NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Beyond the Inventory: 

An Interagency Collaboration 

to Reduce Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area 

Alicen Kandt and Eliza Hotchkiss

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Mike Fiebig

U.S. Forest Service

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A20-49291

October 2010
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, Colorado 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Beyond the Inventory: 

An Interagency Collaboration 

to Reduce Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area 

Alicen Kandt and Eliza Hotchkiss

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Mike Fiebig

U.S. Forest Service

Prepared under Task No. FE10.R110

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A20-49291

October 2010
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
i

Contacts

Authors

Alicen Kandt

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, CO 80401

303-384-7518

Eliza Hotchkiss

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, CO 80401

303-384-7309

Alicen.Kandt@nrel.gov

Eliza.Hotchkiss@nrel.gov

Mike Fiebig

U.S. Forest Service

10 E. Babcock 

Bozeman, MT 59715

406-587-6755

mtfiebig@fs.fed.us

Contributing Authors

Kristin Day 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-4491

John Nangle

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, CO 80401

303-384-7377

Kristin.Day@nrel.gov

Rebecca Butler

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-4372

John.Nangle@nrel.gov

Margaret Mann 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-2921

Rebecca.Butler@nrel.gov

Chuck Kurnik

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-4374

Margaret.Mann@nrel.gov

Chuck.Kurnik@nrel.gov

Heather Davis

U.S. Forest Service 

10 E. Babcock 

Bozeman, MT 59715

406-587-6729 

Anna Jones-Crabtree

U.S. Forest Service

2880 Skyway Drive 

Helena, MT 59601

hadavis@fs.fed.us

406-495-3744

ajonescrabtree@fs.fed.us

Trista Patterson

U.S. Forest Service

204 Siginaka Way

Sitka, AK 99835

907-747-4315

tmpatterson@fs.fed.us
ii

Acknowledgements

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) thanks the U.S. Forest Service for its 

interest in securing NREL’s assessment expertise. In particular, NREL is grateful to Mike Fiebig 

and Anna Jones-Crabtree for their generous assistance and cooperation. 

Technical assistance conducted and outlined in this report was funded by the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) and awarded to the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS), unless otherwise noted.
iii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

CFL Compact fluorescent lighting

CFP Climate Friendly Parks 

CH4 Methane

CLIP Climate Leaders in Parks

CO2 Carbon dioxide

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

ECM Energy conservation measure

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

E.O. Executive order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESPC Energy savings performance contract

EV Electric vehicles

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FY Fiscal year 

GHG Greenhouse gas

GSA U.S. General Services Administration

GYA Greater Yellowstone Area

GYCC Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee 

HFC Hydrofluorocarbons

HVAC Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning

kg CO2e Kilograms carbon dioxide equivalent

LED Light-emitting diode

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

M&V Monitoring and verification

MPG Miles per gallon

MPH Miles per hour

MTCO2e Million tons carbon dioxide equivalent

N2O Nitrous oxide

NPS U.S. National Park Service

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

O&M Operations and maintenance

PFC Perfluorocarbons

PIH Plug-in hybrid

PPA Power purchase agreement

REC Renewable energy certificate

ROA Reductions Options Analysis

SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride

USFS U.S. Forest Service

UTV Utility terrain vehicles

VMT Vehicle miles traveled

VOC Volatile organic compound 

VTC Video teleconferencing

WCF Working Capital Fund
iv

Executive Summary

As one of the largest, intact ecosystems in the continental United States, land managers within 

the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) have recognized the importance of compiling and 

understanding agency greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The 10 Federal units within the GYA 

have taken an active role in compiling GHG inventories on a unit- and ecosystem-wide level, 

setting goals for GHG mitigation, and identifying mitigation strategies for achieving those goals. 

This paper details the processes, methodologies, challenges, solutions, and lessons learned by the 

10 Federal units within the GYA throughout this ongoing effort. 

Within the United States, there are vast areas of land under Federal management with multiple 

resources to control, and this management occurs across the jurisdiction of many agencies 

performing work under agency-specific mandates. Yet, there are few to no other case studies on 

record that have taken such a quantitative and collaborative approach to environmental emissions 

management across so many Federal agencies, or across such a large land base. As such, this 

case study of the GYA represents a unique opportunity to examine a broad, complex, socialecological system that shares characteristics, advantages, and limitations with many other landbased cross-agency efforts. We can expect this knowledge and experience to become 

increasingly sought and valuable as Federal agencies seek unifying principles, criteria, and 

approaches to the intensifying environmental management pressures on national lands. The 

inventory approach, documentation of the project over time, and high degree of collaboration all

contribute to the unique value of the information in this case study, which can be leveraged for 

future advancement in broad-scale environmental management efforts.
v 

Table of Contents 

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Project Background ............................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Geographic Scope .......................................................................................................................... 4 

2.2 Greenhouse Gas Inventories and Emissions Sources ................................................................... 4 

2.3 Legislation ....................................................................................................................................... 6 

3 Setting a Baseline ................................................................................................................................. 7

3.1 GYA Unit GHG Inventories ............................................................................................................. 7 

3.2 GYA Inventory Compilation ............................................................................................................ 8 

4 Defining Success: Goal Setting and Action Planning Strategy ..................................................... 12

5 Education, Empowerment, and Building of Capacity ..................................................................... 14

5.1 Pre-Work ....................................................................................................................................... 14 

5.2 Pre-Working-Session Webinars .................................................................................................... 16 

5.3 Working Session ........................................................................................................................... 17 

6 Action Planning .................................................................................................................................. 22

6.1 Post-Working-Session Webinars .................................................................................................. 27 

7 Implementation and Next Steps ........................................................................................................ 28

7.1 Next Steps .................................................................................................................................... 28 

7.2 Challenges, Solutions, and Lessons Learned .............................................................................. 28 

7.3 Insights from a Third Party Observer ............................................................................................ 30 

8 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 33

Appendix 1. Working Session Agendas ................................................................................................. 34

Appendix 2. Differences Between EPA Climate Leaders and CLIP Tools .......................................... 48

Appendix 3. Overview of Inventory Compilation ................................................................................... 50

Appendix 4. Crosswalk of Sustainability Goals and Targets in Executive Orders and Statutes ..... 58

Appendix 5. Scope 3 Calculator Tool ...................................................................................................... 68

 
vi

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of national forests within the Greater Yellowstone Area 

(Courtesy of the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee).................................................... 3

Figure 2. Scopes of GHG emissions (Credit: NREL)............................................................................... 6

Figure 3. Total GYA emissions by Federal agency ................................................................................. 9

Figure 4. Emissions by national parks ..................................................................................................... 9

Figure 5. Emissions by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................... 10

Figure 6. Emissions by U.S. Forest Service........................................................................................... 11

Figure 7. Participants of the GYA working session, Bozeman, Montana 

(Courtesy of Trista Patterson, USFS)............................................................................................... 18

Figure 8. Tour of the Bozeman Public Library, LEED (Courtesy of Mike Fiebig, USFS).................... 20

Figure 9. Eco Auto demonstration, Bozeman, Montana (Credit: Kristin Day, NREL) ........................ 21

Figure 10. Action planning (Courtesy of Trista Patterson, USFS)....................................................... 22

Figure 11. Action planning process (Courtesy of Trista Patterson, USFS) ........................................ 26

Figure 12. Greater Yellowstone Area boundary..................................................................................... 50

Figure 13. Total greenhouse gas emissions per Greater Yellowstone Area unit............................... 52

Figure 14. Emissions per acre of land per unit...................................................................................... 53

Figure 15. GHG emissions per visitor per unit....................................................................................... 54

Figure 16. Emissions broken out by emission categories ................................................................... 55

List of Tables

Table 1. Greenhouse Gases....................................................................................................................... 5

Table 2. Data and Tools Used for Unit Inventories................................................................................ 51
1

1 Introduction 

The GYA is one of the largest intact ecosystems in the contiguous United States. This region 

encompasses 18 million acres across three states and contains six national forests, two national 

parks, and two fish and wildlife refuges. The GYA is one of the most highly visited natural 

regions in the United States, with more than 4 million visitors each year. 

The multiple land-management agencies that operate within the GYA have a long history of 

working together to reduce the environmental impact of their operations. In 1964, the U.S. 

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 goal of the GYCC is 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.

1

In 2007, the USFS was the first Federal land management agency to join the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Climate Leaders program. As part of this affiliation, USFS agreed to 

develop a GHG emissions inventory for seven pilot projects, including inventories for the six 

national forests in the GYA. USFS staff also applied the EPA Climate Leaders protocol to the 

two FWS refuges. NPS compiled its own agency inventories and in 2008 and 2009, the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) consolidated the three agency inventories. The 

consolidated GYA GHG inventory captures emissions associated with anthropogenic activities 

on all Federal lands in the GYA. 

In 2010, the GYA again worked with NREL to create a collaborative process to determine 

actions to reduce GHG emissions associated with the agency activities. The three Federal 

agencies used the inventory and action planning process to collaboratively set comprehensive 

emission reduction goals for the 18-million-acre ecosystem. This project is one of many actions 

the agencies are taking to understand and reduce their environmental footprint and to satisfy the 

requirements of Executive Orders (E.O.) 13423, 13514, and the Energy Independence and 

Security Act (EISA) of 2007 to lower petroleum, energy, and water consumption and to reduce 

GHG emissions.

This project serves as a model for how GHG accounting and reduction planning can be done 

across geographic and agency boundaries. This process is especially applicable to other land

management agencies. Although the relative emissions from the GYA are comparatively small, 

this process and documentation, when replicated by other agencies and entities, can have a huge 

impact on both the public and private sectors. This process can also be replicated for other 

footprint areas (water, sustainable purchasing, etc.) within the GYA and in other agencies. 

 1 GYCC Web site: http://fedgycc.org/
2

The documentation of this process is particularly important in light of the many benefits (such as 

cultural, procedural, and economic) that extend far beyond the scope of the quantified elements 

of the study. The challenges of leveraging these benefits to greater success represent systemic 

challenges. As such, this case study represents a unique opportunity to examine a broad, complex 

system (that shares many characteristics, advantages, and limitations with any land-based crossagency effort) with the benefit of highly collaborative, quantitative documentation. This project 

could not have had the success it did without the very supportive and proactive project contacts 

and staff within each agency.
3

2 Project Background 

As one of the largest intact ecosystems in the continental United States, land managers within the 

GYA have recognized the importance of compiling and understanding agency GHG emissions. 

The GYA is fortunate to have a group to focus on sustainability in the form of a subcommittee of 

the GYCC, which consists of supervisors from the forests, parks, and refuges to support ongoing 

efforts across the agencies in a collaborative manner. 

In 2008, USFS entered into an interagency agreement with NREL through the USFS Rocky 

Mountain Region. The agreement was to develop a strategy toward achieving agency and 

Federal energy reduction goals specifically related to GHG emissions. The GYA ecosystem is 

comprised of three different Federal land management agencies and these agencies use different 

GHG accounting tools. NREL provided technical assistance to USFS in consolidating and 

analyzing GHG emissions inventories of Federal activities within the GYA from the different 

accounting tools. The USFS Rocky Mountain Region was the lead for this multi-agency 

partnership. 

Following the completion of this agreement, USFS was awarded technical assistance support 

from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), to be provided by NREL for the Federal units 

within the GYA and led by USFS. This assistance was to guide the agencies through a unique, 

bottom-up approach to setting reduction targets through conservation measures. 

Figure 1. Map of national forests within the Greater Yellowstone Area

(Courtesy of the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee)
4

2.1 Geographic Scope

The GYA ecosystem is comprised of six national forests, two national parks, and two wildlife 

refuges, as shown in Figure 1. The six national forests within the GYA cover more than 13 

million acres in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho in Forest Regions 1, 2, and 4. Some of the forests 

are entirely encompassed by the GYA, while some include land areas that fall slightly outside of 

the boundaries of the GYA. National forests fully included in this study are the entire acreage of 

Bridger-Teton, Gallatin, and Shoshone. Only the sections of Beaverhead-Deerlodge, CaribouTarghee, and Custer National Forests that fell within the GYA boundary were included.

The remaining 5 million acres of the GYA ecosystem are encompassed in the national parks and 

wildlife refuges. The national parks included in the GYA are Yellowstone and Grand Teton 

National Parks, with Yellowstone at the heart of the ecosystem. Yellowstone National Park was 

the country’s first national park, and in 2000 it received close to 3 million visitors.

Red Rocks Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and the National Elk Refuge are the two FWS units 

that are included in the GYA. These are the smallest agency units within the GYA; however,

they do have an impact on the GHG emissions of the GYA as a whole, as presented further in 

this document. The National Elk Refuge is of particular significance as it hosts the world’s 

largest wintering concentration of elk, along with winter range for the largest bison herd of more 

than 800 bison in the National Wildlife Refuge System, shared with Yellowstone National Park. 

These forests, parks, and refuges fall under three different Federal agencies and have national 

significance for managing lands and natural resources within a particularly sensitive and highly 

visited area of the country. While there are non-Federal lands associated with this area, the only 

emissions accounted for within the GYA inventories were those attributed to the operations of 

the Federal agencies

2.2 Greenhouse Gas Inventories and Emissions Sources

GHG inventories are intended to reflect an organization’s activities that result in the direct or 

indirect emission of GHGs. They provide a snapshot of areas where efficiencies might be applied 

to reduce these emissions. GHG emissions are naturally occurring and man-made chemical 

compounds, which are being produced excessively by human (or anthropogenic) activities, such 

as burning of fossil fuels. GHGs are named as such due to their contribution to the greenhouse 

effect, which traps heat in the atmosphere and causes temperatures on the Earth’s surface to rise.

The pressing concern of reducing GHGs is an international phenomenon. Since the GYA 

ecosystem is of particular significance due to its unique natural characteristics, the agencies in 

the GYA are emphasizing the importance of reducing GHG emissions within agency activities 

and at an interagency level to further protect the ecosystem. 

GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide 

(N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Table 1 shows these gases, as 

well as how they are most commonly produced or released into the atmosphere. 
5

Table 1. Greenhouse Gases2

Gas Source Areas

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees 

and wood products, and other chemical reactions (e.g., cement 

manufacturing).

Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) Magnesium casting, transformers, and electrical switches.

Methane (CH4)

Emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and 

oil, as well as livestock and agricultural practices, and by the decay 

of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills, mulch piles, and 

peat bogs. Thawing permafrost and deep lakes are also significant 

sources of methane emissions.

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Emitted during agricultural and industrial activities and during 

combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Refrigerant leaks, fire extinguishers, and solvents.

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) Aluminum production, semiconductors, and health imaging.

Different inventory types capture different GHGs. The most commonly reported gases are CO2, 

CH4, and N2O. Often, inventories will report units in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent since a 

chemical’s global warming potential (or the efficacy of chemicals to contribute to the greenhouse 

effect) is measured against CO2. The unit is often written as CO2e (within the United States it is 

metric tons of CO2e) or CO2 equivalent.

GHG emissions are generally separated into three categories: Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3. An 

image of these GHG emission scopes and their sources is shown in Figure 2. These three 

categories are defined as follows:

Scope 1—Direct emissions sources originate from equipment owned and/or operated by an 

organization at the time of emission. This includes emissions from on-site fuel use, such as oil 

burning in a heating furnace or gasoline combustion in a vehicle. This also includes fugitive 

emission sources, such as refrigerators and air conditioning units, which emit GHGs through 

equipment leaks, maintenance, or other less direct means.

Scope 2—Indirect emission sources, such as those generated from purchased electricity use, 

occur as a result of activities within an organization (e.g., office electricity use), but originate 

from sources located outside the organization (e.g., electric power plant). 

Scope 3—Optional emission sources include emissions generated by miscellaneous sources for 

which emissions have not been traditionally estimated and over which organizations may not 

have direct control, such as off-site waste disposal, product transport, employee commuting, and 

business travel. They are often called “optional” because they have not been historically required 

for reporting purposes.

 2 EPA: http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html
6

Figure 2. Scopes of GHG emissions (Credit: NREL)

2.3 Legislation

The GYA inventory was compiled before legislative requirements for agencies to report their 

GHG emissions. The GYCC felt it imperative to act on creating a GHG inventory and begin 

creating action plans to reduce emissions before legislation was issued. 

The crosswalk in Appendix 4 summarizes the most recent executive orders, as well as the 

existing statutes, that require improvements in energy efficiency, fleet fuel consumption, 

increased use of renewable energy technologies, etc. The major legislative forces are E.O. 13423 

and E.O. 13514, EISA 2007, and the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005.
7

3 Setting a Baseline

3.1 GYA Unit GHG Inventories

In 2007, USFS agreed to develop a GHG inventory for the six national forests in the GYA. The 

study was conducted to better understand the consequences of their operations and to meet a 

requirement to become affiliated with the EPA’s Climate Leaders program.

3

The EPA Climate Leaders GHG Calculator Tool (Version 2.8) was used to estimate CO2, CH4, 

and N2O emissions within the forest and refuge units in the GYA. The Climate Leaders tool is a

Microsoft Excel–based workbook designed to help small businesses and other low emitters 

estimate their GHG emissions. All methodologies and default values in the tool are based on the 

most current Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol guidance. 

The baseline 

inventory was established for fiscal year (FY) 2007 in order to set and track credible GHG 

emissions reduction goals for six national forests and the wildlife refuges within the GYA, to be 

updated annually pursuant to the EPA Climate Leaders protocol. Accordingly, the forest and 

refuge inventories were completed using the EPA Climate Leaders GHG tool. 

Noted above, the two wildlife refuges are the smallest agency units in the GYA, with very little 

personnel capacity available to complete a complicated GHG inventory for their operations. As 

such, USFS staff volunteered to complete the refuge’s GHG inventories along with those of six 

national forests.

For the forest service and refuge inventories, the data for each emissions scope (Scopes 1, 2, and 

3) was further divided into source categories, such as mobile sources and electricity that could be 

evaluated separately. Five emissions sources were included in the inventory: stationary, mobile, 

purchased electricity, employee commuting, and business air travel.

In the late 1990s, the Climate Friendly Parks (CFP) program also began to address the need for 

GHG inventories. NPS created a Climate Leaders in Parks (CLIP) tool, which is being used 

nationally by NPS. The CFP program is a collaboration between NPS and EPA to provide 

national parks with management tools to impact decisions relating to climate change. Parks need 

to apply to participate in the CFP program, which includes measuring the park’s GHG emissions, 

developing strategies to mitigate emissions, and educating the public about the park’s reduction 

efforts. 

NPS used the CLIP tool for their GHG inventories at Yellowstone and Grand Teton National 

Parks. The Microsoft Excel based tool is broken into two distinct modules that have their own 

separate function: the Emission Inventory Module and the Action Planning Module. The 

Emission Inventory Module is designed to help park staff inventory and estimate emissions 

resulting from activities within the park. The purpose is to identify the impact of employees, 

concessionaires, and visitors on climate change and air pollution. The Action Planning Module is 

 3 The Climate Leaders program is an EPA industry-government partnership that works with companies to develop 

comprehensive climate change strategies. Participating companies commit to reduce their impact on the global 

environment by completing a corporate-wide inventory of their greenhouse gas emissions based on a quality 

management system, setting aggressive reduction goals, and annually reporting their progress to EPA. Through 

program participation, companies create a credible record of their accomplishments and receive EPA recognition as 

corporate environmental leaders.
8

designed to assist park staff in identifying actions to reduce emissions of GHGs and criteria 

pollutants, and to target specific emissions reductions associated with those actions. The 

culmination of the Action Planning Module is the development of an action plan that a park can 

use to establish the emission mitigation actions identified as goals for the park.4

The inventory created within the CLIP tool requires data associated with Scopes 1, 2, and 3

emissions. In 2008 Yellowstone and Grand Teton had inventories completed, using the CLIP 

tool, for their parks.

The differences between the EPA and CLIP tools are specified further in Appendix 2.

3.2 GYA Inventory Compilation

In 2008 and 2009, NREL was funded by USFS to compile the 10 individual unit GHG 

inventories into one comprehensive inventory. The consolidated GYA GHG inventory captures 

emissions associated with anthropogenic activities on all Federal lands in the GYA. The 

inventories were conducted with baseline years between 2006 and 2008, with only slight 

variations expected from year to year.

As mentioned in the previous section, various calculator tools are available to Federal agencies 

for estimating emissions from agency activities. USFS and FWS units used the EPA Climate 

Leaders GHG Calculator Tool, whereas NPS used the CLIP tool. These tools have a variety of 

different assumptions and calculation methodologies, making it inaccurate to simply combine all 

of the inventories. A summary of these differences is available in Appendix 2.

NREL studied each inventory and worked with the units and the people who had compiled the 

unit inventories to better understand common assumptions and differences in operations and

purpose across the 10 units. The inventory data for the units was compiled into one 

comprehensive, GYA-wide inventory through the development of a Reductions Options 

Analysis (ROA) Tool.

The results of the GYA inventory revealed that the largest emitters were from Scope 2 purchased 

electricity, contributing 25,536 million tons CO2e (MTCO2e)—more than half of the total 

emissions. Stationary combustion (Scope 1) was equivalent to 12,626 MTCO2e and mobile 

combustion emissions from unit-owned vehicles and generators (Scope 1) were over 10,557 

MTCO2e. 

The largest emitting agency is NPS, whose total purchased combustion emissions were 91% of 

the total GYA-wide emissions; stationary combustion was 89% and mobile combustion was just 

over half. The chart in Figure 3 indicates the breakdown of emissions in terms of MTCO2e by 

agency. 

 4 Climate Friendly Parks (CFP): www.nps.gov/climatefriendlyparks/CLIPtool/index.html
9

Figure 3. Total GYA emissions by Federal agency

Broken down even further, at a unit-level, it is easier to determine which units have the 

opportunity for emissions reduction programs. Figure 4 shows that the largest emitter within the 

NPS is purchased combustion (electricity) by Yellowstone National Park, whose emissions are 

far greater than those of Grand Teton National Park. 

Figure 4. Emissions by national parks

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Stationary 

Combustion 

(MTCO2e)

Purchased 

Combustion 

(MTCO2e)

Mobile Combustion 

(MTCO2e)

National Park Service

Fish and Wildlife Service

Forest Service

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Stationary 

Combustion 

(MTCO2e)

Purchased 

Combustion 

(MTCO2e)

Mobile 

Combustion 

(MTCO2e)

Yellowstone National Park

Grand Teton National 

Park
10

Figure 5 summarizes the emissions from the two wildlife refuges in the GYA. It is interesting to 

note that the largest emitter, unlike the NPS units, is mobile combustion, particularly from the 

National Elk Refuge. 

Figure 5. Emissions by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Figure 6 represents the emissions from the six national forests within the GYA. The largest 

emitter, similar to FWS, is mobile combustion sources. The Caribou-Targhee National Forest 

had the largest emissions, with over 1,200 MTCO2e. The total emissions from mobile sources 

across the forests were 4,590 MTCO2e, which is comparable to Yellowstone National Park’s 

mobile emissions. The difference comes from the territory that the forests cover, which is 

equivalent to 13 million acres of the total 18 million that the GYA ecosystem encompasses. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

Stationary 

Combustion 

(MTCO2e)

Purchased 

Combustion 

(MTCO2e)

Mobile 

Combustion 

(MTCO2e)

Red Rocks Lakes Wildlife 

Refuge

National Elk Refuge
11

Figure 6. Emissions by U.S. Forest Service

The results of the inventory were used to encourage participants during the action planning 

process, discussed in Sections 4, 5, and 6 of this document. 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Shoshone National 

Forest 

Gallatin National Forest 

Custer National Forest

Caribou - Targhee 

National Forest

Bridger Teton National 

Forest

Beaverhead - Deerlodge 

National Forest

Stationary Combustion 

(MTCO2e)

Purchased Combustion 

(MTCO2e)

Mobile Combustion (MTCO2e)
12

4 Defining Success: Goal Setting and Action Planning Strategy

Following the compilation of the GYA GHG emissions inventory in April 2009, the GYCC 

wanted to create a GHG emissions reduction action plan (or Climate Action Plan) that would be 

tiered to both the individual agency unit and the ecosystem as a whole. This cross-agency

approach taken by the GYCC was unique. Most organizations or agencies do not collaborate on 

GHG accounting and reduction, but this method builds upon years of successful ecosystem-wide 

coordination by the GYCC, and would result in more unified, attainable, and transferrable goals. 

In order to help GYCC staff create a methodology that engaged all GYA land management 

agency units and significantly reduce GHG emissions, the GYCC created a “Definition of 

Success” to guide the process. This definition contains three parts:

• Set and meet a credible, realistic, and ecosystem-wide GHG emissions reduction goal

• Ensure the capacity and leadership intent to meet that goal once it is set

• 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 interagency and collaborative nature of land management in the GYA, combined with the 

distributed leadership structure of USFS (which manages six of the ten agency units in the 

ecosystem), pointed to the creation of a “bottom-up” methodology for climate action planning. 

Bottom-up meant that GHG emissions reduction action plan goals would be created first by each 

agency unit, then built into ecosystem-wide emissions reduction goals (e.g., grassroots 

organizing is a common “bottom-up” system). By contrast, a “top-down” method would have 

meant that emissions reduction goals would be created by the leadership—in this case, the 

GYCC. Using the bottom-up methodology, staff engaged each agency unit individually, 

recording emissions reduction actions that units had completed since the GHG inventory baseline 

year (FY 2007), emissions reduction actions that are ongoing or already planned, and future 

actions that might be particularly suited to the agency unit. All actions have a 2020 target date as 

dictated by E.O. 13514.

The strength of this approach lies in the collaborative formulation of goals that will be attainable

by the units, as well as encourage GHG emissions reduction action plans to be as ambitious as 

possible for each unit. This method was also chosen in order to maximize the ownership that 

each agency unit had over their climate action plan. This was critical to the process, considering 

that the action plans would not only have to be implemented by agency personnel at each unit, 

but also that this would primarily be an additional duty outside of most staff’s regular position 

description. Another benefit to using this methodology is that the ultimate ecosystem-wide GHG 

emissions reduction goal will be created from the unit goals, which in turn will be based upon 

each unit’s capabilities. This will give the ecosystem-wide goal a high probability of being met

since the individual unit plans will act as roadmaps to meet that ecosystem-wide emissions 

reduction goal. 

The biggest challenge of implementing this methodology was meeting the second part of the 

Definition of Success, “ensuring the capacity and leadership intent to meet that goal.” Barriers 

included a general lack of understanding about GHGs and climate change, a low feeling of 

empowerment and buy-in to create GHG reduction action plans due to primary duty workloads, 
13

and a perception of insufficient time and resources to accomplish this goal. To address these 

barriers, GYCC staff used a $250,000 Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) technical 

assistance grant with NREL to host a GYA-wide working session, preceded by an eight-part 

Webinar series and proceeded by a three-part Webinar series. 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 the ecosystem as a whole.

• Create a leadership and project management cohort across the GYA agencies.

This strategy was immensely successful, resulting in roughly 60 attendees from across the 

ecosystem, including representatives from eight out of 10 GYCC member units. Attendees 

completed draft action plans for the 10 agency units, as well as a prioritized list of GYA-wide 

projects. In addition, three interagency implementation teams are currently working on GYAwide projects in fleet, facilities, and Scope 3 footprint areas. The workshop helped to create the 

agency staff empowerment and ownership of the GYA Climate Action Plan critical to the 

methodology chosen.

Prior to the working session, the GYCC member from each agency unit pledged a minimum 20% 

GHG emissions reduction by 2020 in order to help motivate unit personnel to meet a minimum 

GHG reduction threshold (especially in those units that were not engaging as much in the 

process), and meet what was then a draft goal of E.O. 13514 (later omitted in the final version). 

It is believed by staff that this goal will be exceeded, likely resulting in a roughly 25% GHG 

emissions reduction ecosystem-wide, but this top-down decision by managers to designate a 

minimum reduction goal was a critical step of showing leadership’s dedication to the cause. In 

this way, one could say that bottom-up and top-down methods actually met in the middle.

As of September 2010, GYA agency units were working with staff to add detail to their action 

plans. Staff members aim to complete a detailed draft Interagency Climate Action Plan for the 

GYA using this methodology by October 2010.
14

5 Education, Empowerment, and Building of Capacity 

Through the FEMP technical assistance grant, NREL was tasked by GYA staff with creating and 

hosting a working session that would educate participants within the GYA about GHG impacts 

and reduction strategies, empower them to identify areas of GHG mitigation opportunities, and 

carry on the GHG reductions work from a unit level. Planning and implementation of the 

resulting working session was accomplished collaboratively with GYA staff members. NREL

analyzed data from the 2007 inventories and where gaps were identified, further data was 

requested. The goal in acquiring additional, updated data was to identify areas where there are 

challenges in data collection, as well as target the subject matter during the educational aspects 

of the working session. 

The working session was organized into pre-work (which included Webinars), a week-long 

working session, and post-working session Webinars. Webinars held before the working session 

were designed and delivered to GYA participants to begin discussions relating to GHG

emissions and their scopes. Webinars held after the working session provided GYA participants 

a chance to ask questions and receive guidance as they prepared unit-level action plans for 

detailing GHG mitigation strategies. 

It was decided that for the Webinars, working session, and action planning, emissions would be 

organized into three functional areas: facilities, fleet, and Scope 3 (or other), in order to better 

represent the GYA staff structure. Typically, emissions are divided into Scope 1, 2, and 3;

however, maintaining this organization would have cut across functional areas. This structure 

made the most sense when organizing GYA agency personnel into tracks for the working session 

and for coordinated implementation of projects, but it highlights an ongoing difficulty that 

agencies will face with upward reporting. These difficulties are further detailed in Section 7.2 of 

this document. 

The facilities group covered stationary emissions and purchased electricity from buildings and 

water consumption within buildings; the fleet group addressed emissions generated from unitowned and leased vehicles; and the Scope 3 group included procurement, water, and waste 

emissions. Each emissions group was designated a point of contact and a subject lead at NREL, 

to provide participants with some continuity through the pre-work, working session, and action 

planning process. These subject leads were also present during the working session to present 

subject-related material and provide answers to technical questions that arose. 

5.1 Pre-Work

The main goal of the GHG emissions inventory and action planning process was to educate the 

unit participants. In order to accomplish this, Webinars and pre-work were created. Pre-work was 

prepared to introduce the data collection process to unit participants and to engage them in the 

project. The first Webinars covered material relating to GHG emissions and climate change, the 

science of climate change, and how daily activities impact the environment. The Webinars 

offered a platform to set the stage, put the project into the climate change context, and helped 

gauge the state of understanding of individual scopes before the working session. Webinars are 

posted at http://fedgycc.org/SOSGHG.htm. 
15

Data was collected, where possible, and analyzed within each of the track areas (fleet, facilities, 

Scope 3), to determine where there were changes from the previous inventory, as well as to 

determine the focus of the working session. 

• To supplement the 2007 inventory data, recent facilities data was requested from 

each of the units to determine the energy and water consumption associated with 

the buildings in each unit. The NREL facilities lead taught unit facility 

representatives how to calculate energy intensity and to identify the highest 

consuming buildings based on this metric. Participants were asked to collect annual 

energy and water use data—including use and cost data for electricity, natural gas,

propane, and water—on the five highest consumers within each unit. Following the 

initial data call, units were asked to submit detailed data on the building’s equipment 

and systems in the five highest-consuming buildings. Data was difficult to obtain due 

to busy workloads, as well as a lack of knowing how to access or collect the data 

requested. The data that was submitted indicated that space heating was the highestconsuming end-use within most buildings, followed by lighting and equipment loads. 

A few unique systems (such as underground heating of sidewalks where the control 

system was not completely understood by maintenance staff) were identified that 

highlighted greater issues with design and funding streams within the GYA. 

Knowledge of participants was also assessed based on the responses submitted in the 

data collection sheets, which helped to tailor the working session subject material to 

raise the knowledge levels. 

• Fleet data outlining usage or vehicle changes following the inventory was 

requested from each of the units. This was a difficult task due to heavy workloads 

and the absence of an efficient means to gather source data such as engine type, 

mileage, and fuel usage for Working Capital Fund (WCF), the U.S. General Services 

Administration (GSA), and agency-owned vehicles. The data provided by each unit 

ranged from a qualitative assessment of planned and implemented fleet changes and 

daily use to detailed vehicle replacement and usage values for FY 2009. Referencing 

records from the past inventory and the unit-level data that was received, baseline 

mobile source emissions at both the unit level and ecosystem-wide were defined by 

the NREL fleet lead. Yellowstone National Park was the largest emitter, accounting 

for 45% of the total ecosystem-wide mobile source emissions. Conversely, Red Rock 

Lakes Wildlife Refuge accounted for only 0.6%.

In an effort to further define the mobile sources, a distribution by vehicle type was 

created. Ecosystem-wide, the analysis indicated that 39% of the mobile source 

emissions were due to the operation of gasoline light-duty trucks. Diesel heavy-duty 

vehicles and gasoline passenger cars rounded out the top three emitters at 15% and 

14% respectively. The same analysis was completed at the unit-level. Considering the 

data in this form allowed each unit—no matter size or mission—to understand their 

specific baseline emissions sources. With that awareness, they were prepared to 

evaluate how the greatest emitting vehicles were being used and identify possible 

areas for reduction during the working session.
16

• The available data for the Scope 3 analysis was limited to the inventory data 

from 2007, compiled into the GYA-wide inventory in 2008 and 2009 with the 

assistance of NREL. The inventory categories that fell under Scope 3 were limited to 

employee commuting and business travel. Data associated with Scope 3 emissions 

was difficult to collect due to the limited ownership of these sources by agencies. 

Therefore, the pre-work for Scope 3 included a spreadsheet calculator tool, created by 

NREL, to assist in calculating specific emissions for each unit within the GYA. The 

tool was designed to be user-friendly and make the data gathering process for 

different emissions sources fairly straightforward. The goal was to show the relative 

emissions of different sources with limited data inputs. The tool is available in 

Appendix 5.

The calculator was designed to collect information pertaining to GHG emissions 

associated with business air travel, employee commuting, wastewater and municipal 

solid waste, supply chain, and other areas. Data collection proved difficult; however,

the information that was available from the 2007 inventory indicated that the highest

Scope 3 GHG emitter was Yellowstone National Park.

5.2 Pre-Working-Session Webinars

Following the data collection and analysis, NREL designed Webinars to educate unit participants 

and raise the level of knowledge prior to the working session. The intent was to make the most of 

the time while the participants were available. 

Prior to the NREL Webinars focusing on each functional track, GYA staff hosted two “GHG 

101” Webinars in order to ensure that working session participants started with equal 

background knowledge. Topics covered included the science behind anthropogenic GHG 

emissions, their relation to global climate change, basic GHG accounting principles like 

emissions scopes and CO2 equivalents, GHG inventories in general and the results of the GYA 

GHG inventory, planning for GHG emissions reductions and the GYA Climate Action Plan 

process, and finally an overview of the working session and forthcoming pre-work.

• The facilities Webinars focused primarily on energy legislation; increasing energy 

awareness within the units; the importance of metering and data collection, 

monitoring data, and setting targets through a robust program; incorporating

efficiency into operations and maintenance programs; and preparing for the working 

session. The Webinars also explained the data collection sheets and the required 

information, and showed where to find the information and how to complete the 

forms. Energy efficient technologies were discussed briefly and discussions were held 

to determine the current activities of emissions reduction projects at each unit. 

Discussions related to where to find data and where to draw the boundaries of what’s 

included in the data collection process also took place. Many units were concerned 

about the differentiation between unit-owned buildings and those that were leased 

from the GSA. The energy efficiency measures that can be implemented in leased 

buildings are limited due to the lack of control over ownership. The participants were 

directed to focus on unit-owned facilities as it was felt by the units that more 

measures could be implemented, and thus more GHG emissions reductions could be 
17

realized, in the owned buildings. Leased facilities were noted as an important topic of 

discussion for the working session. 

• The fleet Webinars served not only as a means to request further data from

participants, but also to allow for open discussion between interagency colleagues and 

the NREL fleet leads. After reviewing the inventory data and available updates, and 

defining the mobile source baseline, participants discussed unit-level reduction goals 

and how they fit in with the goals of the ecosystem as a whole. Once reduction targets 

were identified, methods that could be employed to meet them were reviewed. 

Current and emerging vehicle and fuel technologies offering reduced GHG emissions 

were presented and their feasibility of use within the individual units was discussed. 

Identifying improvements in mobile planning and operations to avoid unnecessary 

emissions were also considered.

Discussions often centered on roadblocks the participants envisioned they would 

experience when attempting to reduce mobile source emissions and how those may be 

overcome. These largely included the following: overcoming the behavior and culture

of staff; the lack of alternative fueling infrastructure; encountering ineffective and 

contradictory policies; high vehicle capital costs; and the absence of efficient GHG 

emissions tracking methodology.

• The Scope 3 Webinars were designed to provide education on Scope 3 emissions

sources and provide some ideas for emissions reductions to help seed the discussion 

for the working session. Discussions during and after the Webinars focused on 

education about the basics of Scope 3 emissions, sources, and accounting for the 

associated GHGs. Due to the lack of available data for Scope 3 emissions, the 

spreadsheet calculator was not used. The discussions focused on emissions mitigation 

strategies for various Scope 3 emissions sources. Some units had environmental plans 

in place that included Scope 3 emissions, and members from those units were asked 

to present on their work at the working session to provide a GYA context for other 

units. The material presented included waste stream diversion to recycling and using 

videoconferencing capabilities instead of travel.

Using the Webinars as a forum to educate, set goals, and identify participant interests and 

concerns proved to be advantageous for the creation of a meaningful agenda for the working 

session. The exercise also allowed for communication and idea sharing across interagency lines 

that may not have taken place otherwise.

5.3 Working Session

Bozeman, Montana, was deemed a good central location for the working session. Although it 

would require all participants to travel, the distance of travel was not excessive. Efforts were 

taken to ensure that the working session was held in an environmentally responsible manner;

participants were encouraged to use green hotels, bring their own coffee cups, use nametags from 

previous conferences, and walk to and from the meetings when possible. Public transit was also 

provided for field trips and commuting to the different venues throughout the week.

The working session was held during one week in April 2010, beginning on a Monday afternoon 

and ending by Thursday evening to accommodate busy schedules. On Monday afternoon a 
18

general session was held for all participants, with introductions and background information, as 

well as a presentation on what to expect for the rest of the week. Each of the remaining days 

(Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday) began with a general topic presentation for all participants 

covering water, renewable energy certificates (RECs) and power purchase agreements (PPAs), 

and an overview of resources on DOE’s FEMP Web site. The rest of the time on Tuesday and 

Wednesday was spent in break-out groups, divided by track area, with each group focused on 

furthering the education relevant to each track area. Field trips to inspire participants, and 

brainstorming actions for reducing GHG emissions also took place. On Thursday the participants 

were organized by units and spent time compiling the action plans for their unit and then 

presenting the action plans to all of the GYCC unit supervisors. That afternoon, participants 

brainstormed and created lists of potential GYA-wide/interagency actions for each track area. 

Throughout the week, project participants were interviewed by an independent researcher to 

capture elements, advantages, and challenges to applying the approach and methodology more 

broadly to other regions or to other impact categories. 

At the end of the working session, three interagency actions were chosen—one in each track 

area—by the supervisors and participants to implement across all units. GYA staff had secured

$30,000 from grants and awards to help implement these first three GYA-wide actions, with the 

idea that more will follow over the next decade (building from lessons learned while 

implementing these first three projects). Agendas for the working session are available in 

Appendix 1; presentations are available at: http://fedgycc.org/SOSGHG.htm.

Figure 7. Participants of the GYA working session, Bozeman, Montana 

(Courtesy of Trista Patterson, USFS)

During the subject tracks on Tuesday and Wednesday, the participants focused on their specific 

subject areas: facilities, fleet and Scope 3. 
19

5.3.1 The Facilities Track

The facilities track was comprised predominantly of facilities managers with experience and 

knowledge of energy and water efficiency topics. The focus of the track was to present existing 

and new technologies for energy and water efficiency and renewable energy pertaining 

specifically to buildings. The sessions covered areas of energy and water consumption within 

buildings such as lighting, heating and ventilation, building envelope losses and gains, plug 

loads, toilets and faucets, and landscaping water use. After providing an overview of energy and 

water use in buildings, the measures that are most frequently recommended, or are considered 

easy and inexpensive to implement, were detailed. These measures could be used within a 

variety of buildings across the agencies with a relatively short payback period. Technologies that 

were covered included light-emitting diode (LED) and fluorescent lighting and occupancy

sensors for lighting and office equipment at desks; variable speed drives; low-flow toilets;

porous pavement; and xeriscaping, just to name a few. Additionally, in order to balance the 

discussions between culture change and available technologies, measures such as energy 

awareness campaigns and utility data cleanup projects were discussed. The Shoshone National 

Forest had already undertaken a utility data cleanup and this was used as a case study for energy 

and monetary savings. 

Renewable energy technologies were discussed, along with tools available for determining the 

technical and economic potential of solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal technologies at a 

particular location. Alternative financing and incentives were also presented to provide guidance 

on overcoming the initial capital cost of installing renewable energy systems. Some units had 

already installed solar photovoltaic (PV) systems successfully, or were in the process of 

installing systems during new construction projects. 

To inspire participants to achieve sustainability within renovations and new construction, two 

tours and a presentation were arranged. One tour took place at the Bozeman Library, a U.S. 

Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) certified 

building, and was conducted by architect Mark Headley and LEED project manager Kath 

Williams. The library is an example of how energy efficient strategies, such as daylighting, 

natural ventilation, nighttime cooling, low volatile organic compound (VOC) construction 

materials, and solar PV can be integrated into a new construction project with the goal of 

achieving LEED certification. 

A presentation entitled, “Innovation within the GYA: An Example of LEED Renovation at the 

Grand Teton National Park” was presented by Chris Finlay of Grand Teton National Park. 

Within the presentation, Mr. Finlay described the processes that the park undertakes to ensure 

that renovations and new construction meet LEED certification. A second tour was offered of the 

Montana State University (MSU) steam plant and the campus steam tunnels. This tour was 

conducted by Dan Stevenson, facilities manager at MSU. Dan was able to identify areas where 

improvements to the efficiency of the steam plant had been made and indicated the amount of 

savings the campus had realized since the upgrades. 

Also presented during the facilities track was the Shoshone National Forest Net Zero Analysis, 

which was intended to inspire participants. This project was a separate task between the 

Shoshone National Forest and NREL; however, the results were presented as an example of a 
20

goal that can be established across different agencies. The Shoshone National Forest Net Zero 

Analysis project is still on-going and the report is currently being drafted. 

The greatest challenge to the facilities track was providing information to those with little 

knowledge of the subject areas while trying to engage those who had experience with energy 

efficiency, water conservation, and renewable energy technologies. During the educational 

presentations, participants were asked to note projects that they had implemented or believed 

they could implement at their units. During the brainstorming session for potential actions to 

reduce GHG emissions within facilities, the participants wrote possible energy and water 

conservation measures on note-boards and then each measure was discussed. The discussions of 

the measures were helpful to share ideas across the agencies and determine which measures 

might be applicable on a GYA-wide level. These brainstorming sessions were instrumental in 

providing guidance during the unit- and GYA-wide action planning process later in the week. 

Figure 8. Tour of the Bozeman Public Library, LEED (Courtesy of Mike Fiebig, USFS)

5.3.2 The Fleet Track

The intent of the fleet track was to support the GHG reduction objectives of the GYA ecosystem 

by focusing on ways to reduce its mobile source emissions. To achieve this and empower its 

participants, the fleet track was aimed at reviewing baseline data, identifying future goals, and 

sharing knowledge. The participants were further educated on GHG emissions and methods for 

reduction. Resource availability and potential partnerships within the ecosystem and beyond 

were also presented. A review of Federal guidance and legislation as they relate to Federal fleets 

was given as well. 
21

Figure 9. Eco Auto demonstration, Bozeman, Montana (Credit: Kristin Day, NREL)

Additionally, the pre-work and discussions held during the Webinars identified a need to supply 

information to the participants regarding alternative fuels and infrastructure availability, GHG 

emissions calculation tools, and fleet optimization software. Time was also spent identifying and 

brainstorming solutions to behavioral and cultural challenges. The participants felt strongly that 

overcoming these challenges would be essential if fleet-related GHG reduction actions were to 

be implemented successfully. 

To further inspire the fleet participants, a hands-on demonstration was given by Eco Auto, 

Incorporated, a Bozeman, Montana, company specializing in green personal transportation 

alternatives (see Figure 9). Participants learned about Eco Auto’s vehicle utility and energy 

efficiency, and brainstormed ideas on how these vehicles could be used within their unit’s fleets.

At the conclusion of the fleet breakout session, the participants felt educated, empowered, and 

inspired. By pulling from what they had learned, each participant was able to identify unit-level 

mobile source reduction actions they felt could be successfully implemented within their unit. 

5.3.3 The Scope 3 Track

During the Scope 3 track, the track lead reviewed the Scope 3 emissions and source material that 

had been introduced in the Webinars. Material was also presented covering E.O. 13514 and 

Federal GHG Accounting and Reporting Guidance. Presentations were also given by members 

from GYA units that had enacted environmental plans that included Scope 3 emission sources.

Educating the participants was a major focus; however, debates about boundary and control over 

certain emissions sources dominated the working session. As with the Scope 3 emissions 

sources, the conversations covered multiple topics and opportunities for reductions. The major 

topics included waste reduction, recycling, and composting. 
22

6 Action Planning 

Typically during an action planning process, an organization begins with data analysis, baseline 

compilation, and audits of current performance, and then establishes areas of reduction based on 

the current performance. As this was a bottom-up approach, which was intended to motivate onthe-ground staff, GYCC staff determined that actions should come from the staff that will be 

instrumental in the implementation process. By asking staff for their suggestions they have more 

of an investment in the projects and are motivated to participate in the implementation process to 

ensure its success. 

The first step in the action planning process was to educate the participants through Webinars 

and the working session. During the brainstorming session within each track participants were 

able to generate their own conservation measures, while gaining ideas from other participants. 

Ecosystem-wide actions were also discussed and decided upon during these sessions. An effort 

was made to integrate solutions that involved culture change (e.g., behavior change programs), 

as well as technologies (e.g., alternative fuels for fleet). Participants were also encouraged to 

think of solutions that crossed over the scope boundaries, such as the linkage between fleet and 

stationary energy generation and use. Lists of all of the brainstormed solutions were generated 

and shared among the participants after the working session, which assisted a few units with 

revising and further defining their unit-specific actions. 

Each unit was asked to compile an action plan with conservation measures across the three 

emissions scopes. The units were required to submit their draft plans to GYCC staff and plans 

are being finalized for an October 2010 deadline. These action plans are intended to identify a

minimum 20% reduction within each unit by 2020. 

Some of the unit actions that were identified by participants either during or after the working 

session are listed below by working session subject track.

Figure 10. Action planning (Courtesy of Trista Patterson, USFS)
23

Facilities track action items:

• Building Envelope

o Improve insulation in buildings

o Install window blinds to reduce heat gains and losses

o Replace windows in need of improvement 

• Lighting

o Install motion/daylight sensors on lighting

o Upgrade lighting and exit lights

• HVAC

o Convert current furnace to run off biodiesel

o Regularly inspect heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems 

o Upgrade boilers

o Upgrade thermostatic controls and lower the temperature in the winter

• Metering and Utility Bill Cleanup

o Begin utility bill tracking, cleanup, and water metering

o Install meters on all buildings

• Water Conservation

o Install gravity-fed irrigation systems

o Leak detection (water) inspections

o Install low-flow products in bathrooms and kitchens

o Winterize water systems through pipe insulation measures

o Implement water catchment projects

o Implement xeriscaping projects to reduce potable water use for landscaping

o Install on-demand hot water systems

• Plug Loads

o Consider limiting/eliminating personal appliances in offices

o Replace appliances with more energy efficient products

o Turn computers off at night and on the weekends

• Renewable Energy

o Explore micro-hydro, wind, solar PV, and solar hot water projects

o Purchase 100% green power
24

• Cultural, Behavioral and Other

o Create conservation education campaigns and “green teams”

o Conduct energy audits on buildings

o Consider energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs)

o Incorporate LEED criteria into new construction and renovations

o Incorporate energy efficiency criteria into new leases and remodels

o Winterize buildings when not in use in the winter

Fleet track action items:

• Fuel Switching

o Use biodiesel fuel

o Use Ethanol-10 fuel

• Vehicle Purchasing

o Purchase electric vehicles (EVs) and electric utility terrain vehicles (UTV)

o Purchase hybrid vehicles

o Replace low mpg with high mpg vehicles

• Cultural, Behavioral and Other

o Implement cultural and behavioral education programs

o Downsize and rightsize vehicles within the fleet

o Initiate a fuel tracking system

o Create an idle reduction program

o Create colored key tags to indicate vehicle fuel efficiency (e.g., green = best mpg)

o Install low-friction tires

o Collect real-time data through granular analysis with scan gauges

o Reduce unit vehicle speed by 5 mph of posted speed

o Initiate a program to encourage staff to cycle in town, as opposed to driving 

o Begin tire pressure education and place tire gauges in all vehicles

o Encourage public transportation to meetings when possible 

o Use re-refined oil

o Implement video teleconferencing (VTC) to reduce mileage for meetings
25

Scope 3 track action items:

• Water Conservation

o Install composting toilets

o Install low-flow water products

o Replace sprinklers with conservation technologies 

• Waste Minimization

o Set printer settings to default as double-sided printing 

o Begin a “less computer upgrade” (hardware)

o Increase recycling

o Continue recycling program of propane cylinders

o Implement a waste reduction program

o Begin a water bottle initiative to reduce plastic water bottle waste

• Commuter and Business Travel

o Begin an employee shuttle (carpool)

o Initiate a flexible work schedule program

o Implement live-feed teleconferencing/Webinars (long distance travel reduction)

o Create a travel education program with staff for business travel mileage reduction 

• Visitor Emissions Reduction

o Implement a visitor idle reduction program

o Install bulletin boards in visitor centers informing public about sustainable 

operations at each unit

• Transmission and Distribution Loss Reduction

o Determine how to decrease transmission losses
26

Figure 11. Action planning process (Courtesy of Trista Patterson, USFS)

The participants convened on the final day of the working session to share their action items 

across scope areas within each unit. The units then created the aforementioned draft unit action 

plan. In the afternoon of the final day of the working session the units presented their action 

plans to a supervisor or representative from the GYCC. The reason for this presentation was to 

communicate the actions in a bottom-up approach to a representative with more authority to 

support and assist with implementing the actions. 

After the presentations, the most frequently listed or most popular actions were listed on noteboards and participants and supervisors were asked to place a sticker next to their top three 

favorite actions. The actions with the greatest number of votes (i.e., stickers) were selected as the 

actions to implement on a GYA-wide effort. 

GYA-wide actions were chosen for each of the scopes and volunteers were asked to work on 

each of the projects, as well as being assigned a technical lead from NREL for any additional 

technology or area specific questions. These actions are as follows:

1. Xeriscaping (Facilities) 

2. Idling reduction program (Fleet) 

3. GHG tracking software (Scope 3)
27

Additionally, low-cost or motivating projects were also selected as follows:

1. LED exit signs (Facilities) 

2. Color-coded key card holders (Fleet)

3. GYA travel calculator (Scope 3) 

6.1 Post-Working-Session Webinars 

Following the working session, NREL track leads hosted one Webinar for each track. These 

Webinars provided attendees with an opportunity to ask specific questions related to measures in 

their action plans. Questions dealt with how to determine appropriate costs of measures, estimate 

the energy savings, or emission savings associated with the measures identified in the action 

planning process of the working session. 

Also in the Webinars, initial discussions began surrounding the GYA-wide action specific to that 

track. Attendees were able to brainstorm next steps in the implementation of the project and 

develop a path forward for implementation without NREL involvement. 
28

7 Implementation and Next Steps

Implementation of both the unit-level climate action plans and the GYA-wide emissions 

reduction projects will be led by GYA unit-level staff members, either in volunteer teams or 

under existing scopes of work and organizational structures. GYCC staff will also continue to 

help with planning, vision, and technical assistance needs. This will be an ongoing process, and 

one that is still in the development stage. Each GHG emissions reduction action contained in the 

10 GYA unit Climate Action Plans has a designated project manager, responsible position, or 

implementation team attached to it. An implementation plan will also be included in the final 

version of the GYA Climate Action Plan, to be completed in early 2011.

7.1 Next Steps

Technical assistance from NREL was provided through the end of August 2010. Each unit within 

the GYA is expected to finalize their action plans; to seek out financial opportunities for 

implementing the conservation and renewable energy measures, along with targets; and to 

continue progress toward their emissions reduction goals. The GYCC will need to approve and 

amend, if necessary, the unit and GYA-wide action plans, during their annual meeting in October 

2010. If implemented, the draft GYA-wide action plan is estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 

36% to 39% from a 2007 baseline. The savings associated with each action will need to be 

justified by unit staff and adjustments will need to be made before the action plans are finalized 

and published or reported. 

One of the challenges to the GYA will be to continue the momentum that led up to and continued 

through the working session. The action plans are in progress and the next steps are to gain 

approval, find resources, and determine the best approach to implementing each action. The 

bottom-up approach is an ongoing process, which will be tested as Federal guidance is released 

on emissions reporting. It will be interesting to compare how the bottom-up approach aligns with 

reporting requirements and whether the GYA is able to make progress on reducing emissions 

compared to other agencies who have yet to begin the accounting, reporting, and reduction 

process. 

There is no doubt that if the GYA units are able to implement the measures they’ve identified,

GHG emission reductions will be achieved. It will be important to closely monitor and record 

energy, water, and fuel reductions in order to determine the actual reduction of source emissions;

monitoring, tracking, and reporting have been a challenge for staff to address during the GHG 

projects mentioned in this document. One solution is to identify an easier way to manage carbon 

accounting within the GYA so as to measure progress toward GHG reduction goals. If recording 

and reporting isn’t the sole responsibility of one person within each unit, then it is an additional 

role for already overloaded staff. Therefore, the system could be improved to alleviate the 

additional workload of employees and to assist with ease of data collection, monitoring, and 

reporting. 

7.2 Challenges, Solutions, and Lessons Learned

The challenges identified during the GYA project were mostly related to busy schedules and full 

workloads. It was difficult for participants to find the time to collect additional data during their 

already busy workdays, as well as to free up time to complete the pre-work and attend the 

Webinars and working session. To work around these challenges NREL attempted to design the 
29

data collection materials to be straightforward and easy to use. The working session was

originally scheduled over an entire week; however, it was reduced to allow participants to juggle 

other responsibilities during the week. The Webinars were designed to cover the most 

information in a shorter amount of time, which would free up time during the working session to 

identify opportunities and brainstorm actions that each unit could implement to reduce GHG 

emissions. 

Participants from each track area were invited to represent their unit, but in some instances the 

units have very small staffing capabilities and only one staff member was sent to represent the 

entire unit. Only two units were not represented during the working session. Where one staff 

member was present at the working session, NREL and other GYA participants assisted with 

completing the action plans in the areas where there was no representation (e.g., if a participant 

attended to represent the facilities session, assistance was provided in Scope 3 and fleet measures 

on the action plan). 

The most difficult challenge for NREL was determining the complexity of the material to be 

covered in the Webinars and during the working session as the knowledge base of the 

participants was unknown. The fleet managers, for example, were interested in learning about 

available resources and partnerships that could assist them in meeting their mobile source 

reduction goals. Most were quite knowledgeable of mobile source GHG reduction methods, but 

needed guidance on how to measure their impacts and overcome the challenges of implementing 

them. Scope 3 discussions centered around waste and recycling, as well as procurement of 

goods. Guidance was required mostly on defining the boundaries and determining where the 

GYA members could have the most impact. Facilities managers were well versed in energy 

efficiency and were more interested in cutting edge technologies; however there were a couple 

participants who needed to know more about the basics of energy efficiency. 

It was challenging to create a curriculum that would meet the needs and knowledge levels of all 

participants equally in a short amount of time. A questionnaire was designed prior to the working 

session to target the working session areas within each scope; however, in some instances this 

did not provide the information that NREL required. One solution for similar sessions may be to 

have different levels of information presented on different days and those participants with more 

knowledge can attend the working session later in the week once the basic information has been 

discussed with less experienced participants. 

The GYCC and GYA were ambitious in their efforts attempting a new, bottom-up approach to 

the goal setting and action planning process. The main challenge with this approach is balancing 

the technical analysis with the actions that are felt by on-the-ground staff as being feasible 

actions. Analytical results may indicate that the best action is to reduce demands on HVAC 

systems within a building; however, the most feasible action may be to install compact 

fluorescent lighting (CFL) fixtures. The savings associated with these different measures requires 

calculation, which can only be accurately completed with accurate baseline data and supporting 

information from current practices. The detail of the initial data collection process was at a 

higher level than was required for measure-specific savings calculations, thus a percentage of 

anticipated savings was estimated based on industry standards and from the participants 

themselves, based on knowledge of the unit-level activities, infrastructure, and staff culture or 
30 

awareness. Estimates can be improved through a monitoring and verification (M&V) program or 

through more robust data collection. 

Action planning staff organized the working session into three functional areas in order to better 

represent the GYA staff structure than if the session was organized into Scopes 1, 2, and 3 

(which cut across functional areas). These groups were: 

• Fleet 

• Facilities 

• Scope 3 emissions. 

This structure was the most practical when organizing GYA agency personnel into like tracks for 

the working session (and for coordinated implementation of projects), but it highlights an 

ongoing difficulty that agencies will face with upward reporting. While many GHG emissions 

reduction projects fall into only one emissions scope (e.g., right-sizing of vehicles is a Scope 1 

reduction), many more emissions reduction projects cut across all three emissions scopes (e.g., 

the GYA idling reduction project). Crosswalking these two areas (functional grouping and 

emissions scope) presents some real GHG accounting challenges. From the standpoint of getting 

collaborative actions planned and implemented on the ground, functional grouping is essential. 

Once this occurs though, breaking functionally grouped emissions reduction projects into 

emissions scopes for GHG tracking and accounting purposes forces staff members to estimate 

the percentage reduction in each emissions scope that an action will result in. This works for 

planning purposes, but contains some inaccuracies and best-estimates due to the granularity of 

the data.

7.3 Insights from a Third Party Observer

This section documents challenges, insights, and opportunities gained from interviews conducted 

with project participants. Interviews were conducted by Dr. Trista Patterson (USFS Pacific 

Northwest Research Station) in open-question format during the working session. These outside 

observations were collected to synthesize respondents' impressions and capture qualitative data 

on the benefits and drawbacks of inventory not otherwise captured in the quantitative study 

results. Commentary summarized here pertains to 1) challenges, 2) hidden benefits of project 

execution, 3) accuracy and relation of data collected to anticipated ability to control related 

emissions, and 4) future needs, suggestions, and applications. 

7.3.1 Challenges

• Challenge 1: Upfront cost of compiling inventory and cost to implement GHG 

mitigation strategies. 

The principal challenge cited by project participants is the up-front cost of the 

inventory compilation itself in terms of staff time, as well as the eventual costs of 

implementing recommended actions. Principally, because capital budgeting for 

Federal entities works on an annual fiscal year, decision-support is often ambiguous 

as to when to invest in changes that will result in benefits over a longer time period. 

Possible solutions to this are 1) reporting and budgeting that can extend over several 

years to absorb high up-front costs of infrastructure installation, 2) adjusting the 

decision-support system and leeway given to managers to make decisions over longer 
31 

payback periods, 3) looking at the future dates of scheduling for infrastructure 

replacement to allow a manager to anticipate future costs, 4) understanding the 

factors affecting whether or not something is affordable to facilitate future changes 

when the price of those inputs change (e.g., fuel costs may reach a certain point, 

justifying shifts to biobased fuels), and 5) prioritizing and “shelving” fully developed 

plans so that when a manager receives unexpected funds (for example at the end of a 

fiscal year), the plan can be executed on very short timelines.

• Challenge 2: Lack of feedback to incentivize savings. 

Implementing the GHG mitigation strategies often represents a budgetary cost in 

terms of staff-time, maintenance, or infrastructure. The savings accrued are often not 

reported back to the manager charged with making those decisions. For example, 

budgetary savings may result in less funding being allocated to an agency in the next 

fiscal year. Possible solutions may be nationwide accounting mechanisms that allow 

savings to be accrued by the managing entity’s budget. The emerging market in 

carbon is an example that has sparked some imagination among respondents in an 

accounting and credit mechanism by which credit could be attributed to managers 

who best manage for emissions reduction. 

• Challenge 3: Personnel investment in inventory compilation.

Staff time and personnel resources required to compile an inventory are not fully 

recognized. Often the staff drawn upon to do this work must drop other tasks to 

accomplish data collection, reporting, collaboration, and resolution. The innovation 

required to design and implement technical changes often requires going beyond 

position descriptions, which encumbers staff to take on the risk that the suggested fix 

might not work. Suggested changes may induce push-back from coworkers and 

involve what is viewed as “extra work.” Respondents suggested that the rewards for 

accomplishment may be personal, but may also be short-lived or unsustainable in 

light of other on-the-job pressures. Additionally, managers themselves do not receive 

a bonus for making extra efforts or taking extra risk to bring about very large system 

savings, as would occur in the private sector. Solutions could be to design 

mechanisms to incentivize those who contribute to emissions or financial savings. 

These could be monetary or non-monetary. In addition, respondents noted that 

supervisors can create time in a work plan to allow for experimentation, 

brainstorming, and collaboration. Respondents noted the importance of verbal, public, 

and group acknowledgement, especially in regular staff meetings since it tends to 

reinforce the mindset of the building or facility as a whole, reduce push-back, and 

encourage future brainstorming among employees. 

• Challenge 4: Accuracy and relation of data collected to anticipated ability to 

control related emissions.

Respondents reported a high degree of certainty in the collected data, but described in 

detail the time investment, patience, and creativity needed to pursue that level of 

detail. Scope 3 discussions in particular, focused on the tradeoffs between attaining an 

additional level of data resolution versus spending time on the recommended fixes. 

This was referred to as “the rabbit hole” issue in Scope 3 discussions, where 

respondents exchanged information about what they felt was a reasonable level of 
32 

detail in information collection. Group exchange of this sort is invaluable because 

respondents noted that written inventory protocol can have a high intimidation factor 

for someone new to inventories. Doubts in the study purpose, uncertainty in project 

support, unawareness of what the data will be used for, and especially time 

limitations were all cited as possible contributors to reasons why this extra effort for 

good numbers may not be put in. One possible solution to this is regular discussion of 

the rabbit hole, assuring inventory staff that this is a common challenge. Early 

elicitation and comparison of data among inventory staff were also cited as possible 

solutions. 

7.3.2 Benefits

• Benefit 1: Understanding what is “normal.” 

An inventory requires scrutiny of a system both at an unusual level of detail, over 

time, and (in this case) across various management units. One unsung advantage of 

compiling an inventory is that those who perform them develop a sense for what is 

normal. In this way, inefficiencies, errors, and system changes can be noticed, 

monitored, and adjusted. Respondents noted that one critical element of this was the 

satisfaction they received in understanding why a number was particularly different, 

reporting both satisfaction from better system understanding, communication with 

various factions of management (for example a fleet manager speaking with a 

hydrologist), and satisfaction received from an ultimate fix to what may have been 

prior system oversight.

• Benefit 2: Problem resolution to technical and hidden problems.

One advantage of compiling an inventory over many management units is that 

common inefficiencies may be revealed and resolved through shared learning and/or 

resources. One example can be seen in the incidental learning that comes along with 

the inventory compilation itself. In this case, an inventory compilation process 

required the procurement of a series of billing statements, only to reveal a series of 

late-charges or mis-billings because computerized or centralized systems were not 

aligned. Because an individual management unit may not be able to afford a specialist 

or staff time to resolve the problem, cooperation or shared specialists may help 

introduce fixes across several management entities, with least cost.

• Benefit 3: Staff identification of solutions.

On-the-ground staff were able to identify potential solutions to problems they faced. 

These included, but were not limited to 1) service providers or contractors to work at 

this scale, 2) understanding of input factors affecting price breaks, 3) a calculator to 

help calculate payback periods of implementation measures, and 4) quantitative 

information and comparison of life-cycle analysis for several common pieces of 

infrastructure. 
33

8 Summary and Conclusions

This is the first effort where Federal parks, forests, and wildlife refuges have worked across 

agency boundaries to compile and execute emissions reduction plans for an entire ecosystem. 

The use of an ecosystem as a boundary is also unique but very appropriate; the effects of GHG

emissions are likely going to be felt beyond organizational bounds, and probably at an ecosystem 

level. However, working across agency bounds can also be logistically challenging. Each agency 

has different policies and processes, and modifying these is inherently difficult. Through this 

project it was demonstrated that cross-agency leadership and coordination—as clearly 

demonstrated for many years through the GYCC—is essential for project success regardless of 

agency constraints. On-the-ground cross fertilization of ideas, as experienced during the 

Webinars and working session, enabled unit staff to learn from each other, share experiences, 

and plan for future GHG reductions together.

While the process that was undertaken was not void of challenges, it was an important part of the 

process to understand where the barriers lie in order to address these and improve upon future 

projects. By fully understanding the constraints and limitations of agencies and what issues are 

unique to a particular agency, a project can be more successful in the long term. 

The steps, methodologies, and lessons learned throughout this process have been summarized in 

order to serve as a template for Federal agencies and private entities as they work to reduce their 

impact on the environment through emissions reductions. By sharing the experiences of three 

agencies spread across a unique ecosystem, it is hoped that these efforts will fuel a dialogue and

other similar projects. 
34

Appendix 1. Working Ses s ion Agendas

Day 1 – Monday, April 19th, 2010: Setting the Stage – Weaver Room, the Emerson Center

1:00 PM – 1:30 PM Introductions and Overview of the Week

Mike Fiebig and Anna Jones-Crabtree

1:30 PM – 2:30 PM GYCC Keynote Address and Panel Discussion

Rebecca Aus, Mary Erickson and Suzanne Lewis, GYCC Members

2:30 PM – 2:45 PM Break

2:45 PM – 3:45 PM Presentation: “Foot-Printing for Futurists: Using ‘Hard’ Numbers to Firm-up ‘Fuzzy’ Future Vision.” 

Trista Patterson, USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station

3:45 PM – 5:00 PM Overview of each Footprint Track, Current Data, and GHG Tracking

Kristin Day, Eliza Hotchkiss, John Nangle, NREL

Evening Optional Social Hour – location and time TBA

Day 2 – Tuesday, April 20th, 2010: Identifying Actions – Room 233, Strand Union Building, MSU

8:30 AM – 9:00 AM Large-Group Presentation: Guest speaker from the Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)

Joe Konrade, FEMP

Split into Footprint Tracks - Rooms 232, 233, 234 

Fleet Track Agenda

Greater Yellowstone Interagency Climate Action Plan Working Session

April 19 – 22, 2010
35

9:00 AM – 9:45 AM Fleet Track Introduction

Kristin Day & Ryan Daley, NREL

 Purpose and overview

 Review of federal guidance and legislation

 Visioning Exercise 1: Where do you see your fleet in 10 years?

9:45 AM – 10:15 AM Review of Past GYA Inventory Data & Results 

Kristin Day, NREL

 FY 2007 inventory overview & background

 Presentation of data & analysis results

 Next steps, opportunities and challenges

10:15 AM – 10:30 AM Break

10:30 AM – 11:30 AM Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Calculations & Management

Kristin Day, NREL

 How to calculate your GHG emissions

 Assess unit-level GHG emissions changes from FY 2007 baseline 

 Fleet Selection & Management Game: Who can reduce their GHG emissions the most while still fulfilling their mission and 

meeting federal mandates?

11:30 AM – 12:30 PM Indentifying Resources and Potential Partnerships

Andrew Hudgins, NREL

 Federal partnerships

U.S. Department of Energy’s Clean Cities 

 Regional partnerships

Yellowstone Business Partnership

 Industry partnerships

12:30 PM – 1:30 PM Lunch

1:30 PM – 2:15 PM Behavior and Cultural Changes

Heather Davis, USFS

 Review of small changes that can have a big affect on GHG emissions

2:15 PM – 3:00 PM Emerging Fleet Technologies

Ryan Daley, NREL

 Overview of advanced vehicle technologies, their benefits and drawbacks

 Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFV) in the federal fleet

 Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV)

 Plug-in Hybrids (PHEV) and Electric Vehicles (EV)
36

3:00 PM – 4:45 PM Eco Auto Inc. Introduction & Demonstration, at MSU

Kristin Day & Andrew Hudgins, NREL

4:45 PM – 5:15 PM Fleet Track Day 1 Wrap-Up

All

Evening Optional Social Hour – location and time TBA

Day 3 – Wednesday, April 21st, 2010: From Actions to Climate Action Plans

Room 233, Strand Union Building, MSU

8:30 AM – 9:00 AM Large-Group Presentation: Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) and Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)

Alicen Kandt, NREL

Split into Footprint Tracks - Rooms 232, Ballroom B, 234

9:00 AM – 10:15 AM Fleet Optimization Tools

Heather Davis, USFS & Ryan Daley, NREL

 Tools Overview

USFS Fleet Lifecycle Costing Tool

NREL Fleet Optimization Tool 

 Fleet Atlas/Optimization Tool demonstration

10:15 AM – 10:30 AM Break

10:30 AM – 11:30 AM GSA Fleet Vehicles

Speaker, TBD

 GHG ratings and things to come...

11:30 PM – 12:30 PM Alternative Fuels & Infrastructure

Kristin Day, NREL

 Overview of alternative fuels, their benefits and drawbacks

 Review of alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructures in GYA

 Identify opportunities and potential roadblocks 

12:30 PM – 1:30 PM Lunch
37

1:30 PM – 5:30 PM Compiling an Action Plan for GYA Fleets 

All

 Visioning Exercise 2: 

 GYA-Wide Project Visioning Session – brainstorm on flip chart

Where do you see your fleet in 10 years? Do you have the tools to get there? What else is needed?

 Identifying and Prioritizing actions

Unit level

GYA-wide 

 Creating an implementation strategy

Unit level

GYA-wide 

 Further Needs, Measurement & Verification

 Hand-off resource packs 

 Feedback, Review & Adjournment

Evening Optional Social Hour – location and time TBA

Day 4 – Thursday, April 22nd, 2010: Planning for 2020 and Beyond – Weaver Room, Emerson Center

8:30 AM – 9:15 AM Happy Earth Day! Introduction to Break-out Sessions

Anna Jones-Crabtree and Mike Fiebig

9:15 AM – 9:45 PM Moving Forward: Water in the GYA

Alicen Kandt, NREL 

9:45 AM – 10:00 AM Break

10:00 AM – 11:00 AM GYA Unit Breakout Sessions. Smaller Units can Team-up with A Larger Unit

Mike Fiebig, Anna Jones-Crabtree and NREL Staff 

 Share identified actions from footprint tracks; complete your unit template; talk about what things you need to do as a unit to 

implement those projects such as barriers, opportunities, timing, and leadership. 

 Commit to the next things that you want to do.

 Be ready to share those actions with your GYCC member after lunch. 

 Some Ideas: Where do you want things to go on your unit? Identify what unit-level activities can we connect GYA-wide? What 

things are you most excited about? What are more easily implemented if we do them on GYA-wide basis? What will your biggest 

hurdles will be? What are the next steps for your particular unit?
38

11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Collective Discussion and Feedback, Anna, Mike and NREL Staff

 Brief sharing of individual unit action plans and anything that has emerged as a new GYA-wide project (45 min). 

 Open conversation and feedback (30 min).

 Finish up preparing to present to, and work with, your GYCC Member.

12:30 PM – 1:30 PM Lunch

1:30 PM – 1:45 PM Introductions and Overview of the Afternoon

Mike Fiebig and Anna Jones-Crabtree

1:45 PM – 2:30 PM Moving Out on your Unit, Mike Fiebig and Anna Jones-Crabtree

 Briefing your Line Officer.

 Discussion of your action plan against the definition of success; update and amend as needed.

 Large-group discussion space for feedback, questions, and problem-solving. Opportunities? Challenges? Get feedback on your 

plan again.

2:30 PM – 3:30 PM Coordinated Implementation and Funding

Mike Fiebig, Anna Jones-Crabtree, NREL

 Each footprint track will present their 2-3 overarching projects from the day before (short description, cost, timeline, project 

champions) on flip charts.

 Question and Answer Space: Present anything extra that emerged (add to voting options) 

 Discussion of criteria for project selection and “voting” procedures.

3:30 PM – 3:45 PM Break and Vote

 Choice of one coordinated project to implement GYA-wide ($20,000 from a USFS Sustainable Business Award for FY 2010, and 

$15,000 from the GYCC for FY 2011). 

3:45 PM – 4:30 PM Resourcing discussion and clarification of funding and timeline

Mike Fiebig, Anna Jones-Crabtree, NREL

 Identifying follow-up needs and project champions 

 Climate Action Plan timeline and future iterations

4:30 PM – 5:00 PM Session Closing

All Participants and Staff

 Recap: Definition of Success. Did we meet it? What are we committing to? Prep for close-out of session.

 Feedback on the Working Session

 Closing thoughts from participants. Highlights? Lessons? 

Evening Optional Social Hour – location and time TBA
39

Day 1 – Monday, April 19th, 2010: Setting the Stage – Weaver Room, the Emerson Center

1:00 PM – 1:30 PM Introductions and Overview of the Week

Mike Fiebig and Anna Jones-Crabtree

1:30 PM – 2:30 PM GYCC Keynote Address and Panel Discussion

Rebecca Aus, Mary Erickson and Suzanne Lewis, GYCC Members

2:30 PM – 2:45 PM Break

2:45 PM – 3:45 PM Presentation: “Foot-Printing for Futurists: Using ‘Hard’ Numbers to Firm-up 

‘Fuzzy’ Future Vision.” 

Trista Patterson, USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station

3:45 PM – 5:00 PM Overview of each Footprint Track, Current Data, and GHG Tracking

Kristin Day, Eliza Hotchkiss, John Nangle, NREL

Evening Optional Social Hour – location and time TBA

Day 2 – Tuesday, April 20th, 2010: Identifying Actions – Room 233, Strand Union Building, MSU

8:30 AM – 9:00 AM Large- Group Presentation: Guest speaker from the Department of Energy’s

Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)

Joe Konrade, FEMP

Split into Footprint Tracks - Rooms 232, 233, 234 

Facilities Track Agenda

Greater Yellowstone Interagency Climate Action Plan Working Session

April 19 – 22, 2010
40

9:00 AM – 10:15 AM COMING TOGETHER

 Introduction and Background - Alicen Kandt & Eliza Hotchkiss, NREL

Purpose of the training, overview of the working session

Visioning exercise (2020 and 2050)

Reviewing Energy Usage Data 

 Utility Cleanup, Heather Davis, USFS

 Addressing metering concerns - leased and owned spaces

10:15 AM – 10:30 AM Break

10:30 AM – 12:30 PM UNDERSTANDING ENERGY

Eliza Hotchkiss, NREL

 Energy Use in Buildings

General overview of where/how energy is used in buildings in this climate zone)

Human physiology

Building Envelope

 HVAC

Overview of technologies and Opportunities/ECMs

(12:00) Hands-on walk through, Dan Stevenson, MSU 

12:30 PM – 1:30 PM Lunch

1:30 PM – 3:45 PM UNDERSTANDING ENERGY

Eliza Hotchkiss, NREL

 Lighting

Overview of technologies and Opportunities/ECMs

Hands-on walk through

 Plug Loads

Overview of technologies and Opportunities/ECMs

Hands-on walk through

Each participant will need their data collection sheets and a laptop 

4:00 PM – 5:15 PM Tour of Bozeman Library, LEED Certified

Evening Optional Social Hour – location and time TBA
41

Day 3 – Wednesday, April 21st, 2010: From Actions to Climate Action Plans

Room 233, Strand Union Building, MSU

8:30 AM – 9:00 AM Large-Group Presentation: Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) and Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), 

Alicen Kandt, NREL

Split into Footprint Tracks - Rooms 232, Ballroom B, 234

9:00 AM – 10:15 AM UNDERSTANDING WATER, Alicen Kandt & Eliza Hotchkiss, NREL

Overview of technologies and Opportunities/ECMs

Hands-on walk through

10:15 AM – 10:30 AM Break

10:30 AM – 12:30 PM RENEWABLE ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES

Alicen Kandt & Eliza Hotchkiss, NREL

Renewable Energy Technologies

RE Flow chart – options and resources

Basic overview of renewable resources available to the GYA

Incentives for RE installation

New Technologies on the Horizon

12:30 PM – 1:30 PM Lunch

1:30 PM – 1:45 PM Examples of Innovation within the GYA

1:45 PM – 5:00 PM Discussion Groups for Action Planning 

Alicen Kandt and Eliza Hotchkiss, NREL

 Visioning Exercise 2: Where do you now see your facilities in 2020 and 2050? Do you have the tools to get there? 

What else is needed? 

 GYA wide project visioning session to brainstorm

Identifying common issues, barriers, challenges (i.e. lease vs. owned facilities) 

 Identifying actions 

Unit wide

GYA wide

 Creating an implementation strategy

Unit wide

GYA wide

 Feedback, Review & Adjournment

Resource packs

Evening Optional Social Hour – location and time TBA
42

Day 4 – Thursday, April 22nd, 2010: Planning for 2020 and Beyond – Weaver Room, Emerson Center

8:30 AM – 9:15 AM Happy Earth Day! Introduction to Break-out Sessions

Anna Jones-Crabtree and Mike Fiebig

9:15 AM – 9:45 PM Moving Forward: Water in the GYA

Alicen Kandt, NREL 

9:45 AM – 10:00 AM Break

10:00 AM – 11:00 AM GYA Unit Breakout Sessions. Smaller Units can Team-up with a Larger Unit

Anna, Mike and NREL Staff 

 Share identified actions from footprint tracks; complete your unit template; talk about what things you need to do as a unit to 

implement those projects such as barriers, opportunities, timing, and leadership. 

 Commit to the next things that you want to do.

 Be ready to share those actions with your GYCC member after lunch. 

 Some Ideas: Where do you want things to go on your unit? Identify what unit-level activities can we connect GYA-wide? What 

things are you most excited about? What are more easily implemented if we do them on GYA-wide basis? What will your biggest 

hurdles will be? What are the next steps for your particular unit?

11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Collective Discussion and Feedback, Anna, Mike and NREL Staff

 Brief sharing of individual unit action plans and anything that has emerged as a new GYA-wide project (45 min). 

 Open conversation and feedback (30 min).

 Finish up preparing to present to, and work with, your GYCC Member.

12:30 PM – 1:30 PM Lunch

1:30 PM – 1:45 PM Introductions and Overview of the Afternoon

Mike Fiebig and Anna Jones-Crabtree

1:45 PM – 2:30 PM Moving Out on your Unit

Mike Fiebig and Anna Jones-Crabtree

 Briefing your Line Officer.

 Discussion of your action plan against the definition of success; update and amend as needed.

 Large-group discussion space for feedback, questions, and problem-solving. Opportunities? Challenges? Get feedback on your 

plan again.
43

2:30 PM – 3:30 PM Coordinated Implementation and Funding

Mike Fiebig, Anna Jones-Crabtree, and NREL

 Each footprint track will present their 2-3 overarching projects from the day before (short description, cost, timeline, project 

champions) on flip charts.

 Question and Answer Space: Present anything extra that emerged (add to voting options) 

 Discussion of criteria for project selection and “voting” procedures.

3:30 PM – 3:45 PM Break and Vote

 Choice of one coordinated project to implement GYA-wide ($20,000 from a USFS Sustainable Business Award for FY 2010, and 

$15,000 from the GYCC for FY 2011). 

3:45 PM – 4:30 PM Resourcing discussion and clarification of funding and timeline

Mike Fiebig, Anna Jones-Crabtree, and NREL

 Identifying follow-up needs and project champions 

 Climate Action Plan timeline and future iterations

4:30 PM – 5:00 PM Session Closing

All Participants and Staff

 Recap: Definition of Success. Did we meet it? What are we committing to? Prep for close-out of session.

 Feedback on the Working Session

 Closing thoughts from participants. Highlights? Lessons? 

Evening Optional Social Hour – location and time TBA
44

Day 1 – Monday, April 19th, 2010: Setting the Stage – Weaver Room, the Emerson Center

1:00 PM – 1:30 PM Introductions and Overview of the Week

Mike Fiebig and Anna Jones-Crabtree

1:30 PM – 2:30 PM GYCC Keynote Address and Panel Discussion

Rebecca Aus, Mary Erickson and Suzanne Lewis, GYCC Members

2:30 PM – 2:45 PM Break

2:45 PM – 3:45 PM Presentation: “Foot-Printing for Futurists: Using ‘Hard’ Numbers to Firm-up ‘Fuzzy’ Future Vision.” 

Trista Patterson, USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station

3:45 PM – 5:00 PM Overview of each Footprint Track, Current Data, and GHG Tracking

Kristin Day, Eliza Hotchkiss, John Nangle, NREL

Evening Optional Social Hour – location and time TBA

Day 2 – Tuesday, April 20th, 2010: Identifying Actions – Room 233, Strand Union Building, MSU

8:30 AM – 9:00 AM Large- Group Presentation: Guest speaker from the Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)

Joe Konrade, FEMP

Split into Footprint Tracks - Rooms 232, 233, 234 

Scope 3 Track Agenda

Greater Yellowstone Interagency Climate Action Plan Working Session

April 19 – 22, 2010
45

9:00 AM – 10:15 AM Overview of Scope 3 Working Session Schedule

 Introduction and Background 

 Review of Federal Guidance documents

 Review of Previous GYA Inventories

10:15 AM – 10:30 AM Break

10:30 AM – 12:30 PM Ecosystem-wide Scope 3 Emissions

Presentations will serve as illustrative examples and help jumpstart discussions for Ecosystem-wide opportunities

 Visioning Exercise 1: Where do you see Scope 3 emissions for your unit in 10 years? (choose 1-2 footprints)

 Discussion of Scope 3 Opportunities

Contractor/Vendor/Purchasing

Concessioner/permittee emissions - Jane Ruchman, Gallatin NF (tentative)

Visitor Emissions - John Nangle, NREL

12:30 PM – 1:30 PM Lunch

1:30 PM – 4:00 PM Ecosystem-wide Scope 3 emissions - Continued

 Commuting/Travel - Janet Bean-Dochnal, B-D NF

 GSA TravelTrax - John Nangle, NREL

 Water/Waste Disposal - Jim Evanoff, Yellowstone NP

 Choice of top footprint areas to focus on - John Nangle, NREL

4:00 PM – 5:15 PM Site Tour LEED building - Bozeman Public Library

If the LEED Building tour is cancelled, we can continue the ecosystem-wide discussion.

Evening Optional Social Hour – location and time TBA

Day 3 – Wednesday, April 21st, 2010: From Actions to Climate Action Plan

Room 233, Strand Union Building, MSU 

8:30 AM – 9:00 AM Large-Group Presentation: Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) and Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)

Alicen Kandt, NREL

Split into Footprint Tracks - Rooms 232, Ballroom B, 234

9:00 AM – 10:15 PM Recap and Unit-specific Scope 3 Emissions Sources

John Nangle, NREL

 Recap from previous day

 Identification of common, eco-system wide (EW) Scope 3 emissions (e.g. collective purchasing?)

10:15 AM – 10:30 AM Break
46

10:30 AM – 12:30 PM Site-specific Scope 3 Emissions

John Nangle, NREL

 Begin identifying major Scope 3 emissions at individual units

 Identify emissions reduction opportunities

12:30 PM – 1:30 PM Lunch

1:30 PM – 5:00 PM Compiling an Action Plan for Scope 3 Emissions

John Nangle, NREL

 Visioning Exercise 2: Where do you want to see Scope 3 emissions sources for your unit in 10 years (same 1-2 footprints)? Do 

you have the tools to get there? What else is needed?

 GYA-Wide Project Visioning Session – brainstorm on flip chart\

 Identifying and Prioritizing actions (continued from morning)

Unit level

GYA-wide 

 Creating an implementation strategy

Unit level

GYA-wide 

 Feedback, Review & Adjournment

Evening Optional Social Hour – location and time TBA

Day 4 – Thursday, April 22nd, 2010: Planning for 2020 and Beyond – Weaver Room, Emerson Center

8:30 AM – 9:15 AM Happy Earth Day! Introduction to Break-out Sessions

Anna Jones-Crabtree and Mike Fiebig

9:15 AM – 9:45 PM Moving Forward: Water in the GYA

Alicen Kandt, NREL 

9:45 AM – 10:00 AM Break

10:00 AM – 11:00 AM GYA Unit Breakout Sessions. Smaller Units can Team-up with a Larger Unit

Anna Jones-Crabtree, Mike Fiebig and NREL Staff 

 Share identified actions from footprint tracks; complete your unit template; talk about what things you need to do as a unit to 

implement those projects such as barriers, opportunities, timing, and leadership. 

 Commit to the next things that you want to do.

 Be ready to share those actions with your GYCC member after lunch. 

 Some Ideas: Where do you want things to go on your unit? Identify what unit-level activities can we connect GYA-wide? What 

things are you most excited about? What are more easily implemented if we do them on GYA-wide basis? What will your biggest 

hurdles will be? What are the next steps for your particular unit?
47

11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Collective Discussion and Feedback, Anna, Mike and NREL Staff

 Brief sharing of individual unit action plans and anything that has emerged as a new GYA-wide project (45 min). 

 Open conversation and feedback (30 min).

 Finish up preparing to present to, and work with, your GYCC Member.

12:30 PM – 1:30 PM Lunch

1:30 PM – 1:45 PM Introductions and Overview of the Afternoon

Mike Fiebig and Anna Jones-Crabtree

1:45 PM – 2:30 PM Moving Out on your Unit

Mike Fiebig and Anna Jones-Crabtree

 Briefing your Line Officer.

 Discussion of your action plan against the definition of success; update and amend as needed.

 Large-group discussion space for feedback, questions, and problem-solving. Opportunities? Challenges? Get feedback on your 

plan again.

2:30 PM – 3:30 PM Coordinated Implementation and Funding

Mike Fiebig, Anna Jones-Crabtree and NREL Staff

 Each footprint track will present their 2-3 overarching projects from the day before (short description, cost, timeline, project 

champions) on flip charts.

 Question and Answer Space: Present anything extra that emerged (add to voting options) 

 Discussion of criteria for project selection and “voting” procedures.

3:30 PM – 3:45 PM Break and Vote

 Choice of one coordinated project to implement GYA-wide ($20,000 from a USFS Sustainable Business Award for FY 2010, and 

$15,000 from the GYCC for FY 2011). 

3:45 PM – 4:30 PM Resourcing discussion and clarification of funding and timeline

Mike Fiebig, Anna Jones-Crabtree and NREL Staff

 Identifying follow-up needs and project champions 

 Climate Action Plan timeline and future iterations

4:30 PM – 5:00 PM Session Closing

All Participants and Staff

 Recap: Definition of Success. Did we meet it? What are we committing to? Prep for close-out of session.

 Feedback on the Working Session

 Closing thoughts from participants. Highlights? Lessons? 

Evening Optional Social Hour – location and time TBA
48

Appendix 2. Differences Between EPA Climate Leaders and CLIP 

Tools

Main Differences:

• Stationary Combustion:

- The EPA includes optional inputs for different types of coal and fuel oil and also 

accounts for land fill gas use.

- The CLIP tool includes optional inputs for biodiesel and “other” stationary 

combustion sources whose emission factor is user defined.

- The two tools use different sources in their methodology section.

• Purchased Electricity:

- The EPA tool uses data from eGRID2006 (with 2004 data), while the CLIP tool 

uses eGRID 2002.

- The CLIP accounts for transmission losses, while the EPA tool does not.

• Mobile Combustion:

- The EPA tool uses vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and fuel consumption to 

calculate emissions (Fuel-->CO2; VMT-->CH4 and N2O).

- The CLIP tool uses VMT -OR- fuel consumption to calculate all emissions. 

Average miles per gallon (MPG) are used to convert VMT to fuel consumption 

and vice-versa.

- Both tools account for non-highway vehicles

- The tools use slightly different methodologies and coefficients to calculate 

emissions; these do not seem to dramatically alter the results.

Additional Details:

• Stationary Combustion:

- EPA: Includes optional inputs for different types of coal and fuel oil; also 

accounts for land fill gas use.

- CLIP: Includes optional inputs for biodiesel and "other."

- Sources in methodology appear to be different.

- EPA: Calculates CO2, CH4, and N2O by multiplying fuel usage by a constant that

is "hard-coded" in the formula.

- CLIP: Calculates CO2, CH4, and N2O by multiplying fuel usage by a constant by 

referring to its “Conversion Factors” sheet.

- These emission constants may vary slightly due to different methodologies 

followed by each tool.

• Purchased Electricity:

- EPA: Kilowatt-hours are multiplied by emission constants contained within the 

worksheet (eGRID2006 Emission Factors by Sub-region [2004 Data]); calculates 

CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions.

- EPA: Does not appear to account for transmission losses.

- CLIP: Multiply park electricity consumption by pounds of carbon per megawatt 

hours. Then multiply by the amount of energy lost during transmission and 

distribution.

- CLIP: CO2 is the only pollutant calculated; CH4 and N2O are considered to be 

negligible (eGRID 2002, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/egrid/index.htm).

• Mobile Combustion:
49

- EPA: Information for unit's entire fleet is hand-entered (includes source ID, 

source description, vehicle type, vehicle year, fuel used, units, VMT, or hours of 

operation).

- EPA: Fuel usage is summed by fuel type (the total fuel consumption of each fuel 

type is not sorted by vehicle type).

- EPA: CO2 emissions are calculated by total fuel consumption (emission factors 

vary by fuel type and are hard-coded into the formula bar).

- EPA: CH4 and N2O emissions are calculated by multiplying an emissions factor 

with VMT, which are summed by vehicle type and vehicle year.

- EPA uses both VMT and fuel consumption to calculate emissions as opposed to 

one or the other.

- EPA: Provides optional inputs for non-highway vehicles including ships and 

boats, trains, aircraft, and agricultural equipment (these are often populated and 

therefore omitted from the ROA tools).

- CLIP: Calculates CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions using VMT or fuel consumption. 

Average MPG is used to convert to and from VMT or fuel consumption.

- CLIP: Also has inputs for non-highway vehicles that are omitted from ROA tools.
50

Appendix 3. Overview of Inventory Compilation

The agencies within the GYA conducted assessments of their activities and completed GHG

emissions inventories for each of the 10 units. In 2008, NREL was funded by USFS to compile 

the 10 individual unit GHG inventories into a suite of inventories that can be analyzed together. 

The consolidated suite of GYA GHG inventories captures emissions associated with 

anthropogenic activities on all Federal lands in the GYA. The inventories were conducted 

between 2006 and 2008, with only slight variations expected from year to year.

The boundary for the combined inventory was that of the GYA, depicted below in Figure 12 by 

the purple boundary. While some of the 10 units are entirely contained within the GYA, some 

fall outside of its bounds. These include: Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Custer National 

Forest, and Caribou-Targhee National Forest. The six forests associated with the GYA cover 

over 15 million acres in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. Thirteen million acres of these national 

forests are inside the GYA boundary.5

The methodology the USFS used to account for the fact that portions of these three forests, and 

associated activities and GHG emissions, are outside of the GYA is described in the USFS paper, 

“Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the National Forests in the GYA.”

In some cases the inventories represent activities for the 

entire area of each unit, as activities are not distinguished as being within or outside of the GYA 

boundaries. Because GHG reduction opportunities target modifications to operations for entire 

units, emissions that may fall outside of the GYA boundary were, in some cases, not able to be 

excluded from the analysis.

6

Figure 12. Greater Yellowstone Area boundary

 5 USFS Sustainable Operations: www.fs.fed.us/sustainableoperations/documents/GHGReport6NatlForestsInGYA.pdf, page 7. 6 USFS Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the National Forests in the GYA: 

www.fs.fed.us/sustainableoperations/documents/GHG-Report6NatlForestsInGYA.pdf
51

As described in Section 3 (Setting a Baseline) and highlighted in Appendix 2 (Differences 

between EPA Climate Leaders and CLIP Tools), two different GHG accounting tools were used 

to compile the unit inventories; USFS and FWS units used the EPA Climate Leaders GHG 

Calculator Tool, whereas NPS used the CLIP tool. See Table 2 for an overview of the data and 

tools used for each unit inventory. 

Table 2. Data and Tools Used for Unit Inventories

GYA Unit Abbreviation Tool Used Data Year7

Grand Teton National Park GTNP CLIP (Climate Leadership in 

Parks) Tool

2007 data

Yellowstone National Park YNP 2006 data

National Elk Refuge Elk

EPA Climate Leaders GHG 

Emissions Calculator (SGEC)

2008 data

Red Rock Lakes Refuge Red

Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

National Forest BHDF

FY 2007 data8

Bridger-Teton National 

Forest BTF

Caribou-Targhee National 

Forest CTF

Custer National Forest CF

Gallatin National Forest GF

Shoshone National Forest SF

NREL studied each inventory and worked with the units and the people who had compiled the 

unit inventories to better understand common assumptions and differences in operations and 

purpose across the 10 units. The inventory data for the units was compiled into one 

comprehensive, GYA-wide inventory through the development of an ROA Tool. Figure 13

shows total GHG emissions per unit. Yellowstone National Park has the greatest quantity of 

GHG emissions, due to the nature of its visitor services operations. Grand Teton National Park 

produces the second-highest level of emissions, although in aggregate, the USFS units 

(Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer, Gallatin, and Shoshone) rank 

higher. The FWS units (National Elk and Red Rock Lakes) emit the smallest quantity of GHGs.

Graphs show GHG emissions for the individual units, as well as the individual totals for USFS

units and FWS units. Grand Teton National Park and Yellowstone National Park are not 

 7 Calendar year unless otherwise noted

8 Based on FY 2007, defined here as October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007
52

presented as summed, as their operating modes are quite different from one another. The USFS

unit operations are consistent and can thus be analyzed together. Similarly, both FWS units are 

operated in the same manner and for the same purpose.

Figure 13. Total greenhouse gas emissions per Greater Yellowstone Area unit

NREL examined each unit’s inventory to detect trends and outliers in an attempt to identify 

opportunities for GHG reduction. To identify these outliers, the inventory data was first 

evaluated by demographics, including land area, number of employees or visitors, and miles of 

roads. Accurate demographic data was difficult to procure for each unit, and therefore the results 

of this analysis were only marginally useful. 

Two examples are below. The first, Figure 14, displays emissions (in kg CO2e) per acre of land 

in each unit. One can clearly observe that the National Elk Refuge is the highest emitter per acre, 

which is interesting since it is a relatively small unit in terms of total emissions, land area, 

visitors, and employees. Reasons for the large amount of emissions per acre include extra driving 

required to cover the unit area, use of heavy vehicles and four-wheel-drive vehicles for transport 

across unpaved roads in the winter, and heating of temporary and remote buildings. The second, 

Figure 15, shows total GHG emissions per visitor. From this graphic one can see that the unit 

with substantially higher GHG emissions per visitor is Yellowstone National Park. These 

emissions can be attributed to its purpose, which is to provide opportunities for citizens to visit 

and experience the park. Thus, the hotel, restaurant, and visitor services that are an integral part 

of the operations result in significantly more emissions than produced from the other units. 

-

5,000 

10,000 

15,000 

20,000 

25,000 

30,000 

35,000 

40,000 

BHDF CF GF SF BTF CTF F Total GTNP YNP Elk Red FWS 

Total

Metric Tonnes of CO2 Equiv (MTCO2 -Eq)
53

Figure 14. Emissions per acre of land per unit

After attempting to sort emissions by demographics, NREL disaggregated them by major 

emissions categories: mobile combustion, stationary combustion, and purchased electricity. 

Figure 16 shows emissions by source category for each unit within the GYA. The results of the 

combined inventory revealed that the largest source of emissions for the entire GYA was 

purchased combustion sources, mostly electricity, contributing 25,500 MTCO2e, greater than 

half of the total emissions. Stationary combustion was equivalent to 12,600 MTCO2e and mobile 

combustion 10,600 MTCO2e.

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

BHDF CF GF SF BTF CTF FS

Total

GTNP YNP Elk Red FWS

Total

-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Total GHG (million kg CO2-equiv)

Million Visitors

GHG per Visitor (kg CO2-equiv/person) -

RIGHT AXIS

* *

* *
54

Figure 15. GHG emissions per visitor per unit

In comparing across the units, it became apparent that the primary emissions category varied by 

unit. For example, mobile sources are the largest contributor for the forest units, but the smallest 

for Yellowstone National Park, contributing only 13% to the total GHGs. Stationary combustion 

sources account for more emissions than purchased electricity or mobile combustion for both of 

the national parks. See Figure 16, below. 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

BHDF CF GF SF BTF CTF FS Total GTNP YNP Elk Red FWS Total

Metric Tonnes Carbon Equiv (MTCE)

Stationary Combustion

Mobile Combustion

Purchased Electricity
55

Figure 16. Emissions broken out by emission categories

The ROA tool developed by NREL was a first-cut at providing units information on where to 

focus their emissions-reductions efforts. Using the tool, reduction levels within each of the 

source categories can be tested for their impact on the total emissions for that unit, as well as the 

impact such reductions would have on total GYA emissions. Examples of the tool tailored for 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest are shown below. The targeted emissions reductions are not 

illustrative of the plans that the units are making to alter activities, but meant to illustrate how the 

ROA tool works. An ROA tool was constructed for each unit.

-

5,000 

10,000 

15,000 

20,000 

25,000 

Forest Service 

Total:

Grand Teton 

National Park

Yellowstone 

National Park

Total FWS

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, MTCO2e

Stationary Combustion

Purchased Electricity

Mobile Combustion
56

Greater Yellowstone Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Reduction Options Analysis Tool

Caribou-Targhee National Forest

SUMMARY OF CURRENT AND PLANNED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

TOTAL for UNIT

Original Planned % Reduction

Stationary Combustion Emissions 67.3 64.2 4.7%

Mobile Combustion Emissions 281.0 267.6 4.8%

Purchased Electricity Emissions 89.0 81.5 8.5%

TOTAL 437.4 413.2 5.5%

MTCE

-

50.0 

100.0 

150.0 

200.0 

250.0 

300.0 

350.0 

400.0 

450.0 

500.0 

Original Planned

GHG Emissions, MTCE

GHG Emissions in Major Categories

Purchased Electricity 

Emissions

Mobile Combustion 

Emissions

Stationary Combustion 

Emissions

PURCHASED ELECTRICITY EMISSIONS REDUCTION OPTIONS

Change only those values in the GREEN cells

PURCHASED ELECTRICITY

Electricity 

Purchased

Reduction 

Planned

kWh/year % CO2 CH4 N2O

Total 

GHG CO2 CH4 N2O

Total 

GHG

 776,834 8% 89 0 0 89 81 0 0 81

Total % Reduction in GHG Emissions for This Unit 6%

Current Emissions (MTCE) Planned Emissions (MTCE)
57

MOBILE COMBUSTION EMISSIONS REDUCTION OPTIONS

Change only those values in the GREEN cells

Total % Reduction in Mobile Combustion Emissions 4.8%

Total % Reduction in GHG Emissions for This Unit 6%

CURRENT EMISSIONS % PLANNED CHANGE PLANNED EMISSIONS TOTAL REDUCTION

Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent (MTCE) Reduction Increase Carbon Equivalent (MTCE)

Type "FUEL" or "VMT">>> VMT AVG MPG CO2 CH4 N2O Total MILES AVG MPG CO2 CH4 N2O Total

Gasoline

Car 26,150 mi 22.15 mpg 2.9 0.0 0.1 2.9 4.0% 2.7 0.0 0.1 2.8 4.0%

Light Truck, SUV, Minivan 976,056 mi 17.69 mpg 133.3 0.3 4.9 138.5 8.0% 123.4 0.2 4.5 128.2 7.4%

Bus 0 mi 6.90 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Heavy Duty Vehicle 229,572 mi 7.61 mpg 72.2 0.2 2.4 74.8 72.2 0.2 2.4 74.8

Motorcycle 0 mi 50.00 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Diesel

Car 0 mi 19.52 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Light Truck, SUV, Minivan 0 mi 15.59 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bus 0 mi 6.90 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Heavy Duty Vehicle 172,024 mi 7.23 mpg 64.7 0.0 0.1 64.8 5.0% 61.7 0.0 0.1 61.7 4.8%

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Car 0 mi 15.96 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Trucks and SUVs 0 mi 15.96 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bus 0 mi 5.24 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Heavy Duty Vehicle 0 mi 5.24 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Compressed Natural Gas

Car 0 mi 21.98 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Trucks and SUVs 0 mi 21.98 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bus 0 mi 4.19 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Heavy Duty Vehicle 0 mi 7.22 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Methanol

Car 0 mi 15.89 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Trucks and SUVs 0 mi 15.89 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bus 0 mi 2.61 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Heavy Duty Vehicle 0 mi 4.50 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ethanol

Car 0 mi 15.89 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Trucks and SUVs 0 mi 15.89 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bus 0 mi 2.35 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Heavy Duty Vehicle 0 mi 4.04 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hybrid

Gasoline Car 0 mi 56.00 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Gasoline Truck 0 mi 26.00 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Diesel Bus 0 mi 15.00 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Biodiesel (20%)

Car 0 mi 19.52 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Trucks and SUVs 0 mi 15.59 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bus 0 mi 6.90 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Heavy Duty Vehicle 0 mi 5.24 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Biodiesel (100%)

Car 0 mi 19.52 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Trucks and SUVs 0 mi 15.59 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bus 0 mi 6.90 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Heavy Duty Vehicle 0 mi 5.24 mpg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Highway Vehicles Total 273.1 0.5 7.4 281.0 260.0 0.5 7.1 267.6 4.8%

STATIONARY COMBUSTION EMISSIONS REDUCTION OPTIONS

Change only those values in the GREEN cells

Fuel Type

Current Amount 

Consumed Unit

% Reduction 

in Use 

Planned CO2 CH4 N2O Total GHG % of Total CO2 CH4 N2O Total GHG % of Total

Natural Gas 1,743,886 cubic feet 5% 26.0 0.05 0.02 26.1 39% 24.7 0.05 0.01 24.8 39%

Diesel Fuel 2,402 gallons 6% 6.7 0.02 0.02 6.7 10% 6.3 0.02 0.02 6.3 10%

Propane 15,145 gallons 2% 23.7 0.09 0.07 23.9 35% 23.3 0.09 0.07 23.4 36%

Biodiesel - gallons 3% 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0% 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0%

Kerosene - gallons 4% 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0% 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0%

Wood 25 short tons 9% 9.9 0.70 0.14 10.7 16% 9.0 0.63 0.12 9.7 15%

Coal - short tons 12% 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0% 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0%

Total 66.2 0.86 0.24 67.3 100% 63.2 0.79 0.22 64.2 100%

Total % Reduction in Stationary Combustion Emissions 5%

Total % Reduction in GHG Emissions for This Unit 6%

Current Emissions (MTCE) Planned Emissions
58

Appendix 4. Cros s walk of Sus tainability Goals and Targets in Executive Orders and 

Statutes

Goal/Target E.O. 13423 E.O. 13514 Existing Statute

GHG Baseline

Prepare baseline of GHG emissions for 

scope 1 and 2 emissions for FY 2008 

by January 3, 2010 for scope 3 GHG 

emissions by June 2, 2010 [§7((b)(i)]. 

(Headquarters Lead).

HG Emission 

Reductions

Reduce GHG emissions through 

reduction of energy intensity by (1) 

3% annually through FY 2015 or (2) 

30% by FY 2015 (baseline 2003). 

[§2(a)]

Establish agency-wide GHG emission 

percentage reduction targets by FY 

2020 (baseline FY 2008) for:

 Scope 1 and scope 2 GHG 

emissions by FY 2020 (due January 

4, 2010).

 Scope 3 GHG emissions (due June 

2, 2010). 

[§2(a) and (b)]

GHG Emission 

Reporting

Report comprehensive GHG emission 

inventory for FY 2010 by January 5, 

2011, and annually thereafter by the 

end of January. [§2(c)]

[EISA §527]: Each Federal agency must 

issue an annual report that describes 

the status of initiatives to improve 

energy efficiency, reduce energy costs, 

and reduce GHG emissions.

[EPA MGGRR]: Facilities and suppliers 

of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs that 

emit more than 25,000 metric tons of 

CO2-e per year must report their 

emissions by March 31, 2011, for 2010 

emissions. Reports submitted annually 

thereafter.
59

Goal/Target E.O. 13423 E.O. 13514 Existing Statute

Building Energy

Reduce building energy intensity 3% 

annually through FY 2015, or 30% 

total reduction by FY 2015 (baseline 

FY 2003). [§2(a)]

Reduce energy intensity in buildings to 

achieve GHG reductions. [§2(a)(i)]

[EISA §431]: Reduce building energy 

intensity 3% annually through 2015, or 

30% total reduction by 2015 (baseline 

2003). 

Renewable Energy 

Consumption

Ensure that 50% of statutorily 

required renewables comes from 

"new" (as of 1999) sources. [§2(b)]

Increase use of renewable energy. 

[§2(a)(ii)]

[EPAct 2005 §203]: Defines “renewable 

energy.”

[EPAct 2005 §203]: Increase 

renewables 3% in FY 2007–2009; 

 Increasing to 5% in FY 2010–2012.

 Increasing to 7.5% in FY 2013 and 

beyond. 

[EISA §523]: 30% of hot water demand 

in new Federal buildings and major 

renovations must be met with solar hot 

water if life-cycle cost effective.
60

Goal/Target E.O. 13423 E.O. 13514 Existing Statute

Fleet Petroleum 

Use

Reduce by 2% vehicle petroleum 

annually through FY 2015 (baseline 

FY 2005). [§2(g)]

Achieve 10% increase in nonpetroleum fuel consumption annually 

(baseline FY 2005). [§2(g)] 

Use plug-in hybrids when PIH are 

commercially available at a life-cycle 

cost reasonably comparable to nonPIH vehicles. [§2(g)]

Reduce fleet’s consumption of 

petroleum products 2% annually 

through end of FY 2020 (baseline FY 

2005). [§2(a)(iii)(C)]

Use low-GHG-emitting vehicles. 

[§2(a)(iii)(A)]

Optimize number of vehicles in fleet. 

[§2(a)(iii)(B)]

[EISA §142]: Reduce vehicle petroleum 

reduction 20% by FY 2015 (baseline FY

2005). 

[EISA §142]: Achieve 10% increase in 

non-petroleum fuel use annually by 

2015 (baseline 2005). 

[EISA §246]: Install at least one 

renewable fuel pump at each Federal 

fleet fueling center by 2010.

[EISA §141]: Federal agencies are 

prohibited from acquiring any light-duty 

motor vehicle or medium-duty 

passenger vehicle that is not a “low 

greenhouse gas emitting vehicle.” 

Alternatively, an agency may 

demonstrate that it has adopted costeffective policies to reduce petroleum 

consumption to achieve a comparable 

reduction in GHGs.

[EPAct 2005 §701]: Dual-fueled 

vehicles to be operated on alternative 

fuel unless waivered.

Renewable Energy 

Generation

Implement new renewable energy 

generation projects on agency 

property for agency use. [§2(b)] 

Implement renewable energy 

generation projects on agency property.

[§2(a)(ii)]

[EPAct 2005 §203]: Double count 

renewable energy produced on Federal 

or Indian lands and used on-site at 

Federal facilities.

Supply Chain GHG 

Emissions

[Indirect] In agency acquisition of 

goods and services, use of 

sustainable environmental practices, 

including energy-efficient products, 

is encouraged. [§2(d)] 

Pursue opportunities with vendors and 

contractors to reduce GHG emissions. 

(§2(b)(i))

[EISA §526]: Federal agencies are 

prohibited from procuring synfuel unless 

its life-cycle GHG emissions are less 

than those for conventional petroleum 

sources. 
61

Goal/Target E.O. 13423 E.O. 13514 Existing Statute

Scope 3 Emissions

Implement transit, travel, training, and 

conferencing strategies to support lowcarbon commuting and travel. [§2(b)(ii)]

Implement innovative policies to 

address scope 3 emissions unique to 

agency operations. [§2(b)(iv)]

Potable Water 

Consumption

Reduce water consumption intensity 

2% annually through FY 2015 or 

16% total reduction by the end of FY 

2015 (baseline FY 2007). [§2(c)]

Reduce 2% annually potable water 

consumption intensity through FY 2020 

or 26% by the end of FY 2020 (baseline 

FY 2007 water consumption). [§2(d)(i)]

Industrial, 

Landscaping, and 

Agricultural Water 

Consumption

Reduce water consumption intensity 

2% annually through FY 2015 or 

16% total reduction by the end of FY 

2015 (baseline FY 2007). [§2(c)]

Reduce industrial, landscaping, and 

agricultural water consumption by 2% 

annually or 20% by the end of FY 2020 

(baseline FY 2010 industrial, 

landscaping, and agricultural 

consumption). [§2(d)(ii)]

Water Reuse

Identify, promote, and implement water 

reuse strategies that reduce potable 

water consumption. [§2(d)(iii)]

Storm-water 

Management

Achieve EPA’s storm-water 

management objectives. [§2(d)(iv)] 

[EPA is to provide guidance on this 

requirement by December 4, 2009.] 

[EISA §438]: Maintain or restore, for 

Federal properties over 5,000 square 

feet, the property’s pre-development 

hydrology as to temperature, rate, 

volume, and duration of flow.

Pollution 

Prevention

Maintain cost effective waste 

prevention and recycling programs. 

[§2(e)]

Minimize generation of waste and 

pollutants through source reduction. 

[§2(e)(i)]

Source reduction is required through 

SARA Title III and waste minimization is 

required through RCRA generator 

requirements.
62

Goal/Target E.O. 13423 E.O. 13514 Existing Statute

Solid Waste 

Diversion 

Increase diversion of solid waste as 

appropriate. [§2(e)]

Divert 50% of non-hazardous solid 

waste from disposal by the end of FY 

2015. [§2(e)(ii)] Does not include 

diversion to waste-to-energy plants. 

[§7]

Divert 50% of construction and 

demolition materials and debris from 

disposal by the end of FY 2015. 

[§2(e)(iii)]

[Sites: Check state and local laws and 

regulations related to solid waste 

diversion.]

Paper Use paper containing at least 30% 

postconsumer fiber content. [§2(d)]

Acquire uncoated printing and writing 

paper containing at least 30% 

postconsumer fiber.

Reduce printing paper use.

[§2(e)(iv)]

[Solid Waste Disposal Act, § 6002 and 

40 CFR Part 247]: Purchase paper with 

the highest amount of postconsumer 

fiber practicable. 

Toxic Materials and 

Chemicals

Reduce acquisition, use, and 

disposal of toxic materials and 

chemicals. [§2(e)]

Reduce and minimize the quantity of 

toxic and hazardous chemicals and 

materials acquired, used, and disposed 

FY 2015. [§2(e)(v)]

[Pollution Prevention Act]: Federal 

facilities are required to deploy pollution 

prevention as the first choice in 

environmental management. 

Compostable and 

Organic Material

Increase diversion of compostable and 

organic material from waste streams. 

[§2(e)(vi)]

Landscaping 

Management

Implement pest management and other 

landscaping management practices. 

[§2(e)(vii)]

Chemical Use

Reduce acquisition, use, and 

disposal of toxic materials and 

chemicals. [§2(e)]

Increase use of acceptable alternative 

chemicals and processes. [2(e)(viii)]

Decrease chemical use to assist in 

achieving GHG reduction targets. 

[§2(e)(ix)]

[Montreal Protocol]: The reduction of 

most ozone-depleting substances also 

leads to a reduction in GHGs released.
63

Goal/Target E.O. 13423 E.O. 13514 Existing Statute

Sustainable 

Communities

Participate in regional transportation 

planning and recognize existing 

community transportation infrastructure. 

[§2(f)(i)]

Align Federal policies to increase the 

effectiveness of local planning for 

energy choices such as locallygenerated renewable energy. [§2(f)(ii)]

Ensure planning for new 

facilities/leases considers pedestrianfriendly sites near existing employment 

centers and accessible to public transit. 

[§2(f)(iii)]

Identify and analyze impacts from 

energy use and alternative energy 

sources in EAs and EISs for new or 

expanded facilities. [§2(f)(iv)]

Coordinate with regional programs for 

Federal, tribal, state, and local 

ecosystem, watershed, and 

environmental management. [§2(f)(v)]

Energy Efficiency 

in New 

Construction and 

Major Renovations

Achieve by 2030 zero-net-energy in 

buildings entering the planning process 

after 2020. [§2(g)(i)]

[EPAct 2005 §109]: Achieve energy 

performance 30% beyond ASHRAE 

90.1-2004.

[EISA §433]: New Federal buildings and 

Federal buildings undergoing major 

renovations shall reduce their fossil fuelgenerated energy consumption 

(baseline 2003) by 55% (2010), 65% 

(2015), 80% (20202), 90% (2025), and 

100% (2030).
64

Goal/Target E.O. 13423 E.O. 13514 Existing Statute

High Performance 

Sustainable 

Buildings 

Ensure all new agency construction 

and renovation complies with the 

Guiding Principles. [§2(f)]

Ensure 15% of existing Federal 

building inventory incorporate the 

Guiding Principles by 2015. [§2(f)]

Ensure all new construction, major 

renovation, or repair and alteration 

complies with the Guiding Principles. 

[§2(g)(ii)]

Ensure 15% of existing facilities and 

building leases (above 5,000 gross 

square feet) meet the Guiding 

Principles by FY 2015. [§2(g)(iii)]

Make annual progress towards 100% 

conformance with the Guiding 

Principles. [§2(g)(iii)]

[EISA §433]: Requires sustainable 

design principles be applied to the 

siting, design, and construction of 

buildings subject to the standards.

[EISA §434]: Ensure major 

replacements of installed equipment, 

renovation, or expansion of existing 

space employ the most energy-efficient 

designs, systems, equipment, and 

controls life-cycle cost effective.

[EISA §435]: As of December 19, 2010, 

Federal agencies are prohibited from 

leasing buildings that have not earned 

the ENERGY STAR® label (some 

exemptions apply).

[EPAct 2005 §109]: Includes application 

of sustainable design principles for new 

buildings.
65

Goal/Target E.O. 13423 E.O. 13514 Existing Statute

Advanced Metering 

and Measurement

[EPAct 2005 §103]: Federal buildings 

must be metered by October 1, 2012 

with data provided at least daily and 

electricity consumption measured 

hourly.

[EISA §432]: Identify “covered facilities” 

constituting at least 75% of the agency’s 

facility energy use. Each covered facility 

must have an energy manager 

designated and meet additional 

requirements. Energy and water 

evaluations must be completed every 4 

years for each facility. Facility energy 

managers are also responsible for 

commissioning equipment and 

establishing O&M plans for measuring, 

verifying, and reporting energy and 

water savings.

[EISA §434(b)]: By October 16, 2016, 

each agency shall provide for equivalent 

metering of natural gas and steam.

Green Roofs

Minimize consumption of energy, water, 

and materials through cost-effective, 

innovative strategies, such as highly 

reflective and vegetated roofs. 

[§2(g)(iv)]
66

Goal/Target E.O. 13423 E.O. 13514 Existing Statute

Building Portfolio 

Management

Manage existing building systems to 

reduce consumption of energy, water, 

and materials. [§2(g)(v)]

Identify alternatives to renovation that 

reduce existing assets’ deferred 

maintenance costs. [§2(g)(v)]

Identify opportunities to consolidate and 

dispose of existing assets, optimize real 

property portfolio performance, and 

reduce environmental impacts. 

[§2(g)(vi)]

Historic Buildings

Promote long-term viability of agencyowned historic buildings by ensuring 

that rehabilitation utilizes best practices 

and technologies in retrofitting. 

[§2(g)(vii)]

Sustainable 

Acquisition

Purchase products that are:

 Recycled, 

 Biopreferred 

 ENERGY STAR

 FEMP-designated,

 EPEAT

 WaterSense (and other waterefficient) 

[§2(d)]

Ensure 95% of new contract actions for 

products and services are: 

 Energy efficient

 Water efficient

 Biobased-content

 Environmentally preferable

 Non-ozone depleting,

 Recycled-content

 Non-toxic or less-toxic than 

alternatives [§2(h)(i)]

[EPAct 2005 §104]: Requires Federal 

agencies to incorporate energy 

efficiency criteria consistent with 

ENERGY STAR and FEMP-designated 

products for all procurements involving 

energy-consuming products and 

services.

[EISA §525]: Requires procurement to 

focus on ENERGY STAR and FEMPdesignated products.

[EISA §524]: Encourages agencies to 

minimize standby energy use in 

purchases of energy-using equipment.

NOTE: Preferences in RCRA 6002, 

FSRIA 9002, and EPCRA not included.
67

Goal/Target E.O. 13423 E.O. 13514 Existing Statute

Electronics 

Stewardship

Ensure that 95% of agency 

electronic product acquisitions are 

EPEAT registered. [§2(h)]

Enable the ENERGY STAR feature 

on agency computers and monitors. 

(§2(h))

Establish and implement policies to 

extend the useful life of agency 

electronic equipment. (§2(h))

Use environmentally sound disposal 

practices for electronics. (§2(h))

Ensure procurement preference for 

EPEAT-registered electronic products. 

[§2(i)(i)]

Enable power management, duplex 

printing, and other energy-efficient or 

environmentally preferable features on 

all eligible DOE electronic products. 

[§2(i)(ii)]

Employ environmentally sound 

disposition of excess or surplus 

electronic products. [§2(i)(iii)]

Ensure procurement of ENERGY STAR 

and FEMP-designated electronic 

equipment. [§2(i)(iv)]

Implement best management practices 

in energy-efficient management of 

servers and Federal data centers. 

[§2(i)(v)]

[EISA §431]: Reduce building energy 

intensity 3% annually through 2015, or 

30% total reduction by 2015 (baseline 

2003). 

Environmental

Management 

Systems

Implement EMSs to support goals of 

EO. [§3(b)] [See also CEQ 

Instructions 3/28/2007]

Continue implementation of EMSs; 

ensure they are maintained to achieve 

the goals of the EO. [§2(j)]

Prepared by DOE’s Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance (HS-22) with assistance from the Federal Energy Management Program, 12-02-09.
68

Appendix 5. Scope 3 Calculator Tool
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
F1147-E(10/2008)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

October 2010

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Beyond the Inventory: An Interagency Collaboration to Reduce 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Greater Yellowstone Area

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-08GO28308

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Alicen Kandt, Eliza Hotchkiss, and Mike Fiebig

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/TP-7A20-49291

5e. TASK NUMBER

FE10.R110

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401-3393

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP-7A20-49291

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

As one of the largest, intact ecosystems in the continental United States, land managers within the Greater 

Yellowstone Area (GYA) have recognized the importance of compiling and understanding agency greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions. The 10 Federal units within the GYA have taken an active role in compiling GHG inventories on a 

unit- and ecosystem-wide level, setting goals for GHG mitigation, and identifying mitigation strategies for achieving 

those goals. This paper details the processes, methodologies, challenges, solutions, and lessons learned by the 10 

Federal units within the GYA throughout this ongoing effort. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

National Renewable Energy Laboratory; NREL; U.S. Department of Energy; DOE; Federal Energy Management 

Program; FEMP; U.S. Forest Service; USFS; national parks; Greater Yellowstone Area; GYA; greenhouse gas 

emissions; GHG inventory; GHG mitigation

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18