilities
Facilities
These actions/projects do not technically have an effect on
Grand Teton’s GHG footprint because the park purchases
100% green/renewable power. These actions do continue to
reduce the power that is needed and day to day operational
expenses however.
2
Yes
Ongoing
1, 2, 3
Yes
Started
3
Yes
Not Yet
Started
1, 2
Yes
Not Yet
Started
Facilities
1, 2
Yes
Not Yet
Started
Facilities
3
Yes
Ongoing
Facilities
17.5
34.9
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Green
Team/
Facilities
Green
Team/
Facilities
3
Yes
Ongoing
Facilities
31.5
63.0
5.8%
11.5%
0.9%
1.7%
2, 3
No
Ongoing
Leadership
3.7
7.3
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1, 2, 3
No
Ongoing
3.7
7.3
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3
No
Started
Leadership
Green
Team
146.8
205.6
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
24
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
5.6 Unit Plan: National Elk Refuge
GYCC Unit
GHG
Baseline
Year
National Elk
Refuge
GHG
Baseline
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2007
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
489
Percentage Below Baseline
(%)
Low
High
Low
High
113.0
261.1
23.1%
53.4%
GHG Emissions Reductions by Scope:
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
15
51.1
64
154.0
0.0
0.0
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
5.3%
18.3%
30.3%
73.4%
0.0%
0.0%
GHG Emissions Reductions by Functional Group:
GHG Emissions Reduction
Functional
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Area
Baseline
Low
High
Fleet
215
3.9
15.0
Facilities
274
9.7
20.9
Other Areas
0
0.0
0.0
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
1.4%
5.5%
18.2%
39.4%
0.0%
0.0%
Emissions
Scope
Emissions
Baseline
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
215
210
0
GHG Emissions Reduction Actions/Projects:
Included
Action/Project Scope(s)
in
Baseline?
Riding Bike around
town
Replacing low mpg
with high mpg
vehicles
Project
Status
Project
Lead
Energy Audit
Upgrade lighting
and Exit Lights
Replace Hot water
Heaters
Improve Insulation
in Buildings
Light Sensor
Installation
On-Demand Hot
% Reduction
Functional
Area
Low High
% Reduction
Total Unit
Footprint
Low High
1, 3
Yes
Ongoing
Admin
0.1
0.4
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.1%
1
Yes
Ongoing
Fleet
3.0
8.6
1.4%
4.0%
0.6%
1.8%
1, 3
Yes
Ongoing
0.8
3.0
0.4%
1.4%
0.2%
0.6%
1, 3
Yes
Completed
0.0
3.0
0.0%
1.4%
0.0%
0.6%
1
Yes
Ongoing
1, 2, 3
Yes
Ongoing
13.7
41.1
5.0%
15.0%
2.8%
8.4%
2
Yes
Ongoing
Facilities
16.5
16.5
6.0%
6.0%
3.4%
3.4%
1, 2
Yes
Ongoing
Facilities
2.7
4.5
1.0%
1.6%
0.6%
0.9%
1, 2
Yes
Ongoing
Facilities
5.5
21.9
2.0%
8.0%
1.1%
4.5%
2
Yes
Ongoing
Green Team
2.7
5.5
1.0%
2.0%
0.6%
1.1%
1, 2
Yes
Not Yet
Facilities
0.0
4.5
0.0%
1.6%
0.0%
0.9%
Idle Reduction
Key Tags (Red,
yellow, Green)
Using re-refined oil
GHG
Savings
(MTCo2e)
Low High
Climate
Action Plan
Staff
Climate
Action Plan
Staff
Fleet
Admin/
Facilities
25
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Water
Replace Appliances
Install gravity-fed
Irrigation System
PV Systems
1, 2
Yes
Started
Ongoing
Facilities
0.0
0.3
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
1
Yes
Ongoing
Management
12.3
53.4
4.5%
19.5%
2.5%
10.9%
2
Yes
Not Yet
Started
Green Team
21.2
42.4
7.7%
15.5%
4.3%
8.7%
26
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
5.7 Unit Plan: Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
GYCC Unit
GHG
Baseline
Year
Red Rock Lakes
2007
GHG
Baseline
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
120
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Percentage Below Baseline
(%)
Low
High
Low
High
27.6
40.9
23.0%
34.1%
GHG Emissions Reductions by Scope:
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
5
13.9
7
13.9
0
0.0
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
5.6%
14.9%
25.6%
51.8%
0.0%
0.0%
GHG Emissions Reductions by Functional Group:
GHG Emissions Reduction
Functional
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Area
Baseline
Low
High
Fleet
67
2.5
6.9
Facilities
53
9.7
20.9
Other Areas
0
0.0
0.0
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
3.7%
10.3%
18.2%
39.4%
0.0%
0.0%
Emissions
Scope
Emissions
Baseline
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
93.2
26.9
0
GHG Emissions Reduction Actions/Projects:
Action/Project
Replacing low mpg
with high mpg
vehicles
VTC
Replacing low mpg
with high mpg
vehicles
Idle Reduction
Key Tags (Red,
yellow, Green)
Electric Vehicles
Upgrade Boiler/
HVAC
Window
Replacement
Window Blinds
Replace Appliances
Improve Insulation in
Buildings
Energy Audit
Included
Scope(s)
in
Baseline?
Project
Status
Project
Lead
GHG Savings
(MTCo2e)
Low
High
% Reduction
Functional
Area
Low High
% Reduction
Total Unit
Footprint
Low High
1
Yes
Completed
Staff
0.1
0.5
0.1%
0.7%
0.1%
0.4%
1
Yes
Completed
Staff
1.1
2.2
1.6%
3.3%
0.9%
1.8%
1
Yes
Not Yet
Started
Staff
0.7
1.4
1.0%
2.1%
0.6%
1.2%
1, 3
Yes
Ongoing
0.2
1.3
0.3%
1.9%
0.2%
1.1%
1,
Yes
Completed
0.0
0.9
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
0.8%
1
Yes
Not Yet
Started
Staff
0.4
0.6
0.6%
0.9%
0.3%
0.5%
1, 2
Yes
Completed
Staff
1.0
1.6
1.9%
3.0%
0.8%
1.3%
1, 2
Yes
Completed
Staff
0.8
2.0
1.4%
3.8%
0.6%
1.7%
1, 2
1, 2, 3
No
No
Completed
Completed
Staff
Staff
2.4
0.1
4.8
0.2
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1, 2
Yes
Ongoing
Staff
0.7
1.6
1.3%
3.0%
0.6%
1.3%
1, 2, 3
Yes
Not Yet
Staff
1.2
4.8
2.3%
9.1%
1.0%
4.0%
SOS and
Partners
SOS and
Partners
27
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Well and tank heater
to PV
Solar Hot Water
Heater
Upgrade lighting and
Exit Lights
Improve Insulation in
Buildings
2
Yes
1, 2
Yes
2
Yes
1, 2
Yes
Started
Not Yet
Started
Not Yet
Started
Not Yet
Started
Not Yet
Started
Staff
2.8
2.8
5.3%
5.3%
2.3%
2.3%
Staff
1.2
1.2
2.3%
2.3%
1.0%
1.0%
Staff
1.4
3.9
2.6%
7.4%
1.2%
3.3%
Staff
0.6
3.0
1.1%
5.7%
0.5%
2.5%
28
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
5.8 Unit Plan: Shoshone National Forest
GYCC Unit
GHG
Baseline
Year
Shoshone NF
2007
GHG
Baseline
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
1147
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Percentage Below Baseline
(%)
Low
High
Low
High
227.3
505.9
19.8%
44.1%
GHG Emissions Reductions by Scope:
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
144
335.3
83
170.0
0
0.6
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
16.5%
38.3%
48.9%
100.0%
0.0%
0.6%
GHG Emissions Reductions by Functional Group:
GHG Emissions Reduction
Functional
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Area
Baseline
Low
High
Fleet
752
119.9
289.4
Facilities
293
107.4
216.5
Other Areas
102
0.0
0.0
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
15.9%
38.5%
36.7%
73.9%
0.0%
0.0%
Emissions
Scope
Emissions
Baseline
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
875
170
102
GHG Emissions Reduction Actions/Projects:
Action/Project
Scope(s)
Included
in
Baseline?
Project
Status
Downsizing and
Rightsizing
1
Yes
Ongoing
Key Tags (Red,
yellow, Green)
1
Yes
Completed
Low Friction Tires
1
Yes
Not Yet
Started
Idle Reduction
1, 3
Yes
Cultural and
Behavioral
Education
1, 3
Yes
Ongoing
1
Yes
Ongoing
Bio-Diesel Fuel
Electric UTV
1
Yes
VTC
Meters On
Buildings
Upgrade lighting
and Exit Lights
1
Yes
1, 2
Yes
2
Yes
Started
Not Yet
Started
Ongoing
Not Yet
Started
Ongoing
Project
Lead
Line
Officers/
Staff
Line
Officers/
Staff
Fleet
Managers
Fleet
Managers
Fleet
Managers/
Line
Officers
Fleet
Managers
Fleet
Managers
Admin
Forest
Engineer
Forest
Engineer
29
GHG
Savings
(MTCo2e)
% Reduction
Functional
Area
Low
High
Low
High
%
Reduction
Total Unit
Footprint
Low High
49.1
126.7
6.5%
16.8%
4.3%
11.0%
35.2
63.7
4.7%
8.5%
3.1%
5.6%
5.7
24.6
0.8%
3.3%
0.5%
2.1%
12.1
41.1
1.6%
5.5%
1.1%
3.6%
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.0
8.0
1.1%
1.1%
0.7%
0.7%
4.2
8.5
0.6%
1.1%
0.4%
0.7%
5.6
16.8
0.7%
2.2%
0.5%
1.5%
14.7
29.3
5.0%
10.0%
1.3%
2.6%
8.5
17.0
2.9%
5.8%
0.7%
1.5%
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Energy Savings
Performance
Contracts
N/A
Yes
Ongoing
Replace Appliances
1, 2
Yes
Ongoing
2
Yes
Ongoing
1, 2
Yes
Not Yet
Started
N/A
Yes
Not Yet
Started
1, 2
Yes
Not Yet
Started
2
Yes
2
Forest
Engineer
Forest
Engineer
Forest
Engineer
Rangers/
Forest
Engineer
Forest
Engineer
5.9
5.9
2.0%
2.0%
0.5%
0.5%
42.4
84.8
14.5%
28.9%
3.7%
7.4%
12.0
11.9
4.1%
4.1%
1.0%
1.0%
Line
Officers/
Engineer
8.8
14.7
3.0%
5.0%
0.8%
1.3%
Ongoing
All
Employees
1.7
8.5
0.6%
2.9%
0.1%
0.7%
Yes
Ongoing
Rangers/
Engineering
1.7
3.4
0.6%
1.2%
0.1%
0.3%
1, 2
Yes
Ongoing
Forest
Engineer
5.9
14.7
2.0%
5.0%
0.5%
1.3%
Green Team
1, 2, 3
Yes
Ongoing
0.0
2.9
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Conservation
Education
1, 2
Yes
Ongoing
2.9
14.7
1.0%
5.0%
0.3%
1.3%
HVAC Regular
Inspection
1, 2
Yes
Not Yet
Started
Engineering
2.9
8.8
1.0%
3.0%
0.3%
0.8%
Energy Audit
1, 2, 3
Yes
Ongoing
Rangers/
Engineering
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Xeriscaping
3
No
Not Yet
Started
Engineering
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Recycling
3
No
Not Yet
Started
SOS
Member
0.7
3.5
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Waste Reduction
3
No
Not Yet
Started
SOS
Member
0.7
3.5
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Visitor Idle
Reduction Program
3
No
Line
Officers
9.4
44.6
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Composting Toilets
3
No
Rangers
0.4
4.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
PV Systems
Improve Insulation
in Buildings
Window
Replacement
New Leases/
Remodels
Incorporate Energy
Efficiency
Turning Computers
Off at Night and
Weekends
Light Sensor
Installation
Energy Tracking
"bring the bills
home"
Not Yet
Started
Not Yet
Started
Green
Team
Forest
Leadership
Team
30
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
5.9 Unit Plan: Yellowstone National Park
GYCC Unit
GHG
Baseline
Year
Yellowstone NP
2003
GHG
Baseline
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
13312
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Percentage Below Baseline
(%)
Low
High
Low
High
2923.2
4836.3
22.1%
36.5%
GHG Emissions Reductions by Scope:
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
344
540.5
2579
4295.8
0.0
0.0
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
7.3%
11.4%
38.5%
64.1%
0.0%
0.0%
GHG Emissions Reductions by Functional Group:
GHG Emissions Reduction
Functional
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Area
Baseline
Low
High
Fleet
2383
110.7
200.6
Facilities
9046
2812.5
4635.7
Other Areas
1823
0.0
0.0
GHG Emissions Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Low
High
4.6%
8.4%
31.1%
51.2%
0.0%
0.0%
Emissions
Scope
Emissions
Baseline
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
2383
6699
2347
GHG Emissions Reduction Actions/Projects:
Action/Project Scope(s)
Low Friction Tires
Hybrid Vehicles
VTC
Idle Reduction
Key Tags (Red,
yellow, Green)
Light Sensor
Installation
Upgrade lighting
and Exit Lights
PV Systems
Meters On
Buildings
Conservation
Education
Replace Appliances
Bio-diesel Furnace
Included
in
Baseline?
Project
Status
1
Yes
Completed
1
Yes
Ongoing
1
Yes
Ongoing
1, 3
Yes
Ongoing
1
Yes
Completed
2
Yes
Ongoing
2
Yes
Ongoing
2
Yes
Ongoing
1, 2
Yes
Ongoing
1, 2, 3
Yes
Ongoing
1, 2
Yes
Ongoing
1
Yes
Ongoing
Project
Lead
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
SOS and
Partners
SOS and
Partners
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
31
GHG Savings
(MTCo2e)
% Reduction
Functional
Area
Low
High
Low
High
%
Reduction
Total Unit
Footprint
Low High
49.0
76.6
2.1%
3.2%
0.4%
0.6%
61.7
124.0
2.6%
5.2%
0.5%
0.9%
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
646.8
1300.0
7.2%
14.4%
4.9%
9.8%
630.0
1180.0
7.0%
13.0%
4.8%
8.9%
559.0
625.0
6.2%
6.9%
4.2%
4.7%
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
430.0
566.0
4.8%
6.3%
3.2%
4.3%
96.6
195.0
1.1%
2.2%
0.7%
1.5%
13.4
16.0
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Turning Computers
Off at Night and
Weekends
Micro hydro
Projects
Low Flow Products
Waste Reduction
Sprinkler
Replacement
Visitor Idle
Reduction Program
2
Yes
Ongoing
2
Yes
Completed
3
No
Ongoing
3
No
Ongoing
3
No
Started
3
Yes
Started
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
Green
Team
SOS and
Partners
32
58.7
58.7
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
0.4%
378.0
695.0
4.2%
7.7%
2.9%
5.2%
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
6.0 Coordinated Implementation
A key component and incentive for participating in the climate action planning process across the GYA
was the ability to implement the plan in a coordinated way. This will allow the 10 GYCC agency units to
pool resources, avoid duplication, share ideas, and leverage ambitious outcomes.
While full implementation is expected by 2020, implementation of the Climate Action Plan is really a
starting point. The plan presents a great jumping off point for sustainability education and outreach
both inside and outside of the ecosystem, as well as a laboratory for bottom-up GHG accounting
processes,20 integration of initiatives across large landscapes, and the expansion or scaling up of
sustainability pilot projects. Likewise, since the GYA Climate Action Plan is at the forefront of
transboundary planning to mitigate GHG emissions, it will take monitoring, adaptation, and reporting to
learn from this initiative and share those lessons.
In order to help to foster coordinated implementation, funding was secured through GYCC grants to
begin coordinated implementation projects during Fiscal Year 2010 and Fiscal Year 2011. These seven
initial projects are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Color-coded Fuel Efficiency Key Tags for agency fleets (completed)
GHG Emissions Reduction Implementation Tools (completed)
GYA-wide Idle Reduction Project with DOE’s Clean Cities Partnership (ongoing)
GHG Accounting Software needs - Subsequently rolled into an Interagency Agreement between
NREL and the USFS (ongoing)
5. Production of a GYCC Educational Video on Behavioral Changes (nearing completion)
6. Smart Meter Pilot Projects (ongoing)
7. GYA Xeriscaping Guide in collaboration with Montana State University and NRCS (ongoing)
While the degree and timing of implementation projects are subject to agency and unit budgets,
personnel capacity, agency policies, available resources, and leadership direction; engaging unit staff
and project managers at the outset of the planning process has gone a long way toward building
momentum toward meeting the goals of the plan. Some of the other future needs of the initiative, and
ecosystem-wide initiatives like this one, are contained in Figure 5. There are needs at every scale: Macro
(GYA-wide), Mid (individual unit), and Micro (project level).
20
Working toward this end, the U.S. Forest Service and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
recently initiated a 3-year Interagency Agreement to develop and hone processes and tools for bottom-up GHG
accounting across multiple agencies or organizational units. Please see Appendix 3 for details.
33
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
GYA Climate Action Plan Implementation
and Coordination Needs
Macro
(GYA)
Mid
(Unit)
Coordination &
Assistance
Expansion &
Partnerships
Communication
& Education
Interface with
New Policies
Programs of
Work
Leadership
Capacity
Micro
(Project)
Data
Aggregation
Planning
Succession
Implementation
Monitoring &
Evaluation
Resources
New Projects
Footprint
Accounting
Figure 5: GYA Climate Action Plan Organizational Needs
7.0 Lessons Learned
Though we have just entered the second year of 10-year initiative, there are already some lessons
that can be learned and shared regarding the development of climate action plans for federal land
management agencies across large landscapes. Most of these lessons have been more on the
process side of the initiative rather than the technical side, and are discussed in this section.
Employees polled at the Interagency Working Session in May, 2010, cited “employee behavior and
culture” as the single biggest barrier to planning and implementing comprehensive GHG emissions
reduction goals. This makes sense, as behaviors and cultures are built up over long periods of time,
especially within large organizations. On the other hand, though behavioral and cultural changes can
be particularly hard to implement and measure, they also have the potential for creating large
changes in environmental footprints relatively quickly, and with a high return on investment.
Discovering the proper leverage points in order to incentivize such changes can be difficult though.
Institutional barriers, such as ineffective or contradictory policies, were also frequently cited as
challenges by GYCC staff. In order to address some of these policies within the Forest Service, the
six Forest Supervisors of the GYCC drafted and signed a policy letter to directors at the Forest
Service Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
34
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
A lack of institutional capacity (mainly dedicated
personnel time) and resources were also cited by many
as barriers to planning and implementation. Almost all
of the staff members that have worked on the
inventorying, action planning, and implementation
initiatives have done so as a “collateral duty,” meaning
that dedicated work on sustainable operations is not
normally part of their position description. In a time of
decreasing budgets and increasing programs of work,
this means that GHG mitigation and sustainability
projects risk being postponed or going unfinished.
Some Lessons Learned
Employees cite “behavior and culture”
the biggest barrier
Institutional barriers, such as
ineffective and contradictory policies,
have been challenges
Accounting metrics and “functional
working groups” are not easily
compatible
Lastly, on the more technical side of the project, the
Dedicated capacity and resources are
way that GHGs are measured, aggregated, and
needed in a more formalized way
reported is significantly different from the functional
groups that employees work in. For example, Scope 1
GHG emissions are created by operating both agency fleets and facilities, but these entities are
managed by entirely different staffs. This fact, coupled with the constantly changing and complex
nature of GHG accounting, makes inventorying and monitoring of GHG emissions difficult and time
consuming. This is further exacerbated by legacy data systems that display a lack of granularity,
accessibility, and portability across sectors and agencies.
8.0 Conclusion: Creativity, Innovation, and Ownership
The spirit and intent of this Climate Action Plan and the GYCC approval process has been to provide
a system of goals by which to reduce GHGs emitted by federal land management agency operations
in Greater Yellowstone. This is a starting point. The plan is meant to be a living document, with
projects, metrics, and goals updated as needed during the life of the plan. Likewise, the
implementation of individual GHG emissions reduction actions are necessarily subject to the
availability of resources like funding, partnerships, and implementation capacity.
That said, this is a bold, collaboratively constructed plan which will take action not only to reduce
GHG emissions in order to mitigate/avoid some measure of anthropogenic climate change, but also
a plan to decrease our agencies’ ecological footprints, increase energy independence, improve air
quality, save federal taxpayer dollars, conserve ecosystem services, and help to make communities
more livable and resilient in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Once implemented, this plan will
contribute to all of those things, but perhaps more importantly; it will serve as a powerful example
for both the public and private sectors.
35
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Ultimately, whether or not agency operations in the GYA will be sustainable in the future will rely
upon individuals and their relationships to their environment and their culture. Leaders do not need
to solve all of the problems, nor can they. There is a need to empower others through education and
tools to help identify and solve those problems as well. This will hopefully lead to broader cultural
changes in addition to the solutions to discrete problems that are contained in this plan and other
strategies like it. It is in this broader spirit and context that this Climate Action Plan was created by
the federal employees of Greater Yellowstone.
GYA Climate Action Plan Process at a Glance
 Methodology: Decentralized, locally empowered, collaborative, bottom-up
meets top-down hybrid goal-setting model. Transboundary work meant to be
organic and self-sustaining long term
 Scope: GHG emissions from agency operations
 Primary Staff: Climate Action Plan Coordinator, GHG intern, GYCC SOS
Members
 Collaborators: GYCC Unit Staff, USFS Sustainable Operations Western
Collective, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
 Goals: 21-36% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020 benchmark with tiered
unit-level and GYA-wide goals
 Results: A Collaborative, Bottom-Up Action Planning Model, reducing GHG
emissions, but also conserving money, promoting energy independence,
sustainability, green jobs, livable cities/healthy workplaces, clean air, clean
water, ecosystem services, promoting renewable energy and energy
efficiency, implementing an Executive Order, and leaving the future healthier
for our children.
 Implementation Plan: Coordinated implementation wherever possible
Table 15: The GYA Climate Action Plan Process at a Glance
36
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
9.0 Links to Resources and References
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest
Bridger-Teton National Forest
Caribou-Targhee National Forest
Custer National Forest
DOE Clean Cities
Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)
Energy Policy Act of 2005
EPA Climate Leaders
EPA eGRID Sub-regions
EPA Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Requirement
Executive Order 13423
Executive Order 13514
Forest Service Climate Change Performance Scorecard
Forest Service Climate Change Performance Scorecard Guidance
Forest Service Climate Change website
CCRC: Climate Change Resource Center
Forest Service Framework for Sustainable Recreation
Forest Service National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change
Forest Service Sustainable Operations
USFS Sustainable Operations Western Collective
Gallatin National Forest
Grand Teton National Park
Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee (GYCC)
GYCC Climate Change Adaptation
GYCC GHG Initiative and Climate Action Plan
GYCC Working Session Agenda, Participant List, and Resources
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
National Elk Refuge
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
National Park Service Climate Change Response Program
NPS Climate Friendly Parks
Pollution Prevention Act
USDA Climate Change Science Plan
USDA Guiding principles for Sustainable Buildings
USDA Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan (SSPP)
US Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation in a Changing Climate
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Shoshone National Forest
Solid Waste Disposal Act
Yellowstone Business Partnership
Yellowstone National Park
Yellowstone-Teton Clean Energy Coalition
37
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Appendix 1: GYCC Signature Page
38
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Appendix 2: GHG Emissions Reduction Assumptions and Calculations
Fleet Definitions
2007 Baseline - An emissions inventory of Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 was taken to estimate total
greenhouse gas emissions from agency operations that fiscal year.
Average unit vehicle - Vehicle that is a 2007 baseline data average for the entire unit, calculated by
dividing total miles driven with total fuel used to estimate average miles per gallon. Then total number of
miles for unit is divided by the number of vehicles on the unit to estimate average number of miles driven.
EPA Climate Leaders Tool – GHG Inventory Tool, used to estimate emissions reductions.
Fuel Used - Fuel used in 2007 according to 2007 baseline.
GHG - Greenhouse Gas, measured in MTCO2e.
MPG - Miles per Gallon (miles driven divided by gallons of fuel used).
MTCO2e - Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent.
Total Miles - Total miles driven in 2007 according to 2007 baseline.
Total unit miles driven - number of miles the unit drove in 2007.
Unit MPG - Average unit fuel efficiency in 2007 according to 2007 baseline.
Fleet Projects
The following projects have been created by each unit to fit their unit-specific action plan. Details from the units
were given to help make calculations as accurate as possible. Each project and unit is unique, requiring case by case
calculations. The following calculations are outlines of how these detailed calculations were made.
Some of the projects below will have reductions that were not included in the 2007 baseline; therefore calculations
will not show a direct GHG reduction from the 2007 baseline (but will still have an overall emissions reduction, one
that was just not calculated). Each bullet is a type of emissions reduction action/project across the units.

Carpooling to Meetings
o Some of the units supplied an estimation of their miles reduced; if no information was given, a 12% reduction in miles driven was used as a default.
o Miles reduced divided by unit MPG equals projected gallons of fuel reduced.
o Entered gallons of fuel reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders tool to estimate GHG reductions.

Cultural and Behavioral Education
o Some of the units supplied an estimated increase in MPG for their unit; if no information was
given, a 5-10% increase was used as a default.
o Unit MPG multiplied by estimated percent MPG increase equals projected MPG.
o Total miles divided by projected MPG equals projected fuel used.
39
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
o
o
Fuel used minus projected fuel used equals gallons of fuel reduced.
Entered gallons of fuel reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG
reductions.

Downsizing and Rightsizing
o Some of the units supplied estimated increase in MPG; if no estimated increase was given a 510% increase was entered as a default.
o Unit MPG multiplied by estimated percent MPG increase equals projected MPG.
o Total miles divided by projected MPG equals projected fuel used.
o Fuel used minus projected fuel used equals gallons of fuel reduced.
o Entered gallons of fuel reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG
reductions.

Electric UTV
o Units estimated that an electric UTV would be equivalent to one forest vehicle in miles driven.
o Calculated an average unit vehicle.
o Calculated fuel used by an average unit vehicle.
o Entered fuel used by one average vehicle into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate
GHG reductions.

Electric Vehicles
o Replaced an average unit vehicle with an electric vehicle.
o Calculated an average unit vehicle.
o Calculated fuel used by an average unit vehicle.
o Entered fuel used by one average vehicle into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate
GHG reductions.

Fuel Tracking System
o Some of the units supplied estimated increase in MPG; if no estimated increase was given a 0-4%
increase was entered as a default.
o Unit MPG multiplied by estimated percent MPG increase equals projected MPG.
o Total miles divided by projected MPG equals projected fuel used.
o Fuel used minus projected fuel used equals gallons of fuel reduced.
o Entered gallons of fuel reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG
reductions.

Hybrid Vehicles (HEVs)
o Replaced a specific vehicle on the unit given by fleet manager, or used an average unit vehicle as
default.
o Fuel used by specific vehicle or fuel used by average unit vehicle minus projected fuel used by a
hybrid vehicle equals gallons of fuel reduced.
o Entered number of gallons reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG
reductions.

Idle Reduction
o A 2-6% MPG increase was used for all unit calculations.
o Unit MPG multiplied by estimated percent MPG increase equals projected MPG.
o Total miles divided by projected MPG equals projected fuel used.
o Fuel used minus projected fuel used equals gallons of fuel reduced.
40
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
o
Entered gallons of fuel reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG
reductions.

Implementing a Tracking System
o Some of the units supplied estimated increase in MPG; if no estimated increase was given a 0-4%
increase was entered as a default.
o Unit MPG multiplied by estimated percent MPG increase equals projected MPG.
o Total miles divided by projected MPG equals projected fuel used.
o Fuel used minus projected fuel used equals gallons of fuel reduced.
o Entered gallons of fuel reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG
reductions.

Key Tags (Red, Yellow, and Green)
o A 0-4% MPG increase was used for all unit calculations.
o Unit MPG multiplied by estimated percent MPG increase equals projected MPG.
o Total miles divided by projected MPG equals projected fuel used.
o Fuel used minus projected fuel used equals gallons of fuel reduced.
o Entered gallons of fuel reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG
reductions.

Low Friction Tires
o According to Michelins web page, low friction tires will increase MPG by 1-4% (See:
www.michelin.com).
o Estimated number of vehicles on the unit that could use low friction tires.
o Added number of miles driven by vehicles that could have low friction tires installed.
o Unit MPG multiplied by estimated percent MPG increase equals projected MPG.
o Total miles divided by projected MPG equals projected fuel used.
o Fuel used minus projected fuel used equals gallons of fuel reduced.
o Entered gallons of fuel reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG
reductions.

Purchas of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PIHEV) and Installing PV System to Offset Fuel Used
o A specified vehicle was chosen and replaced with a car that does not have any emissions.
o Fuel used by specified vehicle was then entered into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to
estimate GHG reductions.

Reduce unit vehicle speed by 5 mph of posted speed
o Reductions were estimated by staff at the Madison Ranger District.

Replace low mpg with high mpg vehicles
o Each vehicle gave detailed plans to replace older vehicles with new more efficient vehicle.
o Calculated each vehicle replacement individually.
o Replaced vehicle fuel used minus projected fuel used by replacement vehicle equals fuel reduction
do to specific vehicle replacement.
o Added all fuel reductions equals total gallons of fuel reduced.
o Entered total gallons of fuel reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG
reductions.

Using Bicycle for In-town Travel
41
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
o
o
o
o
The National Elk Refuge purchased used bikes to provide employees with an option to ride a bike
around town to do things around town instead of driving short distances.
Reductions were estimated by National Elk Refuge to be 100-500 miles per year.
Miles reduced divided by Unit MPG equals gallons of fuel reduced.
Entered gallons of fuel reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG
reductions.

MPG Tracking Unit (e.g. Kiwi Gauges or Scan Gauges)
o Units specified and increase of .5-2 mpg.
o Unit MPG plus MPG increase equals projected MPG.
o Total miles divided by projected MPG equals projected fuel used.
o Fuel used minus projected fuel used equals gallons of fuel reduced.
o Entered gallons of fuel reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG
reductions.

Tire Pressure Education/ Tire Gauges in Vehicles
o The US Department of Energy estimates that MPG can be increased as much as 3.3% by
maintaining suggested tire air pressure; an estimated MPG increase of 0.5-2.0% was used as a
default.
o Unit MPG multiplied by estimated percent MPG increase equals projected MPG.
o Total miles divided by projected MPG equals projected fuel used.
o Fuel used minus projected fuel used equals gallons of fuel reduced.
o Entered gallons of fuel reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG
reductions.

Travel Trailer/Remote Duty Station
o Units estimated miles reduced because of trailer/remote duty station instead of driving.
o Miles reduced divided by unit MPG equals gallons of fuel reduced.
o Entered gallons of fuel used reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG
reductions.

Use of ATV to reduce miles driven
o Estimated 1000-5000 miles reduced per year if ATV’s were used more on the unit, information
supplied by unit.
o An average ATV gets 30-50 MPG.
o Miles reduced divided by unit MPG equals gallons of fuel used by unit vehicle.
o Miles reduced divided by ATV MPG equals gallons of fuel used by ATV.
o Gallons of fuel used by unit vehicle divided by gallons of fuel used by ATV equals gallons of fuel
reduced.
o Entered gallons of fuel used reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG
reductions.

Using Ethenol-10 pumps
o Direct reduction to Fleet MTCO2e (1-5%) unit came up with how often ethanol pumps would be
used.

Using re-refined oil
o Will have no direct GHG reductions.
42
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan

VTC
o
o
o
o
Some units supplied an estimation of total unit miles reduced; if no information was given an
estimate of 1-3% reduction in total unit miles driven.
Total unit miles driven multiplied by percent reduction equals miles reduced.
Miles reduced divided by unit MPG equals gallons of fuel reduced.
Entered gallons of fuel reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG
reduction.
Facilities Definitions
2007 Baseline - An emissions inventory of Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 was taken to estimate total
greenhouse gas emissions from agency operations that fiscal year.
2007 Facility Baseline - All purchased power GHG produced by the unit in 2007 according to 2007
baseline.
EPA Climate Leaders Tool – GHG Inventory Tool, used to estimate emissions reductions.
GHG - Greenhouse Gas measured in MTCO2e.
KWh - Kilowatt Hours.
MTCO2e - Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent.
PV System - Photo Voltaic power System.
Unit Power - The total amount of power used by unit according to 2007 baseline.
Facilities Projects
The following projects have been created by each unit to fit their unit-specific action plan. Details from the units
were given to help make calculations as accurate as possible. Each project and unit is unique, requiring case by case
calculations. The following calculations are outlines of how these detailed calculations were made.
Some of the projects below will have reductions that were not included in the 2007 baseline; therefore calculations
will not show a direct GHG reduction from the 2007 baseline (but will still have an overall emissions reduction, one
that was just not calculated). Each bullet is a type of emissions reduction action/project across the units.

Bio-diesel Furnace
o Converting existing oil furnace into a bio-diesel oil furnace.
o Units projected percent reductions (Madison district, Yellowstone Park).
o 2007 facility baseline multiplied by estimated percent reduction equals GHG reduction.

Conservation Education
o Conservation education is very hard to measure and many of the projected results from these
actions are found in other project calculations in the action plan. Some units estimated a percent
reduction; if no estimates were given a 1-5% total facility GHG reduction was the default, relying
upon details given by unit staff.
43
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
o
o
2007 facility baseline multiplied by estimated percent reduction equals GHG reduction.
Estimate may be low due to overlap.

Energy Audit
o No direct reductions unless the unit estimated a reduction due to follow-up actions or educational
value.

Energy Savings Performance Contracts
o No direct reductions unless unit estimated reduction.
o Reduction results will show up in other actions.

Energy Tracking “Bring the Utility Bills Home”
o No direct reductions unless unit estimated reduction.
o Reduction results will show up in other actions.

Green Team
o Units estimated total facilities reductions from Green Team education and behavioral change
initiatives.
o 2007 facility baseline multiplied by estimated percent reduction equals GHG reduction.

HVAC Regular Inspection
o Estimated a facility reduction of 1-3%.
o 2007 facility baseline multiplied by estimated percent reduction equals GHG reduction.

Improve Insulation in Buildings
o Some units had specific buildings that would be insulated and the unit estimated total reduction or
utility bills were collected then an estimate of power reduction was generated in discussion with
unit contact.
o Each unit had different calculations.

Install Gravity-Fed Irrigation System
o This project was installed on the National Elk Refuge and was completed in 2010. The system
consists of a closed pipe, gravity-fed system that will replace a pump-fed open irrigation ditch.
o This system will save about 1200-5200 gallons of diesel fuel each year.
o The gallons of fuel reduced was then entered into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate
GHG reduction.

Leak Detection (water)
o Leak detection and repair will not show a direct reduction in the unit’s GHG emissions, though the
action meet other goals and does in fact reduce emissions from pumping and treatment. These
were not included in the 2007 baseline though, and would be difficult to calculate.

LEED Buildings
o This is a major project at Grand Teton National Park (new Park Headquarters). All GHG emission
reduction estimates were provided by Grand Teton National Park and their contractors.
o Grand Teton National Park Estimated a 20% facilities energy reduction for all of the new LEED
buildings when compared with their existing, inefficient Headquarters (which will be removed).

Light Sensor Installation
44
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
o
o
o
Some units estimated a reduction in electrical power; if no information was given a reduction of 13% power reduction was used.
Unit power multiplied by percent reduction equals power reduced.
Entered the power reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate total reduction.

Limiting/ Eliminating Personal Appliances
o This project was proposed by Grand Teton National Park and all of their power is “green power”
so there is no GHG reduction shown in their plan for this action (though this does save money and
transmission losses).

Low Flow Products
o Low flow products do not have a direct, measurable GHG reduction. See “Leak Detection.”

Meters On Buildings
o Meters on buildings do not have a direct, measurable GHG reduction.
o Some units estimated GHG reductions for the meters (presumably for education); an error bar was
given to these units starting with 0% up to the unit’s estimate.

Micro-hydro Power Projects
o Estimate how much power would be produced or needed to be produced to supply a specific
building. Information was provided by each unit.
o Estimations were converted into kWh and then the information was entered into the EPA Climate
Leaders GHG tool to estimate total reductions.

New Leases/ Remodels Incorporate Energy Efficiency
o Units estimated a percent reduction in facilities GHG emissions.
o 2007 facilities baseline multiplied by estimated percent reduction equals GHG reduction.

On-Demand Hot Water
o Older hot water heaters average power rating is 6000 watts and new heaters average 3000 watts,
meaning a 3000 watt reduction on average. Estimated run time of two hours a day, 365 days per
year, results in a 2,190 kWh reduction each year for each water heater.
o Units provided number of hot water heaters that would be or have been replaced.

Pipe Insulation (winterization of water system)
o Will have no measurable GHG reduction up front.
o Future estimates can be made after measuring the reduced heating load needed to keep the pipes
from freezing.

Purchase 100% Green Power
o Entered unit power into EPA Climate Leaders GHG to estimate GHG reductions.
o The error bar is defined as “low” equal a 50% green power purchase and “high” equals a 100%
purchase of green power.

PV Systems
o Each unit had a specific location or locations to place a PV system. Then an estimate of power
produced and used at the location was derived and converted to kWh.
o The kWh reduced was then entered into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool.
45
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
o
Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF (Madison Ranger District) installed a PV system and provided exact
data.

Replace Appliances
o Units provided information about what was to be replaced or what has been replaced. A total
power reduction was estimated from information given then entered into the EPA Climate Leaders
GHG tool.
o All unit calculations are different.

Replace Hot Water Heaters (electric)
o Older hot water heaters average power rating is 6000 watts and new heaters are 3000 watts,
equaling a 3000 watt reduction. Estimated run time of two hours a day, 365 days per year, results
in a 2,190 kWh reduction each year for each water heater.
o Units provided number of hot water heaters that would be or have been replaced.

Replace Phone Switch
o Older phone switches are reportedly inefficient.
o Not enough information was given to generate any reduction calculations.

Smart Thermostat and Lower Temp
o This was part of Beaverhead-Deerlodge N. F. and Grand Teton National Park Action Plans.
o Beaverhead-Deerlodge reductions are part of “Implement conservation and education measures”
on written action plan. Estimates provided by the unit.
o Grand Teton National Park- Assumed smart thermostats will only have an effect on the propane
used to heat (they are using 100% green power, therefore will have zero effect on Scope 2
emissions). A 1%-10% reduction in propane from 2007 baseline was estimated. See:
http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/space_heating_cooling/index.cfm/mytopic=12720
o Entered propane reduction into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG reductions.

Solar Hot Water Heater
o Older hot water heaters average power rating is 6000 watts. If the heater ran for two hours a day
all year then 4,380 kWh would be used and therefore a reduction of 4380 kWh would be reduced.
o Entered power reduced into the EPA Climate Action GHG tool to estimate GHG reductions.

Turning Computers Off at Night and Weekends
o Some units estimated a percent reduction in unit power; if no information were given a 1-4%
reduction in unit power was the default.
o Unit power multiplied by percent reduction equals power reduced.
o Entered kWh of power reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG
reductions.

Upgrade Boiler/HVAC
o Custer National Forest estimated a reduction of 5-20% natural gas usage each year.
o Entered amount of natural gas reduction (standard cubic feet) into the EPA Climate Leader GHG
tool to estimate GHG reductions.
o Red Rock Lake Wildlife Refuge will upgrade heat exchanger and will reduced 100-160 gallons of
fuel.
o Entered fuel reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG reductions.
46
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan

Upgrade buildings (general)
o Many different projects such as new roofs, new windows, new insulation, new siding, and more
fall under this category and all calculations were different for each project. Calculations were
based on reduced fuel usage or increased efficiency information given by each unit.

Upgrade Lighting and Exit Lights
o This calculation was different for every unit. All units had a different way to include in action
plans.

Vending Miser
o The calculations for the vending misers came from an energy audit that was conducted on the
Custer National Forest by Northwestern Energy (and those numbers were used). The Custer
National Forest was the only unit to have vending misers included in their action plan.

Water Catchment
o Will have no direct GHG reduction.

Water Metering
o Will have no direct GHG reduction.

Well and Tank Heater converted to PV
o This project is located on the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. An electric heater is used
to keep the tank on their diesel generator warm for emergency start up.
o The current tank heater uses 1100 kWh per month.
o 1,100 kWh multiplied by six month equals 6,600 kWh reduced.
o Entered power reduction into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG reductions.

Window Blinds (insulating, cellular)
o Units provided power information about the building that will get insulated window blinds.
o Estimated a 5-10% power reduction for building.
o Entered power reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG reductions.

Window Replacement
o Units provided power information about the building that will get new windows, or an estimate of
building power consumption was estimated.
o According to http://www.energysavers.gov/tips/windows.cfm windows account for 10-25% of
heating bill.
o Estimated a 10-20% power reduction for the building.
o Entered power reduction into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG reductions.

Winterization of Buildings When not Used in Winter
o Units provided power information about specific buildings that would be winterized.
o A power reduction was based off of the power information provided by unit.
o Entered power reduction into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG reductions.

Xeriscaping
o Will have no direct GHG reduction.
47
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan
Other Footprint Reduction Projects
This section includes all other projects that did not fit into the Fleet or Facilities categories. Most of these projects
will have a reduction that was not measured in the 2007 baseline; therefore calculations will not have a direct GHG
reduction from 2007 baseline. Many of these actions/projects due in fact reduce Scope 3 emissions, but they are too
difficult to measure at this time (e.g. up or down the supply chain, waste stream, water, etc.)

Bicycling/ Walking
o Unit estimated employee commuting miles reduced (Scope 3).
o Entered miles reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG reductions.

Composting Toilets
o Will have no measurable GHG reduction at this time.

Double-Sided Printing Set as Default
o Will have no measurable GHG reduction at this time.

Employee Shuttle (carpool)
o Unit provided an estimate of how many miles would be reduced is an employee shuttle program
was implemented.
o Entered miles reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool.

Flexible Work Schedules
o Estimated number of commuting trips that will be reduced and estimated an average commuting
distance for the unit.
o Entered miles reduced into EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG reductions.

Green Purchasing
o Will have no measurable GHG reduction at this time.

Install Bulletin Board in Visitor Center Telling Public About Sustainable Operations at the Unit
o Will have no measurable GHG reduction at this time.

Less Computer Upgrades (hardware)
o Will have no measurable GHG reduction at this time.

Low Flow Products
o Will have no measurable GHG reduction at this time.

Provide Services to Reduce Commuting
o Estimated miles reduced and entered miles reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool.

Recycling
o Does not currently show a direct GHG reduction for the Wildlife Refuges or the National Forests
because waste stream emissions were not included in 2007 baseline.

Recycling- Propane
o This is a program that recycles small disposable propane canisters for the visitors at the units.
o Will have no measurable GHG reduction at this time.
48
GYCC - Interagency Climate Action Plan

Sprinkler Replacement
o Will have no measurable GHG reduction at this time.

Telecommuting
o Estimated a reduction of 10-20% employee commuting. This is equal two employees
telecommuting 1-2 times per pay period.
o Entered into EPA Climate Leaders GHG Tool.

Transmission Losses
o Transmission losses in 2007 were about 6.5%.
o Unit provided number of kWh produced with alternative energy and calculated 6.5% to calculate
transmission loss avoided.
o Entered avoided transmission losses into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate total
GHG reductions.

Visitor Idle Reduction
o Estimated how many visitor vehicles enter unit each year.
o Number of vehicles multiplied by two minutes idle reduction per vehicle equals number of
minutes reduced.
o 0.5 gallons of fuel used per hour when idling multiplied by number of minutes reduced equals
number of gallons reduced.
o Entered gallons reduced into the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool to estimate GHG reductions.
o Was not included in 2007 baseline; will not have a measurable GHG reduction at this time.

Waste Reduction
o Will have no measurable GHG reduction at this time.

Water Bottle Initiative
o Will have no measurable GHG reduction at this time.

Separation of Yard Waste
o Will have no measurable GHG reduction at this time.
49