FTS-USDA FS
                                                                          Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                               04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                              Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                Page 1

                                      FTS-USDA FS

                             Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                   April 15, 2009
                                    12:00 pm CT

Coordinator:   Excuse me please. This is the operator and I do need to let parties know that
               today's call is being recorded. If anyone has any objections, you may
               disconnect at this time. You may begin.

(Dan):         All right. Thank you. Okay. So this is - this is the 2007 Greater Yellowstone
               Area Greenhouse Gas Inventory. And I will just jump right into it. The big
               picture store here is that the Forest Service joined the EPA Climate Leaders
               Program in 2007. We were the first Federal land management agency to join.

               What's that? If you have a question, jump right in. If not, could you please use
               your mute button. All right.

               So the Forest Service initially planned for seven pilot locations to do
               greenhouse gas inventories but for one reason or another only the Greater
               Yellowstone Area one has been done so far.

               The Greater Yellowstone Area also is the only one that is based on an
               ecosystem - ecosystem wide and is ecosystem based rather than being based
               on a single forest. This inventory being the first will be a model for the rest of
                                                                       FTS-USDA FS
                                                          Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                               04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                              Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                Page 2

the agency and the lessons learned from this inventory will be used to inform
future inventories.

This was a springboard for ecosystem wide collaborative goal setting and
implementation for the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. And
the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee consists of three Federal
agencies and within the GYA area. The Forest Service, the National Park
Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

So part or all of the following forests were included in this inventory. The
Bridger-Teton, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Caribou-Targhee, The Custer, Gallatin
and Shoshone National Forest.

The results of this inventory will serve as the base year against which all
annual future inventories will be compared. Stanford Progenic Emissions of
the three main greenhouse gases are considered in this inventory, which
includes carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

This tool and therefore this inventory does not take any carbon sequestration
or storage into consideration.

Similar inventories were conducted by the other Federal land management
agencies within the GYA. The National Park Service conducted inventories of
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks using the climate leadership and
parks tools also called CLIP.

And I assisted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with their inventories of the
two national wildlife refuges within the GYA, the National Elk Refuge and
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife refuge. And we used the same climate
leaders tool for those inventories.
                                                                        FTS-USDA FS
                                                           Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                               Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                 Page 3

So this is a look at the ranger districts within the GYA. The Forest Service
presence within the GYA expands three regions; one, two and four; and
includes all or parts of six national forests and 23 individual ranger districts.

This spread across administrative regions and forests presented some difficult
logistical challenges to the team because each time a request was made or a
problem was discovered, it had to be replicated six times, once for each forest.

There were additional challenges because each region does things slightly
differently. For example, data storage and retention of records can be done
slightly differently and even the classification of vehicles varied between
regions slightly and that ended up being a really challenging problem to

Chasing down or asking for the creation of code tables so that we could
correctly interpret the codes in the spreadsheets was just one example of a lot
of challenges that a multi-regional effort faces as compared to an effort on a
single forest.

Doing the inventory in a single region would have simplified the task but the
boundaries that the team was asked to do the inventory for were pre-
determined and they represent an actual ecological border to the Great
Yellowstone ecosystem rather than an administrative border for a single

And there's a look at the map of the GYA. It spans three states, Montana,
Wyoming and Idaho. It's comprised of both Federal and private land. The
private land I believe is the purplish color. Then you can see each of the six
national forests and the wildlife refuges and then the two national parks.
                                                                         FTS-USDA FS
                                                            Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                 04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                  Page 4

So now we're going to move into the approach that we took to do this
inventory. And in the beginning of the inventory I actually wasn't involved in
the process so this is just sort of what I've heard about how we went about
doing this.

The decisions were made on general parameters of the inventory such as
geographic and organizational boundaries, base year and major pollutants.
And these decisions affect the rest of the inventory and how it's conducted
because they determine what areas will be considered and what areas will be
excluded from the inventory.

And these decisions are affected by issues such as anticipated availability of
data, whether a category is de minimis which means that it represents in this
case 5% or less of the total and - or whether the organization has operational
control over emissions.

Next the selection of the tool also has a big affect on the inventory. In this
case deflection of the tool was dictated by out membership in the Climate
Leaders Program.

This tool tracks three main pollutants, CO2, methane and nitrous oxide while
other tools such as the CLIP tool used by the Park Service account for other
pollutants as well such as hydro flora carbons and cap emissions.

I don't think that it's a big issue that the climate leaders tool does not address
hydro flora carbons because they're usually very small contributors to the
overall emissions and cap emissions are not considered to be greenhouse
gases. They're more associated with local air quality. So I think the climate
leaders tool tracking those three main pollutants is as it should be.
                                                                        FTS-USDA FS
                                                           Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                               Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                 Page 5

So then for - as I was getting involved, we were sending out the survey to all
the participating forests and asking them for general information on the types
of emissions that they have on their forests and what those sources are. Also
what emissions data would be difficult or impossible to get.

And then the next step after we received and compiled the results of that
initial questionnaire we developed a more detailed data request asking for
things like fuel types, amounts of fuel used, equipment that burns the fuel
because that matters in terms of the methane and nitrous oxide but not so
much with the CO2.

But different types of vehicles, different types of equipment will burn fuel in
slightly different ways and whether they have catalyst converters and various
other equipment determines the profile of emissions for each vehicle.

So it was important to have as much information on the vehicles as we could
and then as well as asking for the - if they used any other greenhouse gas
emitting materials.

These results are the basis of the rest of the inventory so it was important to
check each survey that came back to us for completeness, accuracy and to be
sure that there was no double counting.

In one of the inventories I did for one of the refuges in this survey they sent
back all of the fuel use information for all the vehicles, all the handheld
equipment, ATVs, snowmobiles, everything and then they also sent me
information on the fuel that was used that year from the ConVault which is a
large fuel storage tank.
                                                                         FTS-USDA FS
                                                            Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                 04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                  Page 6

And initially I counted both and even (though) the fuel from the ConVault
was used in those vehicles and so it was actually double counted. And then
when I asked them to review the inventory, they pointed that out and that like
it cut in half their total emissions. So it's a really important step for, you know,
to check and to double check.

Okay. So next. The QAQC was the step that ended up taking the longest to
complete because like I said earlier, anytime someone found a mistake, it had
to be found and corrected for each forest.

This was also the most important step to do thoroughly. By doing a complete
and thorough check for each category we each had to check each other's work
and ask for explanations about how the data was obtained, where it came
from, if the time period was correct and, you know, whether all relevant
information was included and irrelevant information excluded.

Once the sources were verified to be correct and it was determined that the
data was valid, the next step was to do independent checks on the data entered
into the tool. And this was so that we could make sure that the tool was
reflecting what the forest sent us.

And then the final step in the process was to send the tool to the forest for
their final check (to send) and verification that the data was correct. And then
we also sent it out to various other people for review such as (Anna Jones
Crab Tree) and others who are knowledgeable about the subject.

And then for (Julie Tucker) who I worked closely with and who's really the
energy behind the whole inventory, she wrote most of the report and I helped
her in the editing and maybe some content.
                                                                         FTS-USDA FS
                                                            Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                 04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                  Page 7

We sent it out and other people who are skilled with writing and editing
technical reports took a look at it and that report actually is in the final stages.
I have to do one final review today and then I think it should be available very

Okay. So next. Emissions by source category. Are there any questions so far?
Okay. I'll take that as a no. So I'm just going to go through each of these
source categories. They are separated by this all the way to the left.

There are direct emissions, indirect emissions and then optional which is you
can choose to include these in an inventory or you can choose to exclude
them. And for a couple we chose to include and a couple we chose to exclude
and I'm just going to go through each one fairly quickly.

So the first in the direct category was mobile sources. These sources include
on road and off road vehicles such as cars, trucks, tractors, construction
equipment, lawn mowers and ATVs.

Forest fleets are comprised of three main categories of vehicles. There's the
WCF or Working Capital Fund, the GSA or General Services Administration
vehicles and then there were other forest owned, locally forest owned vehicles
such as snowmobiles, ATVs and lawn mowers and other handheld equipment.

Most of the WCF and GSA vehicles are on road vehicles like cars and trucks
whereas the forest owned fleet is primarily made up of smaller off road
vehicles like ATVs, snowmobiles and lawn mowers and tractors. And this
makes a difference in when you are trying to collect the data.

The WCF and GSA data is generally available on national databases and you
can find the right people to talk to and get that information. The forest owned
                                                                       FTS-USDA FS
                                                          Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                               04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                              Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                Page 8

fleet you really have to track it down by forest and find who's the fleet
manager or who's the forest engineer and who has this data, where is it stored
and can you send it to me. And that ends up being quite a bit of work actually.

So moving on. Next is stationary sources and these were - and that is a yes for
whether it was included in the inventory. And that was a large source of - that
was the second largest source of emissions and the fuels in this category are
generally used for space heating and buildings. It also includes wood used in -
for campfires and by visitors.

Whenever possible, this data included data from leased buildings but we
couldn't always find that information. And we attempted to exclude data for
the rental cabins, concession areas, visitors and the public.

And the reason we excluded that is because we do not have operational
control over that and so we would be very limited in our ability to make a
difference in emissions in those areas. So we were really focusing on areas
that we have operational control over where we could have an affect on the

Moving on, prescribed fire and wildfire suppression. This was not only time
consuming and difficult to quantify these emissions but the Forest Service
mission is so intertwined with firefighting and wildfire fighting that you can't
always make a clean break and determine whether this vehicle was used
primarily for firefighting or only for firefighting or whether it was used for
other things.

And we did get several reports from forests that said that they use engines for
activities other than just fire suppression. I know that one of them said they
used them to clean out latrines. So you can't really just exclude them totally
                                                                        FTS-USDA FS
                                                           Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                               Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                 Page 9

but we just tried where possible to not include activities related to wildfire

Okay. So air conditioners, refrigerators and freezers and I'm going to throw
fire extinguishers in there too. The data required for these sources includes
type and number of air conditioning equipment. Refrigerant charge, annual
leak rates and we don't track any of that information. So it was impossible to
get any data for that.

People had some idea. You know, I think we did it last year for most of the
fire extinguishers and we had one freezer recharged but there were no records
of this data. And so we just decided to exclude that.

And where fire extinguishers are concerned, the majority of fire extinguishers
did not use greenhouse gases either as fire suppression chemicals or as
propellants. So this was assumed to be de minimis and anyway we don't have
the date even on - I think some of the forests had data on how many fire
extinguishers but they didn't collect data or retain any records on the recharge
rate or on anything else.

So just having the number of fire extinguishers wasn't enough to include it in
the - in the emissions inventory.

Gas waste streams according to responses from all six national forests, there
were no sources burning gas waste on national - gas waste on national forests
so we didn't pursue that any further.

Then we move into the indirect emissions. And so we start with electricity.
This source covers electricity used for any purpose such as lighting or heating.
And it's collected in consumption of kilowatt-hours.
                                                                          FTS-USDA FS
                                                             Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                  04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                 Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                 Page 10

And so most of this - most of the data for this category came from NFC and
only a small percentage came from the forest level data, I think about 10%. So
while that 10% is a substantial amount and a significant amount, 90% of the
emissions data came from NFC, from a national forest.

And it ended up taking a lot of time and effort to collect that forest level data
and so there was a little bit of - just of back and forth as to is it worth
collecting that extra 10% of the emissions data and, you know, that was just
for this inventory. There's nothing to say that that's how it would be for others.

But for this one was it worth it getting that extra 10% with all the time and
energy that it took to get it? And I think the questions still sort of up in the air
but yeah, I mean, you can - you can get a lot of the emissions from just that
one national source and save yourself a lot of time and effort.

So - and then the next one is moving on to imported heater steam. This
activity doesn't occur on any of the forests and so this was not considered any

Moving down into the optional categories. We included employee business air
travel. This source in the tool would encompass - there are places to put data
for many different sources of business air travel - or business travel in non-
Government owned vehicles such as rental cars, taxis, trains, commercial
airplanes and personal vehicles. But for the purposes of this inventory, we
only addressed business air travel.

Next, employee commuting. We calculated emissions from forest service
employees commuting in their personal vehicles. Individual forests provided
number of full time and seasonal employees working on their forest for 2007.
                                                                         FTS-USDA FS
                                                            Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                 04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                Page 11

And then they also gave an estimate of the typical miles traveled daily by full
time and by seasonal employees.

Again, this category is not tracked but we thought that it would be a
substantial contributor to total emissions so we really wanted to include this.
However, since it's not tracked, this was just best guesses by emissions and
engineering folks on the local forests.

And so, you know, the quality of this data is not going to be the highest. In
fact, it's quite low I would argue. But it's worth including so that it gives an
idea of what in a general idea of what overall contribution from employee
commuting is and it also acts as a placeholder and a reminder for future
inventories that maybe this is a category that we may want to start tracking.

And, you know, if it is - if it does turn out to be a substantial contributor to
overall emissions, it might be something that's worth tracking and to get a
handle on.

So then moving on, product transport and offsite waste disposal were not
considered because the data wasn't really available and it would be too time
consuming to try to track this.

But we did think that in the future for offsite waste disposal considering that
recycling could have a pretty big impact on the overall emissions in terms of
reduction, it might be helpful to quantify offsite waste disposable for future

Okay. Emissions by forest. So now some forest wide trends begin to emerge
when you start to break down the numbers. For example, mobile sources are
                                                                      FTS-USDA FS
                                                         Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                              04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                             Confirmation #7918422
                                                                             Page 12

53% of total emissions from the forest service in the GYA and are the highest
category for each forest throughout the GYA.

When we look at totals from each category by forest we see that Custer is the
lowest across the board except for employee commuting and this is probably
because the Custer only has one district within the Greater Yellowstone Area.

Beaverhead-Deerlodge also only has one district and the numbers there are
similar to where the entire forest is within the GYA. So more analysis is
called for, particularly analyses based on a normalizing metric such as per
employee or per square foot would be more useful for inter-forest

Also across the board purchased electricity is the second highest source and
makes up 22% of the total. And this is a category where improvements can
really be made through changes in personal habits such as turning off
computers overnight, installation of energy saving equipment like sound and
motion detectors for lights and by changing the chosen electricity suppliers.

For example, by no buying electricity from power companies that burn coal to
going with companies that generate electricity from renewable sources such as
biomass wind, geothermal or solar.

And by making those changes that can have a very big effect on emissions
from purchased electricity which like I said was 22% of the total and that
could be a real place to focus.

The next highest score category were stationary emissions or stationary
sources. And this category is primarily made up of emissions from non-
                                                                        FTS-USDA FS
                                                           Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                               Confirmation #7918422
                                                                               Page 13

electric stationary space heating equipment. Fields for this category include
propane, natural gas, fuel oil and wood.

And for this category the most interesting and I would say controversial point
particularly for the forest service to emerge from this category was the
disproportionate emission of methane from wood combustion and we can talk
about that further in the question time.

Moving on to lessons learned. So the lessons learned across GYA are
basically that mobile sources are always the highest contributor. Purchased
electricity has - was always the second highest contributor and stationary
sources were the third highest emitter across the board.

Some take home messages; both WCF and GSA fleet fuel economy is low and
could be improved. GSA mileage data is not accurate enough to be used for
inventory work but could be improved and that's just - I don't know how much
we want to get into that.

It was just that the quality of GSA data wasn't always up to snuff and we
couldn't always use it without introducing big errors in things like fuel

So options available to address efficiency issues in buildings depends on who
owns the building. Much easier to do in a Forest Service owned building and
much harder to do with a leased or a shared ownership building.

The majority of emissions were captured by national sources. Forest level data
only captured a small percentage of the emissions data for purchased
electricity and stationary combustion.
                                                                        FTS-USDA FS
                                                           Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                               Confirmation #7918422
                                                                               Page 14

Next, wood contributed a disproportionately large percentage of methane
emissions compared with other fuels. And finally some Forest Service data
recording and data storage systems such as (EMIS) and NFC are outdated and
contain inconsistencies and data gaps.

But now we're going to just widen it out a little bit to take a look at the wider
perspective. The NREL or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory will
consolidate the results of all the inventories to develop a total emissions
footprint for the GYA.

Ultimately the consolidated inventory will capture all anthropogenic
emissions on all Federal lands within the GYA. And the three Federal
agencies will use this inventory to set joint emission reduction goals GYA

Taking a look at the inventories that were gathered throughout the entire
Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, Grand Teton National Park and Yellowstone
National Park use CLIP, the CLIP tool and those were both finalized using
2007 data.

The two refuges, National Elk Refuge and Red Rock Lake - Red Rock Lakes
have been completed. It says draft form there and I think we're still waiting to
finalize it but are mostly done. And then the Forest Service, all six national
forests are finalized.

And so this is a table that just shows total emissions from each of the main
categories as well as totals by individual forests, park or refuge. And it's sort
of a lot to take in just in numbers. This is a look at that same data graphically
                                                                        FTS-USDA FS
                                                           Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                               Confirmation #7918422
                                                                               Page 15

You can see Yellowstone really shoots up there. And I think that was due to
the fact that CLIP, the CLIP tool which was what they used for their inventory
includes a category for visitors and emissions from visitors.

And so mobile emissions which is the vehicles as well as visitor centers which
are - have light burning all the time and have to be well heated and
maintained. I think that at least in preliminary early analysis I think that's what
has emerged as the - why Yellowstone is so high.

If we look at the next slide here it breaks it down by category and it's really
purchased electricity that really jumps out. And I believe that has to do with
visitors, you know, being such a big part of the emission there.

But another interesting thing about this is that if you look at mobile
combustion for Yellowstone versus mobile combustion Forest Service wide
within the GYA, that's all of the six national forests added together, it's almost

And so I think that - I'm not exactly sure what it says but I think it says that
the Forest Service mission is very closely tied with driving. Being a land
management agency we do have to do a lot of driving and often driving in
four wheel drive vehicles through snow and mud and that kind of thing which
is not always the most efficient way to drive.

But I think it also says that there may be some room for improvement both for
the forest service and for the Yellowstone National Park. And that's it. So if
there's any questions, I'd be happy to attempt to answer them.
                                                                                           FTS-USDA FS
                                                                              Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                   04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                  Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                  Page 16

(Meg Ressing):   This is (Meg Ressing). I had a quick question. The wood burning, what type
                 of - is that just open fires or is that (pellet) stove? What's sort of included in

(Dan):           Well I think - I think you can attribute the large emissions from methane to a
                 few different factors. Methane emissions from wood increases if the wood is
                 not fully dry. The emissions are lower if it's completely burned or if it's
                 burned at a higher temperature.

                 And methane emissions are different between say an open campfire versus a
                 wood burning stove versus a biomass burning power plant. And so the tool
                 doesn't specify or give you the option of changing the equation based on how
                 the wood was burned.

                 And in fact we don't even have any data on how the wood was burned. It was
                 just given to us in a - it was given to us in tons by each forest. And I think one
                 forest gave us information on tons of pellet.

                 So the tool I think is general in this wood burning category in that the - you
                 know, there should probably be separate equations for how each of the wood
                 categories is assessed and it's not.

                 And so what I assume for this tool is that it's scientifically conservative
                 estimates probably meaning that it will represent more emissions than may
                 have actually happened. But just to be conservative we don't want to try to,
                 you know, push anything under the rug.

                 So we're just saying that yeah, this may be a little high but - and I also happen
                 to have the opportunity to compare this using he CLIP tool. But nevertheless I
                                                                                          FTS-USDA FS
                                                                             Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                  04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                 Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                 Page 17

                  think taking all of that into consideration even, I think, that methane emissions
                  from wood burning would still emerge as sort of disproportionately high.

(Julie Tucker):   This is (Julie Tucker). I didn't think I would be able to be on this call. One
                  thing I want to mention that is this is a surprise to us about methane and
                  nitrous oxide.

                  And the bottom line is that I looked into the numbers and behind the numbers
                  and talked to an expert in this area and what it is is wood generally no matter
                  how it's burned, it is going to emit a lot more methane and a lot more nitrous
                  oxide compared to fossil fuels.

                  And that was what was the surprise. And so if you look - and the report will
                  go into a little bit more detail, but if you look at the like amount of Btu we use
                  compared to fossil fuel, it emits so much more methane and nitrous oxide and
                  they have higher global warming potential.

                  So it's kind of - it's something that we shouldn't discount or overlook and I
                  guess that was just a surprise that emerged.

(Meg Ressing):    Okay. Thanks.

(Jennie Van Eaton):   Hi. This is (Jennie Van Eaton). You said that you're getting ready to
                  finalize the report.

(Dan):            Yes.

(Jennie Van Eaton):   Will you have it available somewhere either at the Washington office
                  sustainable site or somewhere where we could access the final report to look
                  at it?
                                                                                          FTS-USDA FS
                                                                             Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                  04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                 Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                 Page 18

(Dan):            (Julie), do you know how that's going to be accessible?

(Julie Tucker):   Yes. It should be done this week. I mean the changes we had were very minor.
                  And that will have to be sent to Jackie Myers and I think she'll make the
                  decision about when it can be released because it has to go to the typical
                  channels in Washington.

                  But hopefully at least internally it could be released as soon as she's fine with
                  use releasing it internally. And then it will probably be posted publicly after
                  it's gone through internal review.

                  So I suspect at least for those who are involved in this and those who are the
                  pilots or the leads of other pilots so that they can get their hands on it very
                  soon, probably even next week.

(Jim McGinnis): Can you hear me okay?

(Dan):            Yes.

(Jim McGinnis): Hi. (Jim McGinnis) here. May I ask you a question?

(Dan):            Yes.

(Jim McGinnis): Yeah. Thanks for this slide presentation. Really appreciate the work you're
                  doing. I have a couple questions. You got information from NFC apparently
                  on utility use, right?

(Dan):            Yes.
                                                                                          FTS-USDA FS
                                                                             Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                  04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                 Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                 Page 19

(Jim McGinnis): Well, from what I gather there are, you know, there are dozens, hundreds of
                  utilities across the country and I'm assuming there might be multiple utilities
                  there in the Greater Yellowstone area. Each one has a different mix of CO2
                  generating capacity, you know.

                  So number one, was that taken into account? And number two, where the
                  building ownership plays a role in the greenhouse gas production, you were
                  mentioning that, I have a suggestion potentially for that. But could you answer
                  that first question for me; NFC, and whether you were able to parse out the
                  CO2 emissions?

(Dan):            The way that it's done - the way that the calculations are done in the tool is
                  that there's this EPA program called eGRID and if you tell the tool what
                  region you are in and where the electricity is being consumed then it spits out
                  the results based on I think the general mix of fuels in that area. It's not based
                  on a specific individual power plant.

(Jim McGinnis): Right. I noticed that too. I went to that sight and saw that same thing. That's
                  too bad we can't get any closer than that. Okay.

(Dan):            Well I think at some point you probably could. I mean if we had more time
                  and we could really track it down, we could do that.

(Jim McGinnis): Okay. Great. Thanks. Yeah. It's a tough question or a tough thing to get
                  around. The other one is building ownership. I actually made a
                  recommendation to the chief, which I never got a reply on. No doubt because
                  she probably didn't read it. Who knows?

                  But it was about, you know, the amount of - we got $2 billion coming to the
                  Forest Service right now in stimulus money. And even private buildings I
                                                                                         FTS-USDA FS
                                                                            Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                 04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                Page 20

                  could see where - I know we have this super, you know, thing that's able to
                  fund Forest Service or Federal buildings for retrofits.

                  But I could see using stimulus money for that. Have you thought about
                  tapping into that or do you have any role to play in that process?

(Dan):            Yeah. I would have no role to play in that.

(Jim McGinnis): Okay. All right. Thank you.

(Dan):            Sounds like a good suggestion.


(Julie Tucker):   I wanted to answer - this is (Julie Tucker) again. I just want to mention in
                  response to your question, are you familiar with the (sense) programs?

(Jim McGinnis): The what?

(Julie Tucker):   The (sense) program.

(Jim McGinnis): Yes.

(Julie Tucker):   Okay. Because I know that some regions are actually exploring that in doing
                  retrofitting getting, you know, in (sense) via, you know, funding and loans and
                  (expos) to do retrofitting of Forest Service buildings.

(Jim McGinnis): Right. That's through the Federal - the Federal Energy - what's it called? (KJ)
                  do you remember the name of that?
                                                                                          FTS-USDA FS
                                                                             Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                  04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                 Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                 Page 21

(Julie Tucker):   I can't remember the acronym but...

(Jim McGinnis): Yeah.

(Julie Tucker): know, as it relates to recommendations, I think one of the
                  recommendations is that - you know, we mentioned a report is that you got to
                  also look at - for example, if you don't have any control over it and it's a
                  leased building, can you at least find out where your energy use is because
                  usually it's folded into the lease.

                  And if you (could) separate monitoring, at least you have an idea of how
                  much energy you're using.

(Jim McGinnis): Correct.

(Julie Tucker):   But are you suggesting maybe that we should be looking into doing retrofits
                  of leased buildings or private?

(Jim McGinnis): Well long term leases - I know a lot of Forest Service buildings are in a long
                  term lease and let's say that you have another five to ten years in a lease.

(Julie Tucker):   Yeah.

(Jim McGinnis): Would the turnaround for certain retrofits be worth it like for insulation for
                  instance that would benefit us from a utility perspective?

(Julie Tucker):   Yeah. I think it's a great point.

(John Fatong):    Hi. This is - can you hear me?
                                                                                          FTS-USDA FS
                                                                             Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                  04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                 Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                 Page 22

(Dan):            Yes.

(John Fatong):    Okay. Sorry. This is (John Fatong). I'm the new Technical Director of the
                  Climate Leaders Program.

(Dan):            Hi.

(John Fatong):    Hi. And I wanted to chime in here and that - my first question is have you had
                  this externally reviewed by anyone?

(Dan):            I think - (Julie) did we send this to the climate leaders folks?

(Julie Tucker):   Yeah. It's been reviewed extensively. (Manny Olava) reviewed numbers or
                  spreadsheets multiple times and then...


(Julie Tucker):   ...(Uki), the contractor (the source) reviewed our spreadsheets had some
                  feedback, we made some adjustments. He had reviewed a report and didn't
                  have any feedback on it. And so yes, we've gotten external. We also had
                  people in other agencies look at it and then internally within our agency.

(John Fatong):    Okay. Thanks.

(Jacqueline Emanuel): Hey. This is (Jacqueline Emanuel). At what stage does the certification
                  actually happen then? How does - how does this get certified by the climate
                                                                                          FTS-USDA FS
                                                                             Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                  04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                 Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                 Page 23

(Dan):            Well, the normal channel is that the partner, in this case the Forest Service,
                  would work with the contractor which would be (e-source) and (Uki Eda) is
                  the contact there.

                  And you have 60 to 80 hours of technical assistance free from those - from the
                  contractor to, you know, make sure that every part of the inventory is in sync
                  with the requirements of the Climate Leaders Program.

                  And once that inventory has been assembled at an IMP, the inventory
                  management plan has been drafted, then we generally do a site visit. And
                  these are all requirements of the Climate Leaders Program. And once those
                  three primary elements have been taken care of, then we, you know, it's
                  submitted to us. We review it and then approve it.

(Julie Tucker):   And the issue for us (Jackie), this is (Julie Tucker) again, is that our agency
                  has not finalized the inventory management plan. And so this inventory can't
                  be certified until that's done. We did a draft but there are reasons why I guess
                  that (Jackie) decided for us to hold off in finalizing the plan. But that probably
                  needs to be done very soon.

(Dan):            Yeah. And obviously this would - because it's for the Forest Service at large
                  that we would have to have all - was it six entities covered, is that right?

(Julie Tucker):   Yes.

(Dan):            Yeah.

(Julie Tucker):   Yes.

(Dan):            So...
                                                                                          FTS-USDA FS
                                                                             Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                  04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                 Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                 Page 24


(Julie Tucker):   I'd be curious as to what that - what the requirement is because those are just
                  policy as part of doing - I don't know that we are necessarily going to go
                  (forward) with all the power put I suspect we are. But I guess the bigger
                  question is how as an agency are we going to do these large global inventory
                  for our agency, for our facilities? And I think that needs to be discussed, you
                  know, with you all. With EPA and the contractor.

(Dan):            Yeah. And I don't know the details of it but unless there was some kind of
                  specific callout of the Forest Service was just going to report, you know, this
                  particular region, then that would be the case. If not, yeah, we need the idea
                  and for all other partners in the program, it's the complete organization. It's a
                  corporate wide (inventory).

                  All goals are assessed on a corporate wide basis. The inventory is corporate
                  wide. And that's generally how it's - and like I said, I don't know the details.
                  Maybe there's a special callout in this instance that I'm not aware of. We'll
                  look into it. We'll follow up with Jacqueline.

(Matt):           Hey. This is (Matt). I have a question specific to the exclusion of the
                  prescribed fire and wildfire suppression piece. I was just curious. Could you
                  expand on why the prescribed fire piece wasn't included within the operational

                  I understand the wildfire suppression because you can't predict, right, in terms
                  of a budget exactly what you're going to be using and it's hard to allocate
                  resources to that. But if you know where fires are going to be, just prescribed
                  fire wise, I'm just curious how that doesn't fall under the operational control
                                                                                           FTS-USDA FS
                                                                              Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                   04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                  Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                  Page 25

                  and it's been omitted from the mobile resources piece, mobile combustion

(Dan):            That answer - and maybe (Julie) can expand on this, but the best answer that I
                  can give is just that early on it was decided that fire activities just in general
                  were not going to be considered because it's too difficult.

                  Even if you know where the fires are going to be, you can't always say that the
                  fuel used for this vehicle was only used on a fire and, you know, other
                  resources only went to that fire. Maybe in some cases you can, but in doing a
                  forest wide inventory, I think it complicates things a lot. (Julie) do you have
                  anything else to say?

(Julie Tucker):   Yeah. There was an executive decision made in Washington not to include
                  fire but the inventory does include vehicles used for prescribed fires, even
                  used for some of the wildfires and even possibly some of the fuel used when
                  you, you know, use the torches - I can't remember what the - (drip) torches.

                  But we wouldn't know what part of it is included. That would probably be
                  found under mobile sources. So it's just tough. It's a very - it's very tough to
                  separate it out.

                  And so some of it's included but we do not - we tried to - we tried not to
                  aggressively go after wildfires or prescribed fires for, you know, the bottom
                  line decision that we weren't going to address it right now. It was just a lot to
                  chew off.

(Matt):           Would it possibly be maybe a double counting procedure if you were to like
                  specifically count prescribed fires since it's already a part of what a lot of the
                  vehicles are being used for just in their daily operations...
                                                                                          FTS-USDA FS
                                                                             Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                  04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                 Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                 Page 26


(Julie Tucker):   Yeah. We probably wouldn't even create our own separate category saying
                  well this is prescribed fire activity because we couldn't separate it out and
                  we've already included some of it in mobile (searches). But also remember
                  none of this includes vegetation burning. It doesn't include trees burning. This
                  is only anthropogenic activity.

                  And one could say well that if you're burning trees, you know, your
                  intentionally lighting them on fire or bushes on fire but that's not the intent of
                  this inventory.

(Matt):           Right. Yeah. I'm clear on that and that would really throw a rather confusing
                  piece into the whole bunch. And it's really - you could argument - or I'm sorry,
                  you could probably argue either way on really how you could even calculate

                  I was - I guess the - I guess my point is is that by distinguishing between
                  prescribed fire and wildfire suppression that it's confusing if the operations,
                  the mobile sources, resources and fuel that's being burned is being used in
                  prescribed fire, you know, suppression and maintenance and whatever else
                  goes along with that.

                  If it's already included in sort of that mobile sources piece then why even
                  make it separate? Because then someone may want to count it separately and
                  there could be a double counting potential...

                                                                                         FTS-USDA FS
                                                                            Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                 04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                Page 27

(Matt):  the future.

(Julie Tucker):   Well what it is is not whether you tackle it separately; it's whether you include
                  it. For example, we found out that one of the helicopters that we got fuel for,
                  like 800 gallons of aviation fuel. We found out that that was actually used
                  afterwards for fire suppression.

                  If it was used for training we would have probably included it. And so we
                  made a note and said look, we excluded it. It would have gone into mobile

(Matt):           Got it.

(Julie Tucker):   It's not a matter of separating them out but I do think this is something for
                  agency to look at and someone needs to eventually, you know, leadership
                  needs to make a decision on, you know, do we want a more carefully - once
                  you know who your big hitter sources are, you then probably should look
                  more carefully at what's the nature of activity?

                  So now we know - we know mobile's on the radar screen. Let's look more
                  carefully at what's (the activity) like. I think that we could do the same kind of
                  more focused study on (fire) activity, a separate kind of inventory if we really
                  want to understand how we could reduce emissions from fire.

                  I think it would be probably a more focused inventory dealing specifically
                  with fire activity. And it'd have its own set of complications for sure.

(Matt):           Thank you.
                                                                                             FTS-USDA FS
                                                                                Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                     04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                    Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                    Page 28

(Jim McGinnis): Can I ask one more question? (Jim McGinnis) here. It's about - you may have
                   answered this because I was not listening very well perhaps. But you were
                   talking about wood having greater production of methane and nitrous oxide.
                   Were those distinguished clearly as part of the burning program? Is that where
                   that fell out?

(Julie Tucker):    It's all from - it's all from residential - with stoves for the most part.


(Jim McGinnis): ...that was from residential stoves.

(Julie Tucker):    Yeah. It's mostly just from what's being used in buildings at the district level.

(Jim McGinnis): Oh, okay.

(Julie Tucker):    You know, it wasn't very much. What was it 2000 tons I think of wood. I can't
                   remember. But I was shocked by the emissions for the amount of wood that
                   was being used.

                   We almost didn't go to be honest. We thought, "Oh well, it's probably
                   inconsequential" but in by crossing the data we realized, "Oh." An interesting
                   story unravels.

(Jim McGinnis): Thank you.


(Jonathan Hile):   Hi.
                                                                                           FTS-USDA FS
                                                                              Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                   04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                  Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                  Page 29

Woman:             Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

(Jonathan Hile):   Yeah. I have a question. This is (Jonathan Hile) from also in Region 6. I might
                   need to be refreshed on the purpose of this study in the beginning but it seems
                   like it's a standalone as to anthropogenic causes of greenhouse gases. And I
                   guess my question would be is anybody looking at what the baseline emission
                   of greenhouse gases would be for this area I guess naturally causing -
                   naturally caused?

(Dan):             Natural sources of greenhouse gas emissions you mean?

(Jonathan Hile):   Yeah. Or is that out of the scope of this project? Are we just simply focused
                   on, you know, the agency human caused greenhouse gases here?

(Dan):             Yeah. I think you're right on that second part. It's not really based on natural
                   emissions partially because there's not much we can do about that. And I think
                   it's much more useful to get a baseline and a assess, you know, where these
                   emissions are coming from from our operations and how we can improve
                   efficiencies through that. Does that make any sense?

(Jonathan Hile):   Yeah. Yeah. It does. But I mean if you're in this area, you - it just doesn't -
                   how do I phrase this? I guess it just doesn't seem like it should be separated as

                   You're in that area and then therefore what's your number of how much you're
                   putting out is going to - what's that going to tell you in terms of the area that
                   you're in? I mean obviously if you're in a city and you're pumping it out; but if
                   you're out in the wilderness, can it absorb some I guess is my question?
                                                                                           FTS-USDA FS
                                                                              Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                   04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                  Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                  Page 30

(Julie Tucker):   Well - this is (Julie Tucker). I think - you know, we're looking at greenhouse
                  gases so it's loss of the (healthy stuff) versus - you know, some inventories
                  look more at metals or certain health sensitive glutens. I mean these of course
                  are health sensitive glutens but, you know, this is more related to quote global
                  warming climate change.

                  And so what the background noise is is somewhat irrelevant because the
                  source and where it's being emitted doesn't really matter. The bottom line is
                  you're putting it into the global air shed, I guess you could say.

                  But there are circumstances like for example if you're looking at ozone, if
                  you're worried about ozone which has health affects and you wanted to find
                  out what the background natural say views of all organic compounds are or
                  nitrous oxide then it is important to look at what's coming for example from
                  trees because you may realize well there's so much background noise from a
                  certain pollutant that reducing that pollutant from your anthropogenic will not
                  help you reduce ozone.

                  You got to go after the other pollutants that - and it's - I don't know if I'm
                  explaining this well. But there are reasons why you would look at sort of the
                  natural background baseline. And in this circumstance I don't think it's as
                  critical but I think it can be - it can play an important role in understanding the
                  context. Maybe someone else has some insights to share I'm not thinking of.

(John Fatong):    Well this is (John Fatong) again from the Climate Leaders Program. I'm
                  assuming that just like every other partner in the program, the point of the
                  program is to set goals and then to reduce your emissions and then meet those
                                                                                           FTS-USDA FS
                                                                              Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                   04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                  Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                  Page 31

                   And so you can only control, you know, what you operate and control. So
                   that's why they're not counting all the other natural, so to speak, natural
                   emissions that are occurring. They're counting what you control and can
                   therefore reduce.

(Jonathan Hile):   So what are - what are the goals being based on? Just how much we're already
                   producing and just cutting a percentage of it, not relating it to what the
                   surrounding area can absorb?

(John Fatong):     Yeah, no, that has nothing to do with it.

(Jonathan Hile):   Okay.

(John Fatong):     Basically you would start - you know, they're going to set a baseline for what
                   was it 2007 and then they'll set a goal over five to ten years and reduce those
                   emissions whether by absolute or normalized means based on that baseline.

(Jonathan Hile):   Okay. All right. Thank you.

Jacqueline Myers: Well se usually try to keep the open mike to one hour and we're about at that.
                   But I do want to invite anyone who has anything to share to please go ahead
                   and do that. Before though, I just want to mention that we are gearing up to
                   get the other six pilots going again based on the work that the Greater
                   Yellowstone Team has done.

                   So thank you for being the lead sled dog in this and we're going to be doing
                   greenhouse gas inventories and training with (Julie Tucker) and her team and
                   working more with (Uki) and trying to get our other pilots in the Pacific
                   Southwest in Region 5, the Forest Products Laboratory, the Yates building
                                                                                          FTS-USDA FS
                                                                             Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                  04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                 Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                 Page 32

                   here in D.C., the Francis Marion Sumter and the Tongass National Forest all

                   So we are hoping, and I don't know if anybody who is providing leaderships
                   for those pilots was able to make this call but one of the things we'd like to do
                   is schedule a time where we can have - once everybody's had a chance to
                   actually read the report, digest it and maybe ask some questions, tailor some
                   training around those questions so that we can get going and do inventories
                   for those areas.

                   So that's kind of how we're approaching this in the next phase. And I - you
                   know, I suppose that if anybody who's not a part of those pilots wanted to be
                   part of the training and where this goes next, there might be an opportunity to
                   do that. Just let me know.

(Jim McGinnis): Hey Jacqueline. (Jim McGinnis) here. Thanks for that information. It's great.
                   Hey I just wanted to give a very brief update - and (Jonathan) you're on still
                   too, right? (Jonathan Hile)?

(Jonathan Hile):   Yes.

(Jim McGinnis): Okay. (Jonathan) and I are both working on the upcoming summit, virtual
                   summit and just wanted to give you a heads up that we're working pretty hard
                   at that trying to get organized in a way that - we've got some - we're kicking
                   around some alternative on a virtual virtual summit or a localized virtual
                   summit. You know, kind of like we had in Madison.

                   We're leaning toward the virtual virtual right now which will be kind of fun to
                   virtualize it even more. And we're going to be reaching out to other regions
                                                                                            FTS-USDA FS
                                                                               Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                    04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                   Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                   Page 33

                   with some heads ups and some information about that. So just want to give
                   you a brief update on that. (Jonathan), do you have anything to add?

(Jonathan Hile):   No. No. That covered it.

(Jim McGinnis): Okay.

Jacqueline Myers: Does anybody else have anything they want to share? No, I'll just mention that
                   the - we have purchased some BigBelly solar trash compactors that hold five
                   times the amount of a normal trash can based on the compaction that they do.

                   And we were just able to help them get a - on the GSA advantage account so
                   that it's a little bit easier to order these solar trash compactors which really do
                   cut down on emissions because in theory, you know, you're collecting trash
                   much less if it's holding five times the amount.

                   And so we're looking for a forest that's willing to invest in some of these and
                   we would invest with them to try to do some analysis of and recording of how
                   much we're saving on emissions for trash pickup over a period of time. And
                   they've got a nice online tool that makes it really easy to do this.

                   So I'm going to be putting a letter out to that effect fairly soon so be looking
                   for that. And then the only other news I have is that the HCM, the
                   Albuquerque Server Center, the Human Capital Management building has
                   started a green team and their - one of their first items is to try to stop using a
                   pallet of paper every month or two like they're doing.

                   So (Sherry Wornstead), I don't know if you're still on the phone, but the help
                   that you gave us in getting them going on paper reduction was really helpful.
                                                                                         FTS-USDA FS
                                                                            Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                 04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                Page 34

(Jennie Van Eaton):   Jacqueline.

Jacqueline Myers: Yeah.

(Jennie Van Eaton):   Hi. This is (Jennie Van Eaton) from Region 3. I also - getting back to the
                  BigBelly solar trash compactors. We have that part of our micro-grant
                  proposal. Actually we just - we're trying to finalize the acceptance of the
                  micro-grant proposal. We had 39 proposals that totaled over $130,000 so it
                  was very successful.

                  We won't be able to fund everything but I think we're going to probably go
                  with ordering a couple of BigBellies and, you know, my suggestion was to try
                  to track, you know, how much is saved or how much better or greener it is by
                  having the BigBellies.

                  So I think we probably have a couple of forests here that would be able to
                  maybe help with the tracking on the BigBellies.

Jacqueline Myers: Great. And yeah, I have been in contact with somebody from I think it's the
                  (Seebola) maybe.

(Jennie Van Eaton):   Well maybe there's somebody else too.

Jacqueline Myers: Oh, okay. I think it was the rep person who was on the conference call that we
                  had when I was out there.

(Jennie Van Eaton):   Oh, okay.

Jacqueline Myers: Yeah.
                                                                                          FTS-USDA FS
                                                                             Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                  04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                 Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                 Page 35

(Jennie Van Eaton):   Okay. Yeah.

Jacqueline Myers: Yeah. That's great. I mean - we obviously don't have enough to invest but I'm
                  just - this is going to be a first come first served opportunity. So - but we need
                  to let everybody know how easy it is to acquire this technology now.

(Jennie Van Eaton):   Thanks.

Jacqueline Myers: Thank you.

(KeeJay):         Jacqueline.

Jacqueline Myers: Yes.

(KeeJay):         This is (KJ).

Jacqueline Myers: Hello.

(KeeJay):         How are you? Hey. A little more on the planning for the '09 summit, the 27,
                  28, 29 Portland at least emanating, and as (Jim) said we're considering some
                  alternatives to go with an even smaller audience that might actually be here in
                  Portland versus the virtual deployment part.

                  And either way we're trying to focus on the meeting as a virtual meeting and
                  whoever's in Portland will be participating in that virtual meeting just like
                  everybody else and kind of trying to take that perhaps to an additional new

                  (Liz) said the thing about the trash compactors and other items, you know.
                  Our theme right now is toolkit for success. So we're also really trying to focus
                                                                                          FTS-USDA FS
                                                                             Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                  04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                 Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                 Page 36

                  on things that we share in the summit this year that will really be - have high
                  take home value.

                  And it occurs to me that - and we're - as (Jim) said, we're going to be - his
                  team is going to be sending out a little bit of a feeler soon about the way we
                  might deploy the summit.

                  But in addition to that, we might tag on a feeler that if folks have some
                  projects like the trash compactor that we might want to begin to consider that
                  they will be included in one of the concurrent sessions and a really good
                  example of the toolkit we could use the somewhere else kind of a item.

(Jim McGinnis): Hey (Keejay), thanks. I saw you were offline. I figured you weren't on
                  anymore. Sorry about that.

(Keejay):         That's okay. I had to reset my computer.

(Jim McGinnis): Oh, okay.

(Keejay):         That's fine. I wasn't going to add anything else at that time but listening to the
                  solar trash compactor and everything else that's been shared today Jacqueline,
                  I just wanted to share and then with anyone on the call that I think we'll
                  probably want to have a pretty good focus on success stories in the field or
                  trial and error stories and will be looking forward to get a point of contact for
                  any of these stories.

Jacqueline Myers: Great.

(Keejay):         Thanks to (Marisa). I don't know if she's online today.
                                                                                          FTS-USDA FS
                                                                             Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                  04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                 Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                 Page 37

(Marisa):         Hi. No problem.

(Keejay):         So thanks for the ongoing work with us in getting the planned announcement
                  date on the site.


(Marisa): it.

(Keejay):         And I'll ask (Jonathan) and (Jim) to share with you the survey that they're
                  going to send out on deployment method and we can start to post a few of
                  those things on the site too.

(Marisa):         Okay.

Jacqueline Myers: And just so everybody knows, the site is down and because of this malworm
                  issue we're not sure when it'll be back up. But all the worldwide Web sites are
                  down until they ensure that we don't have the virus.

                  But I wanted to get back to regarding posting the greenhouse gas inventory
                  report. And I don't think it's going to be a problem getting that on the Web site
                  for folks to see.

                  We are ready - as soon as it gets in our hands, I think we're ready to move it
                  really quickly so that people who are looking for that report can look for it on
                  our Web site and we'll have a special place for it that's easy to find.

(Julie Tucker):   Great. Also I want to mention we also have the inventory tools. It's massive
                  Excel spreadsheet of at least 40 worksheets and we'll be posting that too
                  because that's been ready for quite some time. That would accompany the
                                                                                          FTS-USDA FS
                                                                             Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                                                                  04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                                                                 Confirmation #7918422
                                                                                                 Page 38

                  report. So those you really want to look behind the numbers and so any of the
                  pilot leads it'd be smart for them to look at that tool.

(Dan):            And then we'll also have a lessons learned report coming out in a few months,
                  right (Julie)?

(Julie Tucker):   Yeah. Probably within the next three to four weeks. And it'll be a supplement
                  to the report. It'll be more geared towards - if you're going to do an inventory,
                  here's some things you really think about and be aware of and don't, you
                  know, you know, don't go down some of the paths we did.

Jacqueline Myers: That's excellent. Thank you. Well great job (Dan) and (Julie) and thank you so
                  much for taking the time to share this and I suspect we'll be using Webinars
                  and VTC a lot more as we work to get these other pilots going. So just - that
                  must feel so great to have this thing done.

(Dan):            Well thanks for having us.

Man:              Yeah. Thank you for coming in.

Woman:            Thanks.

Jacqueline Myers: Good. Well if nobody has anything else then I guess we can sign off and the
                  next open mike will be May - looks like 20th is the third Wednesday in May.

Man:              Great call. Thanks a lot. Take care.

Jacqueline Myers: Great. Talk to you all next month.

Man:              Bye. Thanks.
                                               FTS-USDA FS
                                  Moderator: Jacqueline Myers
                                       04-15-09/12:00 pm CT
                                      Confirmation #7918422
                                                      Page 39

Woman:   Bye.

Man:     Thanks. Bye bye.


To top