In attendance:
Penny McBride
Heather Thomas
Dan Olson
Amy McCarthy
Amelia Terrapin
Kelly French
Meghan Hanson
Pete Sibley
Rick Knori

Jonathan introduced himself and gave a brief overview of Sustaining Jackson Hole. The primary question we are addressing is: “what is the legacy we want to leave for future generations?” We have set up 12 working groups to measure whether we are making progress or not towards our legacy.

Over the course of the three meetings we will try to answer the three fundamental questions: where are we? What do we know? What would we like to know? This is the focus of the first meeting.

At the second meeting, we will ask ourselves where we want to be. What do want to preserve for future generations? At the third session, we will ask ourselves how we can get there. We will have 3 two-hour meetings. We would like to update and expand this chapter on sustainability in TC. However, we don’t have the time/resources to do original research. A lot of interesting questions may come up, which we will include on the wish list. Any data in this report is going to be stuff that we already know that is out there. We’ll collate everything and write drafts, and circulate them through the summer. Hopefully we will have a final draft by Labor Day.

The Charture Institute, NRCC, and the Chamber of Commerce are co-sponsoring this effort. Jonathan then asked everyone to do self introductions. Tell us about who you are and your background. Given your respective organizations, if you were going to give a data-driven 10 minute presentation, what would tell us or the community? The filtering mechanism for the report is if this group were to do a 10 minute presentation on resource sustainability, what would you tell the community? Last year, we had no fear behind this threat. This year, we are having a SJH 2005 conference, “The State of the Community.” Each of the 12 groups will get up and give a 10-15 minute presentation on there area of interest. Someone from this group will give a 10-minute presentation on resource sustainability in TC. The idea of the conference is that we will have a good idea of what we know that is important to know. We will also have a “state of my jurisdiction” speech from the 8 public agencies. We will start to talk about cross-jurisdictional problems in the afternoon.

Penny McBride: Penny works for Larry Thal on his mountainside village project (in Victor). She is helping him with sustainability aspects of that project. She is also working for Terra Firma landscaping doing composting projects.

Heather Thomas is the ED of Jackson Community Recycling.

Dan Olson: Dan works with the Teton Science School as a consultant for their new campus building project. He is also starting his own business consulting with nonprofits/businesses for more efficient/ sustainable use of resources.

Amy Brennan McCarthy represents the Murie Center and the Teton Sustainability Project, a subset of the Murie Center.

Amelia Terrapin works with ZERI and at Dancer’s Workshop. The basic idea of ZERI is how to cross boundaries between social, environmental, and economic problems and see problems as opportunities for creative solutions to resource problems.

Kelly French owns Jackson Curbside Recycling, which started nearly 11 years ago.

Meghan Hanson works for Carney. She is a LEED-certified architect. She is currently working on a platinum certification project for the Rockefellers ranch. There are only 4 of these projects in the US.

Pete Sibley plays the banjo; he started TSP.

Rick Knori is the engineering and operations manager for Lower Valley Energy; he plans for future electric & gas needs.

Jonathan gave a little bit of background. There are 12 SJH reports. The Resource Sustainability is the suckiest. We had a lot of internal debates last year about how we should handle the issue of sustainability. Jonathan has a personal problem with the term as it has been overused and does not have a substantive definition. The issue is, “what qualities do we want to pass on to future generations?”

The debate we had last year is whether we weave sustainability consciousness into other working groups. Ultimately it was pretty difficult to do this. This realization happened about halfway through the project. So we got a little bit of data, but it’s weak. He is hoping we talk about it a little more thoughtfully this year.

Jonathan picked on Penny. From her perspective, what kind of information does she have that we can feed into this chapter? He wants to have a rich dialogue about what the possibilities are of thinking about sustainability. For example, how will Larry measure success in his green development?

Penny said that Larry is using standards for building- energy star standards. These are being used elsewhere, and he will hold his community to these measures. He is using the model New Urbanism, which includes a measure of a certain amount of open space. For himself, he is going to try and stick to an ethic of what he will not back down from. It has been challenging to get open space measures passed, for example. As far as composting goes, Dane has a greater vision about bringing organizations together to benefit the whole community well, as well as how to continue to make money.

Pete thought we should take a step back and ask, “what are the needs of the community?” How are they being met? With the definition and ideas put out last year, it comes around to how are these needs are being met? What is the local ability to produce necessary goods and services, and how much needs to be outsourced? Getting rid of waste is one need that needs to be met. Rick may be able to help us out with energy needs. Meghan said we should ask what people are not seeing. Why are people not recycling? We should address those people.

Amelia wondered about our basic needs- what are we producing here? What is being brought in? Heather wondered about the “sustainability of sustainability?” Does it help businesses to recycle their cardboard? Is it possible to increase recyclables from that standpoint? She is not sure if this is beyond our focus. Thinking about waste, and how much people consume, we should do an inventory- how much comes into this valley, where does it go?

Penny said that it goes back to values. Why can’t people recycle cardboard? Heather thinks we should look at overall consumption.

Meghan went to a Sustainability conference recently, which focused on looking at the triple bottom line- environmental, social, economic aspects. We are now starting to get into the economic part of it, and the society connects all of these aspects. Kelly thinks that this is where her business is. When she started it, the Town and County couldn’t fund it. People pay her for collection of their recyclables. A lot of places signed up right away, but she has files for businesses where it took employees asking “why aren’t we recycling?” to start recycling. She can tell us types of recyclables that businesses are doing. Her data can tie this- the economic and the environmental- together. Her businesses is based on environmental consciousness, because people pay for this service.

Dan suggested we take the economics out of it and ask, as a community, what do we need to preserve the environment of the area? We can look at water use, energy use. These things can be addressed independent of what people are paying now. There is a question of how do we get to our ideal? He sees a creation of an idea. The economics is interesting in how we get to the ideal, but it shouldn’t be a defining factor. How do we make sure we have enough water, energy, food? These are hard and fast sustainable measures which exist aside from whether we are going to pay for them.

Amelia thinks that the idea of inventory is good- we should start to see what we are shipping in and shipping out. What can we be doing here locally? We’ll be able to produce things locally cheaper rather then shipping them in. It won’t cost more money if it is environmentally conscious. We should become more and more locally-oriented.

Heather said that in many ways we are an island. The other thing to look at might be what people in our community are consuming. How many people go to Albertson’s and purchase environmentally conscious products? How many people are members of local coops (i.e. Cosmic Apple)?

Pete said that this is going back to the needs of our community- energy, food, water, shelter.

Rick wondered if you can assess how many resources are available locally. What is needed to sustain this? What about air quality, roads, sewers? Jonathan said that air quality is addressed in health; roads are sort of covered by transportation. One part of this process is that we are beginning to find out how little we know about ourselves- we don’t know how many miles of roads there are in TC.

Rick can tell us how many kwh and btus are consumed, but cars and wood stoves (CO2) would be hard to get a handle on. The world for LV is broken into residential and commercial accounts. There is a potential for gas and electricity, and green power is electric. Those are the only rates they have. They also have 7 customers (6 in TC and 1 in Afton) (and by the end of the year 10) generating power back on the grid. They can separate their data into what is used in TC (versus Star Valley). They have been offering green power over 3 years. Amy wants to measure the growth of green power customers over time and growth in Kelly’s business as well. Rick said that they hit a peak last year, and since they have cut the rate and it’s picked up again. He will get us a bunch of data. He can look at not just the aggregate energy use, but also number of customers. Rick has too much data, and we can decide what is important. A lot of it is generation data- they have a hydro plant in Afton, but other then the net metered people, all of the energy is brought into the valley.

Jonathan said that, in a change from last year, there is a lot of stuff that we’d like to know or sense but don’t know how to gather it. Any information about what we know (aside from opinions), we want to know it. One of the goals of the project is to have for the community a compendium of info about JH. If it does end up in the chapter it will go in the appendix. Rick said that they are planning a new transmission line, and has maps of this as well.

Kelly is happy to give numbers, but it isn’t necessarily representative of the valley. There are a lot of places that recycle themselves. Her info is not an indicator of who is recycling. She can tell us which businesses are or are not recycling. They are always trying to get more businesses signed up, but there is a benevolent maintenance guy who does it on his own time. Her data would be how many businesses have curbside pickup.

Jonathan said that it is a question of what you guys think is important to know- the group is the filters. In terms of Kelly’s business, what should the community know? What are the important things for the community to know?

Dan said that the point is what percent of recyclables are being captured- we could do a trash audit. How much of trash at the landfill can be recycled? Heather said that right now, 21% of trash generated is not going to the landfill. It’s either recycling, wood chips, people backyard composting on their own. You would need to survey to ask people. We don’t know how many people recycle, and it’s hard to say based on the diversion rate. She is interested in hazardous waste. Could we go to places that sell hazardous things and ask how much is purchased, and compare this to how much ends up at the hazardous waste facility? How much is going into the landfill?

Jonathan was trying to take the blame when he said that this was the suckiest chapter. It felt as though it was the least flushed out because he didn’t have feedback. One of the nice things in these groups last year was that people were able to talk about what we might do. If there is an opportunity that this group sees to work together- in terms of determining how many people are recycling, for example- we can move one small step forward. That’s where he would hope that we not only update and review this report, but also developed an action component. For example, we could try and do this recycling survey.

That noted, he would like to slog through the report. The criteria for inclusion were what we actually know v. what we would like to know, and what we had solid, reliable data for. Are the tons of recycled material important to know about resource sustainability? (Nods and grunts). Heather has another year’s worth of data. Is there anything else we know we measure (such as curbside pickup) out there that we have data for? Heather can figure out per capita amounts of trash generated. Jonathan asked what you use as the denominator- given tourists, transients, etc. Heather said that tourism is one of our industries. They are being catered to through restaurants, accommodations. Their waste is a waste of the businesses. Kelly thinks that it should be divided by the number of residents in TC, and look at it as a product of our economy. We generate a lot more waste then other places because we have a tourism economy. Dan suggested that a manufacturing-based economy would have waste as well, and here we address the discrepancy.

Jonathan also noted that we don’t know how many people there are in TC. In early 2000, the census bureau estimated 14,000 people in TC; the actual count said 18,500. If you just accept this discrepancy, you could use a population estimate; is this a meaningful statistic, knowing that it would be internally accurate year to year? Kelly thinks you need to know how much waste there is. You need a quantifiable number- percentage. If we know that 21% is being recycled, this is more valuable then the actual tonnage.

Jonathan asked if the total number here is sufficient, or would dividing it per capita be more useful. Kelly thinks that people need a light bulb statistic. We need a personal scale. The 21% is not helpful, as it includes wood waste from construction sites. How much of it is actual recycling? The residency factor is tricky- but if it is internally consistent it’s ok. Heather thinks that things need to be made understandable to the community. If there are consistently weird numbers, it probably doesn’t matter much. Jonathan asked if there is a national diversion average. It is 30%- but this depends on a community’s recycling capabilities, some places include composting. We could look at the percentage of trash that can be recycled or diverted (not including backyard composting), and that could help us get a better number. Dan wants to know what percentage of what CAN be recycled IS recycled.

Amelia wondered about a trash audit. Heather thought that she could collect data prior to and after her “reduce reuse recycle” campaign to evaluate its effectiveness. Heather said that it is illegal to dig through people’s trash. Kelly thinks that, for an estimate, we need to talk to the trash guys. Dan thinks getting a trash audit is rock solid. We can tell TC that we can be recycling 40% more. Amelia asked if you can translate that to an economic value- how much it costs at the landfill to throw away this trash. Kelly thinks it would be a hard thing to do, but you can look at a trash can and get an estimate of what isn’t recycled.

Amy asked if these audits had been done elsewhere. Dan said it had been done- at his old job, they hijacked a trash truck and figured out how much could be recycled (by weight). Meghan said that that strategy is part of LEED. The contractors are responsible for diverting a certain percentage of the waste from a project out of a landfill. It is typical to divert 50%, and some projects up to 90%. It is by cost and weight (weight of diverted divided by the weight, divided by the cost of materials for the project). Meghan has called lumber stores around, and they don’t know about FSC (Forest Stewardship Council), and did not care. The TSS project was LEED based, but it got people thinking. These materials are not here at all now for these projects. The environmental aspect of building is not here at all.

Penny said that, looking at us as a resort community, how should we support the tourists who come here? Are we supplying them with non-reusable things? Meghan noted that we could be a good educator here because there are so many people coming through.

Kelly said that in terms of us being a resort community, with second homeowners, we need to create the baseline now so we can see how we are trending in the future. Meg asked if any other resort communities have done this. Kelly said that there is some recycling data, but we are much more of an island than other resort communities. It’s a tough comparison. But compared to the rest of WY we are doing really well. We need to create a baseline and look at it year to year and see how we do.

Jonathan noted that in a perfect world, we could compare ourselves over time to other places (national and state standards). Looking at the recycling graph, we were somewhere in the 15% range in 1994, and now we are over 20%. Green power is also a good comparison. As long as we are being internally consistent, there is a question of who we should compare ourselves to. Aspen is not a fair comparison, perhaps because they don’t have nearly as many visitors. Comparing internally over time gives us a good perspective. Rick uses energy per consumer to see how they are trending.

Rick asked if we wanted to separate energy and transmission. Green power is wind generated and purchased through Bonneville and needs to be transported into Jackson. Green power is mostly generated in Foot Creek, Bonneville buys it. Jonathan asked what transmission would tell us. Transmission is driven by demand; energy is day-to-day use, while transmission deals with peak demand. They plan capacity for peak demand. They idle away, at 40% capacity, for the most part. They have such high winter usage, however, that it pushes their infrastructure up. Pete asked how much time LVE has put in to reduce energy consumption. They have filed reports with Bonneville for 20 years. They are trying to figure out how much energy has been saved (it might be hard to separate Afton and Jackson). Dan said that in terms of the peak load, he wondered if energy efficiency instead of transmission is more telling.

Jonathan asked if there are enough data points collected regarding energy audits; do we have any info about the typical TC home with R2? Rick may not have quantifiable data, but they have super good cents data- looking at pre-1985 standards, you can figure out how much energy costs per year. The newer standards are significantly lower.

Jonathan thinks that it might be interested to show the theoretical gap between where we are and where we could be. Rick has old (pre-1980) usage, new standards, and then heat pumps. Their total energy usage per structure drops to the floor. This wouldn’t give trends, necessarily. Heather asked if you can look at amount of energy used per square foot (and per capita). We should look at this in separate categories and then all together, it would tell us how efficient our structures are in this community. Dan asked if the numbers would trend differently. Rick said the number of occupants is tricky. It is deceiving because large homes don’t track like a residential home. They have a flat load factor. There aren’t occupancy-dependent.

The next point was water use, which is hard to get at. This is something where the data, theoretically, are out there through the Town of Jackson, & Aspens water systems. We can measure the town system in terms of effluent. There are three major waste treatment plants. Individual wells are not accounted for.

Heather thinks that water use is very important given that we live in a high, arid desert. Even if we couldn’t obtain data from every place in the county, couldn’t we get it from the Town or County? This would be somewhat representative. Rick asked about state data and well permits. Jonathan said that once a well is sunk that’s the end of it. The broader measure is waste treatment, because the Town and South Park are direct inputs into the system. There is a Teton Village/ Aspens/Teton pines, and town sewage treatment plants. These cover a larger percentage of homes. However, septic tanks are pumped to the larger treatment centers. Dan said that we would lose irrigation services counting water use this way- we wouldn’t be looking at houses, golf courses.

Dan said that maybe we should look at it from a geologist’s perspective- how much water is being removed from reservoirs? How much do we have? How much are we using? How much are we contaminating?

Rick thinks that someone is measuring water quality depth. Meghan noted that a lot of our water is owned by Idaho farmers. Jonathan said that the Town septic systems are designed for July 4th. Much of the town water system is coming from Cache or Flat Creeks, and 3 or 4 wells. The correlation between what we see in the reservoirs and what we use is probably not very high. Jonathan will call his sewer buddies to get effluent data. We can find water data from the town. Rick can try for Aspens data; he is on the Board there.

Meghan asked if we can track people’s interest in the market for water-reducing fixtures, like toilets. She wondered if there is a trend, or could be a trend, to looking at efficiency of water fixture systems. Jonathan noted that there is Capt. Bob’s house, but he doesn’t know of any good way of getting at that. That consciousness has not permeated the community yet, as exemplified by Meghan’s fruitless lumber surveys. Meghan said that they are starting to push this stuff. Sometimes you can get efficient stuff in there without the owner even knowing. Some things, like composting toilets, are more expensive and require more maintenance.

We talked about water, energy, trash. Pete thinks we need to look at food. We should think about bioregional eating- what does it mean to eat here 365 days a year? We should at least find out what percentage of food is being grown by community-supported agriculture. Meghan asked if you can estimate how much a person eats, and then how much the community is eating. Amelia thought you could pick a few things- how much lettuce comes here in a week, and how much is generated locally.

Meghan thought that it has to do with our growing season. Pete said that if we are measuring the sustainability of the community, we should know something about our food. Jonathan asked about Pete’s Food Awareness program. It was more of a focus on consciousness. He noted that in Ted Kerasote’s book, Ted discovered from his personal audit that it was less energy and less death incurred if he was a meat eater hunting his own elk then getting most of his food from CA. Heather asked what the square mileage was that would be “bioregional.” Pete had people from Idaho & Star Valley. There are people at the farmer’s market who come up from Park City. Everyone in the group supports this idea, but it would be really hard to get at. Heather gets a steer from someone in Star Valley, and she has no idea if he even sells to anyone else in Jackson. There are probably a lot of small places like this.

Pete asked if we could contact the CSAs supplying Jackson and find out about their production. Amelia thought this would be better to know in relation to something else. Rick noted that Calico grows all of their own vegetables. Kelly asked about 7th generation products- for example, biodegradeable diapers are selling out in Albertson’s; Foodtown & Hungry Jack’s also have them. She would call their distributor and find out how many are shipped, how many are selling, and how the rate has increased. Amy thinks that an analysis of consumer choice would be an important factor. Maybe you find out what the distributor is buying. How much more organic produce is Albertson’s buying now v. 5 years ago? If we start monitoring this now, and continue to monitor it the data would be interesting.

Jonathan does not know enough about TSP, and everyone’s different roles in the community, but as SJH, we are completely open to info that is out there. In Jonathan’s perfect world, it’s clear that this is going to be more successful than last year, and we can build on this so that in 2-3 years down the line there is an increasing mindset towards thinking about what we know and how it is changing over time. We’d like to have a pool of money available to research sustainability questions. Perhaps it could be for an intern.

Amy thinks we should look at transportation as well, such as biodiesel. That is going to be fresh and new data. We will be able to monitor change here.

Jonathan assigned homework: first, review the minutes. In terms of data- if you can collect data pieces that you can share with the group, please send them to us electronically at your convenience. You are the filters, so provide us with whatever you think is important to know. In preparation for our next meeting, to the degree we can get additional information, we will revisit the “what do we know” question. The second meeting will be based on the question of “where do we want to be.” The difference between a statement of ideal and a mission statement is that the statement of ideal doesn’t use ambiguous language; it can be measured clearly in a binary fashion. We want to try to avoid anything that can’t be rigorously defined or measured. The homework piece here is the legacy question- what qualities do we want to sustain for future generations?

Pete wanted to include something about self-sufficiency, tying in the local aspect of sustainability. Jonathan said that anything goes, but he will push back- what does self-sufficiency mean? How do you quantify this? Ambiguity is the enemy.

The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 23, from 5-7 PM at Dancer’s Workshop.

In attendance:
Pete Sibley
Andy Tyson
Rick Knori
Meghan Hanson
Dan Olson
Amelia Terrapin
Amy Brennan
Kelly French

Jonathan gave a brief introduction. First we will be reviewing data that people have contributed and asking if it should this go into the chapter, or the appendix. Then we will get on to the second of our three primary questions: where do we want to be? Here, we will look at the statement of ideal. Hopefully by 7 PM we will have done a pretty good job of assessing the kinds of information we have available to us, and looking at long term goals. At the third meeting we will look at where we are, where we want to be, and ask how we will get there.

Andy works with Creative Energies; they do solar & wind power installations. Their business is statewide. They do water pumping systems, residential homes, and commercial. They focus primarily on solar & wind, but also some micro-hydro power.

First, we will review the minutes. Everyone agreed that they were an accurate representation of what went on at the last meeting. Jonathan noted that the vote nominating Dan for speaker at the conference was missing. He also said that these meeting minutes get put into the appendix for documentation process.

Dan went online and found some resources for us to look at: Sustainable Measures, which works with communities to create checklists for sustainable community indicators. Which indicators fully capture sustainability aspects of a community? He printed a couple of things from this website. From their website, he linked to the US Interagency Workgroup on Sustainability Indicators. They have a report (2001) on sustainable development in the US. He printed their table of contents, which breaks out their sustainability indicators by economic, environmental, and social criteria. Looking at the table of contents, the environmental indicators look at a lot of things we have been talking about: surface water quality, renewable water supplies. He thinks this is a better version of what he was trying to do with the email he sent out prior to this meeting. Maybe we can look at this as a group. Dan thinks that the sustainability chapter of SJH is not a chapter; it should be the conclusion of the document, with the value-laden judgments on all of the other indicators, which talk about the environment, social, economic aspects of JH. SJH has these working groups; we should look at these working groups and ask if we are moving in the right directions. The problem with the chapter last year was that we tried to go too small. It was a first stab. For this chapter to be valuable, it’s a bigger thing. We should look at the other working groups and make some judgments as to what we think about their indicators. Dan will email the links to the group.

Meghan agreed that this was a great point. It is hard to focus on sustainability without it being subjective. It should be general guidelines for the document we are trying to write. It is incorporated into all of the working groups. Amelia thinks it is the integrative piece of all of the other pieces. Kelly thinks we need to go bigger as well. This topic is more of an umbrella then integrating it into other working groups. Amy asked if we should go through these indicators (from the online report Dan downloaded), and figure out how they are related to other working groups- and how we are picking up on these.

Dan said that it really depends on your audience- if it is a document to be distributed community-wide, we need to have fewer indicators.

Amy asked if we should help other groups, or at least indicate in the report that other groups are already looking at particular sustainability indicators. We tried try to identify a Sustainable JH for 2020 based on the current data. Do we look at shopping bags being recycled? Or do we look at the carrying capacity elements of a community? Which is more fundamental? We can get numbers, but are they that valuable?

Andy noted that the minutes showed the conversation of the last meeting focused on recycling and energy. We need clear hard numbers. He didn’t know if we needed more indicators. Kelly noted that those were the low-hanging fruit. Dan thinks that the harder-to-grasp numbers are out there, such as water use. He has spoken with both a wetland ecologist and a hydrologist- they study watershed dynamics, and have a lot of information. There is a lot of data, but we need to talk to the technical specialists to get it. Dan thinks that this is the difficulty- if we are going to ask what JH will look like in 2020, it should be based on science. Andy thinks we should have a list of indicators to work on; it doesn’t matter so much who tracks them down. Dan thinks we could help other groups track down numbers.

Jonathan reacted (oh boy). There is a “go big or go home” attitude in this community. There is not a lot of glamour in focusing on low-hanging fruit. One of the biases that he has brought into the process is that he would like to do a few things well, and hope that they start aggregating. The question becomes, “what is this building upon?” which is why we have the third question of “how do we get there?” What kind of projects can we work on to further the community? What is the obvious next step given our resources? This effort should be small and contained, so it’s considered high quality. He doesn’t want to have people think that their time is squandered. Whatever we put into the report needs to be bombproof. He fears that this will generate bitterness akin to the SRA decision. The issue of the SRA was handled so poorly over the past couple of months that it has created monumental tension and dissension, which will hurt the community. He doesn’t disagree about what we have been talking about, but he is leery of 2020 conclusions until they can be based on bombproof data. He wants to start small, focusing on what we can measure. In subsequent years we can make some pretty solid conclusions, and lead people where they are comfortable going. He is not disagreeing with where Dan is going, but from a temporal perspective, it may not be within the scope of the project this year. He hopes that a lot of this will surface in the “how do we get there” meeting. We don’t want to overreach. Recognizing that there is a sort of boredom factor, he is hoping that we can get from talking about pounds recycled to carrying capacity.

Dan asked if there was a way in this iteration to use it as a stepping stone to next year’s chapter. We might be able to look at these categories, and have some verbiage about water use, for example. We can start framing the discussion, so that people don’t think that sustainability is narrow. We could have this kind of framework, and use this for our recyclables and energy. Meghan thinks that this is where having people from all of these backgrounds is valuable.

Jonathan said that this approach is right on- this effort has to build on itself. We need to get the framework right- the house is going to look like the foundation. The third meeting, focused on “how do we get there?” will get to a lot of this. Last year, we had a wish list. That was a first and crude step at thinking about this. We are going from specific data, and moving further to identify larger concepts. These will become charges to this working group, and hopefully we will be building a sense of accountability to work on a particular project. Given a certain amount of time, what is important to do? Next year, we can revisit the task we set out and see if we have accomplished anything.

Andy said that last year, we had recyclables, energy, and water. He was wondering if there are any other topics that we want as indicators, that aren’t being covered by another group. Amelia suggested food. Andy said that we should identify what we are shooting for, and give an overview of where we are going in the next couple of years in terms of data collection.

Jonathan said that there is a balance to strike. We want this to be a compendium of all things we know. What do we actually know? What do we want to know? However, people will want a few nuggets to grab on to. Andy agreed, but we should point out some numbers that can be dealt with, such as the amount of food brought into the valley.

Jonathan said that the bird-in-hand is the data we have collected. At the next meeting, he guesses we won’t get a whole heck of a lot more data. In order to make this palatable, we want to make sure that there is certain uniformity to the format of all of the working group chapters. There is flexibility within that, though.

Jonathan talked to the guy who runs the sewer plant, and he is a slacker. We will be getting this data- BOD loading.

Kelly suggested that we need a population count to compare us to other counties, in terms of recycling. It’s helpful for people to see that we are at x % per capita compared to Aspen & Sun Valley.

Jonathan reiterated that we want an update of the graph regarding pounds of garbage generated with 2004, and some sort of way to compare our situation on a per capita basis to Pitkin & Aspen. Andy said we should compare our percentage to a community which does better. Kelly said that we should compare to the national average, which is 30%. Kelly asked what we do with 3 million tourists that produce waste. If we compare ourselves to Bend, for example, their percentage would be better.

Kelly said that she is happy to start collecting data regarding her business that might be good 5 years down the road. The recycling center is the point of collection for all recycling data. Jonathan asked what we don’t recycle that we could. Kelly said that the biggie is paperboard- cereal boxes, 6 pack containers. People want to recycle this but we can’t here. Also, no. 7 plastics. The plastics industry shifts so often that it is hard to say which plastic is which. It’s an experiment in recycling. Jonathan wondered how much recyclable material we are missing because we aren’t doing paperboard. Andy noted that many places don’t do certain things. Kelly said that we are also doing different types of glass, which many communities don’t do. It is also waste diversion- we need an even starting point. Are those counties counting refrigerators? Tires? Andy asked if it is actually made into anything else. How often are loads contaminated and thrown away? A lot of stuff isn’t actually recycled. Kelly said that the measurement tactics are different. Heather might give us other indicators. Kelly said that the plastics aren’t creating the diversion, but paperboard has high demand.

In terms of energy use, the graph of KWH requirements is the most useful. Rick hasn’t found easy way to separate Star Valley out. This info does include Star Valley and Swan Valley. He could approximate (they have the data archived). The first graph is average number of customers, weighted. The first page is strictly residential. We only have two rate classes. Andy asked about national data. Rick said we have some of the highest degree days (30 below) in the country. They normalize their degree days to determine projections. We are higher than most, because of the low electricity rates. Also we have 60% people heat with electricity (compared to 20% in other places). In essence, it is 100% efficient, unless you compare it to a geothermal heat pump, which is 300% efficient.

The second page is a small proportion of customers- small businesses (<50kw). Large commercial tracks out. Irrigation- most customers are in Star Valley. The second to last page is total sales that they bill for each month. The last page relates their bill from Bonneville, and where they charge out power. In between are losses. All of the energy in the summer comes from the Palisades Dam.

Dan wondered if it was possible to get a graph showing the percentage of energy generation going into our electricity makeup- hydro v. etc. Rick said that their power contract is with Bonneville- they can figure out where Bonneville gets their power. We can’t necessarily figure out where each electron comes from; it may be different depending on the month- now it is coming from Palisades. From April to August, Palisades has access generation that feeds our needs. The only other generation in the region is Jim Bridger. 70% of the resources come from Jim Bridger.
Dan thinks that looking at the sustainability portion, the source of energy is important. To get it accurately, we can use Bonneville’s numbers. They track their own output, but not Palisades. Dan said that we can explain the best number we have and note the discrepancy. Rick said power we don’t use just finds a path to the West Coast.

Jonathan asked if 2004 was actual data (it looks projected on the graph). It is. He will give us the accurate numbers, if that is something the group wants to know. Ideally we would separate Jackson, but he is not sure if that is accurate. Historically, 2/3 of sales are within Teton County. Jonathan asked if this has been consistent. Andy asked if there has been more infrastructure built. Rick said that every year it has to be improved. Rick said that right now that they just built a line over Teton. They have to build two lines from Soda Springs; if they can’t get this they will have to bring one up the valley and over from Idaho Falls. Looking at the demand, an increase of 10 MW requires major infrastructure improvement, which is about every 2-3 years at this growth level. Weather dictates true demand. Andy asked if there is any difference between this area and other places in the country. Rick said that they are driven by voltage collapse, not capacity. They have to build more lines b/c they don’t have a strong generation bus. In the winter, when we peak, there is no generation close. Putting in a gas system has helped to shed a load- probably 20 MW, which has saved a second line over Teton. A line costs about $20 Million. Rick didn’t have good gas data here, but LVE does have some data similar to the electric data if the group wanted.

Andy thinks it helps to compare us to something else. Rick said that most coops are hard to get data out of. You can get consumption/meter. They have total energy usage, looking at seasonality. They probably don’t want their data published. Demand-wise, we are larger than Idaho Falls. Our winter peaks are close, but we have colder degree days. However, there is a utility in Spokane with 35,000 members, and we have 24,000 and we have bigger usage. The weather conditions dictate, as well as the electric rate. Once the rate goes up, the usage will stop.

Pete thinks that we should include conservation and green power as a percentage of power used. Rick said that with Bonneville reporting, we report each conservation device and what the usage is. Historically, we have had $500-600,000 savings with Super Good Cents. But this is not good data yet. The big bump in 2003 was the compact fluorescent lights LVE gave away. They have a 5-year life though, so the tracking stops, unlike the Super Good Cents homes, which continue to save money over the years. Pete thinks that this is an interesting correlation- the number of megawatts needed before a new line, with the amount of energy saved. How many lines would we need if we didn’t save this energy? Andy noted that there is a difference- distributed generation (solar) v. conservation (green power still needs transmission).

Rick can determine savings from conservation & green power. If we bump out the compact fluorescent lights, it will be even. These lights are not being replaced. Amelia asked if LV distributes info/ data on the light bulbs. Rick thinks that they need to do a little more marketing. Andy thinks we need green power and conservation separated. Rick asked about factoring losses into accumulated savings. Jonathan said that he would turn it back to Rick to determine what was important. Rick thinks that total purchase, total generated, and accumulated savings are important.

Jonathan asked a theoretical question. For new homes, what standard are you setting them against? The 1960 standard? Rick said that they ratchet it up with Bonneville. They have standards that are updated that determine the credits that LV gets. They raised their super good cents standard with R26 walls, R49 in the ceiling, which is above the TC building standards. They want a .35U for the windows. In essence, there isn’t a huge difference between the county standards and themselves. Rick said that they don’t count places unless they come to them for a rebate.

Andy said that in Seattle, the power company could look at every home, and compare it to square footage and average power use. Rick said that you needed to do this for Bonneville back in the 1980s for qualifications. But it is so labor intensive that they set standards.

Dan asked about breaking out electricity- origin and generations. We should be converting these numbers to CO2 equivalents. This is super easy and straightforward to do. This may be a stepping stone to associated CO2 to energy use. Rick said that this might be a vicious cycle- we have more impact from CO2 coming off the gas system. Dan agreed- if we had electricity & gas, we could figure out the CO2 released from Jackson. We need to put a disclaimer regarding hydro energy as well- fisheries loss, salmon. We need to talk about global impacts of our energy use.

Meg asked if there were national averages. Rick said that there are national home averages on KW usage, but it doesn’t take into account degree days. Rick thinks that this is not solely due to degree days. It used to be so cheap to heat with electricity in the 1970s. We are still really cheap, compared to the rest of Wyoming.

Jonathan reiterated: recycling, electricity, gas, conservation, waste treatment.

Dan asked about BOD. You have a wastewater treatment plant and measure the BOD in the effluent to make sure it was treated enough. Or is this measured pre-treatment? Jonathan thinks it has to do with the treatment, not the loading. Jonathan asked about the measurement of sewage being treated, and it was BOD loading as an indication of volume. It’s a function of concentration, and how much water is flowing through the system, when you treated it, etc. A less dilute hit will take more pounds of BOD, but then the loading thing takes into account dilution. Dan thinks that we should relate this to water use. Jonathan said that this is the question- does this tell people anything? Rick thinks it probably would be a better measurement of water use. Jonathan wondered if it was a function of population growth, or sewage treatment.

Andy thinks it would be interesting- some subdivisions aren’t allowing grey water treatment. Some communities are trying to figure out how to take care of their grey water. Rick said that at least we have a number to start with. Jonathan said that even if you have a number, it starts begging questions.

Jonathan said that there is no other way to gauge water use. The Town of Jackson has a water system; everyone else is wells or independent. There is clearly a water use question, but whether there are meaningful data is the issue. Dan wants to call the Water Conservation District. So he will. Meghan asked about measuring the drop in the water table. Dan said that there are gauging systems, but he is not sure if they do groundwater measurements. Jonathan thinks it might be squirrelly.

Andy thought it might be nice to see if someone is monitoring it- if it is dropping 10 feet lower then what it was at the same time last year, it could be important. Rick said that we can get the height of Jackson Lake for the past 30 years. Kelly asked if an electric pump in a well gauges the water. Rick said that it does, and there is a conversion, but it would be a task to figure this out. Rick said that the state engineer tracks water rights. The hard part is that it would be a huge amount of work. Amy wondered if just within the Town Limits the data was available (yes). There must be a number nationwide for the average amount of water used. We could do this for the Town of Jackson, and extrapolate it to the county. Jonathan said that you could look at residential use per residence. Snow King is the biggest use of water. The Town gives it to them for free b/c their system is designed for peak use during the summer.

Pete wants to throw out an idea regarding the statement of ideal. His questions were “what qualities?” and “how do we measure quality of life?” We need to look at what is provided within the community, and how much has to be outsourced. This statement doesn’t work for getting us a sustainable community. Every action in our community has repercussions for other communities. How do our actions affect everything down the line? How do our actions affect our community directly, and those communities that are dependent on us?

Jonathan said that an ideal statement is a mission or vision statement with rigor. This is not a very good one. The difference between a mission statement and a statement of ideal is that you can clearly define each component of it and unambiguously measure it. The first half isn’t bad- are we using fewer resources each year? If you can define resources, it’s fine. The second half, quality of life, blows. It doesn’t work very well because the latter half of the statement of ideal is not rigorously definable or measurable. It could certainly stand some improvements. The goal is to measure clear progress towards ideal.

We have something to react to- is it ideal?

Andy noted that quality of life isn’t something that a lot of people think about- energy, water, food. People don’t want to live any differently. We can skip the part about quality of life. Instead, we should ask: are basic needs being met (air, water, energy, food)?

Kelly thinks that people aren’t going to make sacrifices and degrade their quality of life. If we could use fewer resources each year, and incorporate the global factor and other things that people brought up, it might be better. Quality of life is sending a different message. TC residents and visitors will use more local and fewer global resources each year.

Dan thinks that looking at local & global issues- we are all going to be served by sustainable distribution systems in the future. Having all local production is probably not feasible for us in a broader society having to meet 6 billion people’s needs. Should we be focusing on small, locally served communities, or restructuring our larger transportation and distribution systems? Do we need to think about big-picture restructuring of things? We need to incorporate that regardless of how the need is met, it cannot degrade any of the things we are talking about.

Jonathan said that looking at the generic hospital statement, one of the strengths of it is that anyone affiliated with the hospital (outsider, patient, doctor) can take a look at this and determine where the hospital wants to be, and what it’s values are. With the quality of life issue, it is too hard to measure. What do we want the community to take away in terms of the vision for itself? It works at a bunch of different levels. Wherever the language ends up, it sends a clear statement to the community about where the priorities are.

Dan said that the difficulty in finding concrete, measurable quantities is that we don’t know what sustainability looks like- is it local? Is it closed-loop structurally engineered systems? We could say that the statement of ideal is for us as a community to continue learning about and identifying what sustainability would mean here. Sustainability is not necessarily about using fewer resources. What you are not doing now, we are trying to approximate with increases in efficiency. Each year we need to continue to engage people in determining what sustainability is.

Jonathan said that sustainability is a debased term. The larger issue is that if you focus on education, then we have no action component. You would want education nested in a larger thing. If the community were to behave in a more sustainable fashion every year, almost implicit is that we need to achieve a better understanding of what sustainability means. Part of the wordsmith here is to write a robust statement on a bunch of different levels.

Kelly said that we can list the resources we have identified, and we would aim for the community per capita to use less of all of these things, and increase local food production each year. We need to change the curve. If it is per capita, we are going to use more resources; we are going to have more people.

Amelia said that the word “fewer” implies a decreased quality of life. We need to turn it around and say more efficient use. Andy: TC residents and visitors will have access to basic needs (food, water, energy) in a sustainable and conservation-oriented way.

Kelly said that people move from CA, and are frustrated that they have to pay for curbside recycling. She spends a lot of time explaining that this is what it is. This is a quality of life change. When people who lived here for a long time got that service, it was an improvement. Andy thinks it is fair to say that people want and need and should have access to these things. The question is how they have access to them. Dan wondered if people would object to “basic”- does this relate to quality of life. Andy said we could take out basic need and just say air, water, food.

Amelia said that the essence is the abundance of what we have, and figure out how to use it more efficiently. There doesn’t have to be a sense of fear, or scrambling. We have to rethink everything so we are using it in a more optimal way.

Amy suggested that every resident and visitor every year will be more efficient with their energy, water use…we are looking at the choice people are making, whether they are going to have green power. Amy thinks that “choice” helps. Kelly asked about how you measure choice. Amy said that the indicators would do this. The ideal would be that people recognize that this place has great value, and we want to sustain these qualities, and we are choosing to do this.

Jonathan said that this is not easy stuff. Part of the structure is pushing everything. This is the next hurdle- a meaningful, measurable statement of ideal. He thinks that what we have accomplished today is that we have data (though we will have some more data coming in at the next meeting), but what he would ask us to focus on is structure on the statement of ideal. This is an iterative process and we may need to bounce it off of each other via email. At our next meeting we will revisit data we do have, and take a much harder look at cracking the statement of ideal. We are not striving for perfection- we will revisit this next year. Finally, think about the “how do we get there?” Is there something that you guys can think of as a group that you think would be doable given a limited amount of time (one year)? It doesn’t have to be perfect. What is the one thing that this group could do to move the community down the road towards ideal?

TASKS: Statement of Ideal
Next steps as a group.

Next meeting : Monday June 6, 5-7 PM, Dancer’s Workshop.

In attendance:
Kelly French
Andy Tyson
Rick Knori
Dan Olson
Meghan Hanson
Pete Sibley
Penny McBride
Nate McClennan

Jonathan asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There were none.

Rick will start talking about BPA. This gives us a feel of BPA service area- imports (Canada-hydro, CA- gas combustion turbans), hydro, coal- in essence, what the source is of our energy.

Jonathan asked Penny about READI. There would not be a lot of real overlap. Jean is trying to come up with an action plan for policy. Our project would only feed hers. Rick talked to her briefly today, but he doesn’t have much to add. Andy thinks it is just coming together. This project will help give them some info.

In terms of waste water, Jonathan talked to the sewer gods. BOD loading was the most effective way to measure the amount of waste being treated. This is a function of concentrations as well. He only had it through 1999 because Jonathan used to hassle him for these numbers until 1999. He is working on updating the numbers through 2004. Jonathan is not sure of the intrinsic value of BOD loading.

The next thing is, in today’s SF Chronicle, there was a report on an international conference for mayors around the world held this past weekend. They signed an accord which is interesting at a minimum, as what mayors of different cities around the world have adopted as their goals.

Jonathan thinks that a lot of nudging will go on here in Jackson- either the stuff LV is doing as a stand-alone entity; the County Commissioners locally adopted global warming policy last year. There is going to have to be a lot of small stuff at the local level.

What we want to try and do today is revisit what we will put into the resource sustainability chapter. When we start drafting and circulating the chapter, we will make sure we have what makes the consensus in there.

The second thing is to revisit the statement of ideal. Kelly took a crack at it so we had something to start with. Jonathan hoped that the final thing would be the action component- how do we get there? If we can have a sense of where we are and where we would like to be, his hope is that this group will identify something they can do tangibly. Dan has been putting some thought into this. What should go into the sustainability chapter? What indicators do other communities around the country use as resource sustainability indicators? How do you tailor these to your own community? We could look at this to figure out what indicators would be appropriate here, so that next year we can spend less time thinking about the indicators we should be using, and try to get the data for the indicators.

Jonathan asked for reactions. Andy thinks that this would be great- good to see what others are doing, and this would answer the question of what bits to include, and what data do we need to do to back this up. Who would do it, and how? Kelly agreed; she looked at the links Dan had said and noted that we are at the tip of the iceberg. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Pete likes it, and he used it in his statement of ideal. Meghan said that it gives us something to build on next year. Nate said that a lot of other cities tie in other groups into the indicators. It’s all out there. Dan would be excited to kick start the process and start surveying; we can plan some meetings over the next year. We could spread it out, but Dan could make sure that we are moving ahead. Andy asked if there was any particular list Dan liked. He hasn’t done that much research, but the most formalized one was the one with 400 indicators (all inclusive list). What are the indicators that apply to JH? We have to make sure we look at other sources of sustainability indicators. Nate said that if you are looking at a particular indicator project, we need to look at the follow through. Some had created good websites, and indicators, but what is the next step? Are they quantifiable? Who is keeping up with it? Who is making efforts to change what is happening to the direction you want them to go (ideal)?

Kelly asked Jonathan about the framework for this project. He didn’t use any models. Lydia, Penny, & Sarah did some good research and he ignored it all.

Jonathan had a chat with Drew at the Education meeting about the possibility of tying kids into doing some of this research- an appropriate level of involvement that would meet the Journey’s School pedagogical goals. This project needs to sustain itself by becoming second nature. He told Nate about the conference at the end of October. If we can tie students in here it would make it harder for this project to fail. It would help keep groups like this on track. Nate could see a group of high schoolers take on the website creation- a real-time updateable thing. Jonathan hoped that from a school perspective, over 10 years, it would be a constant, evolving thing for alumni to see.

Jonathan asked if there was a general sense that coming up with a list of sustainability indicators for JH would be something to pursue. One of the tweaks for next year is that we got started too late by starting after spring break; the first meeting will be in early March.

Pete said that we have brought this idea up before; he talked about it with Sandy, and some community group had tried to do this. Jonathan knows nothing. There is an absence of evidence for this.

Andy said this will help us figure out our piece of the puzzle- we can then figure out how to measure these indicators. All agree.

The next thing Jonathan wants to do is revisit the chapter itself. We’ve been over this a couple of times so it might seem redundant, but we need to be comfortable with what we are reporting to the community. The other piece of this is that it’s the 10-15 minute talk. The conference will be Oct. 28, with the keynote Oct. 27. The conference will be at the new Journeys School. There will be roughly 200 people, and so someone here will be the person charged with reporting to the community what it is that this group knows about resource sustainability in TC. The talk itself will be a presentation of the written material, which will also be published in a Proceedings, which all attendees will receive. It will be a thumbnail sketch of the community. Whether it is for resource sustainability or other indicators, we can start reaching across groups, and creating accountability measures. If it isn’t happening, there is a way to shine a spotlight on it.

Jonathan would like to walk away with a general consensus of the types of info important to get in there, as well as one or two candidates to give this presentation.

First: tons of recycled material. From our last couple meetings this is a good indicator to track and keep in there. Andy asked if we can add national average. It is in the text; we could graph it. Kelly thinks we could get as many years of national averages at the number of years we had here.

There was also some talk of looking at other resort communities. To the degree we can look at that we should include it. Nate suggested having another graph with those comparisons rather than putting it on one graph.

Energy use: Rick has given us a TON of information. Lydia and Jonathan will brainstorm on a cut of stuff to include, three things in general: KWH, BTUs, green energy. Rick will also try to come up with history of conservation. Then we can get like Bonneville- look at cumulative track of energy conservation. Dan asked about throwing in onsite renewable energy, by doing number of net metering situations. Rick can give the net number, but he doesn’t know how much they generate internally (only what they put back onto the grid). Rick said a couple of onsite energy producers use quite a bit internally. One with wind and solar generates quite a bit. Andy said that they don’t contribute to the community, but they don’t take as much. Nate asked about talking about kwh/capita- kwh are going to keep going up. With per capita, you would see a conservation effort being made. Jonathan said yes, the caveat being is that measuring anything is tricky- you can’t compare this to national averages. We have to get an accurate handle on population. The census estimates our population at a 3% increase in the last three years, which is foolishly low. Rick tracks it per meter. The hard part is that there are a couple of anomalies, like the Simplot mine. Nate thought we could tease out residential & commercial. Jonathan feels more comfortable with this.

Jonathan asked about converting BTUs and KWH into one. Rick did this on the Total Energy MMBTUs. This is total LVE MMBTUs (including Afton). The only thing missing is heating oil- if we could pin that down, and the propane through Suburban, then we would have a comprehensive BTU use for the valley. Looking at this, there was a 50 percent increase in total MMBTUs in 7 years. Jonathan thinks this is a lot- and tied to population growth. He wondered if he knew how many propane meters were out there. They don’t serve the actual tanks. Suburban has a good feel for the total gallons served here.

Jonathan asked about backing propane out, it would drop it to a certain degree. Then could we divide this by total electric and gas meters and come up with MMBTU/meter. Rick thinks you can; the propane is skewed b/c that is what the village uses. He can pull propane out and just look at natural gas. Jonathan thinks this is interesting- are BTUs going up faster than the number of meters? What does that tell us? Rick thinks the houses are bigger, though they are built more energy efficiently. The volume is offsetting the energy savings.

Jonathan thinks this has a high sex appeal value. In the course of the talk, if we can say the average number of btus per meter is growing faster then the number of meters, this would be compelling.

Pete asked about including the MW number for a new transmission line. Rick thinks we could gauge it to an MMBTU. Pete thinks that people need an idea of the consequences.

Jonathan said that the other piece is that if this is system wide we need to acknowledge this.

Water use: Dan said that Brian has a tremendous amount of information. We could ask Brian to distill one or two graphs for this report. There was a report by the Wyoming Water Development Commission- an assessment of water basins, looking at how much water is here and how much is being used (we are in the Upper Snake Basin). How much is being produced and how much we are using? The interesting news is that water consumption in TC is predicted to go down, because of the conversion from flood irrigation/ranchland to residential. Water is going down, and we also have a compact that allows us to use 4% of the watershed’s capacity, and we are only using 1.5% of it. Dan said that 2 things are important to know: in terms of how much, we aren’t anywhere near drawing down our resources. Rick said that the 4% is important to know (and ID gets 96%). Dan said that CA is breaking compacts- they are buying out farmers in ID.

Nate said that in Rafter J, they have water restrictions b/c of the capacity of the system. Dan doesn’t think we should tell people we need to use more water, but it is interesting to know that we aren’t exceeding. Dan said that other part is water quality/contamination. Again, we are blessed with good water quality with the exception of Flat Creek in town, related to development and impervious surfaces. All of the crap on the impervious surfaces washes into Flat Creek. There is not significant contamination, even related to agriculture as ranching doesn’t use nearly as many pesticides as other agricultural uses. Nate asked about golf courses. Dan said that they are publishing water quality indicators (TCD). They have this data compiled from local sites. Phase 2 is interpretation. They are in the process of compiling & analyzing data. Dan thinks we have to ask Brian to distill a couple of key lessons. There is something that should go into our section based on those reports- water quality & water quantity. Kelly thinks that ranching is much worse than golf courses for water, because of the strict regulations for golf courses. Dan said with ranching it depends on how it is being ranched. If it is a flat ranch with little water movement, the contaminants in cow dung left in sunlight degrade. If water is fenced, they are getting cleaner samples there then elsewhere; it is all a matter of management practices.

Nate asked about using Flat Creek water quality as a community indicator- it is not indicative of all of the streams, but it is one where there is the densest population. Dan said that they are planning to do a wetlands bioremediation project- they will take Flat Creek and run it through wetlands mitigation, including modifications to Karns Meadow to detoxify Flat Cr. Nate thinks that there is an organizing group. Jonathan asked Dan to ask Brian about the nuggets.

What about sewage? Jonathan is not sure what this tell us. Dan asked what it told anyone who is looking at the graph. If we want this to be easily digestible, and we need to figure out ourselves what BOD means, he wonders if it needs to be included. Jonathan doesn’t think it passes the 10-15 minute test. Andy wondered how it would fit into our sustainability index, and he wondered how it would change over time. Nate asked what action people would take- use the shitter less? Or improvement of gray water recovery.

Jonathan said that if we know what quality is before and after it is used, and it doesn’t seem to be adversely affecting the Snake, then who cares? Rick noted that wastewater isn’t as much of a trigger as drinking water. Dan asked how the water gets processed- what is going on at the waste water treatment plant; this would probably be an energy question.

Jonathan thinks that we will throw it in the appendix.

This year, there will be a much richer energy/water components, and improved recycling/trash component. Is there anything else we should talk about? Andy wondered about food. Pete said we never came up with it. Nate thinks we could get a farmer’s market percentage- the amount of food bought there, and the CSAs, and Sloan. Kelly thinks that this would be a concrete number to start. Pete said we should add it as C, food. Nate thinks we can get the shares sold by the CSAs. Jonathan asked if anyone ties into CSAs. Pete will call Cosmic Apple; Kelly will call Blue Flax. Nate said that the farmers market brings food from elsewhere. Dan said that we could not support our communities on food grown in JH anyway. Jonathan asked him to hold that thought- it gets into the question of sustainability.

Nate asked about air quality. Jonathan said that last year we had that in health. He is guessing that air quality might be a victim of the merger of those two, because the human services group tracks a bunch of stuff and it was easier for us to jump on their bandwagon. He doesn’t think it will make it into the human services, but it would go into environment or sustainability. Jonathan thinks it will end up here.

Pete asked about what Dan was saying- is this applicable for the overview? We need to take into account that historically this place wasn’t inhabited by people until the late 1800s.

Jonathan said that if we produced a chapter with this stuff in it, would everyone be comfortable signing off it? OK. Who will give the talk? Dan is willing.

We will jump to the statement of ideal. To bore us all again with the principles: unambiguous, don’t want to set specific numeric targets. The article from the SF Chronicle used numeric targets. From a philosophical perspective, that might be a good vision statement, but it is not a good statement of ideal, which suggests that you can never achieve it. Once you say 10% in 7 years, it is a goal as opposed to ideal. Goals can be subsets of the ideal, but you basically assume you can never get there- you are always in pursuit of it because you can always do things better.

Kelly read the minutes and reviewed what we threw in. She tried to consolidate it with the idea of coming up with definable progress points other then quality of life. She just threw this out there because she wanted something written down. There are a lot of questions that it raises. She was trying to encompass what we had discussed.

Pete thought Andy had a good response. Andy liked it, but we need to decide what “more than” or less than met. We need to make a movable bar, so that it is an ideal, but we need to judge against more than or less than. Set something to strive for. Kelly agreed; that was the big question- are we creating a baseline for ourselves, and then try and achieve this based on that, or do we look at the bigger picture? But it gets long- recycling, we have a good national average, but regarding locally grown food we can only compare to ourselves- and then we ask whether people should be buying locally grown food. Andy thinks we should go with what Pete was saying with sustainability indicators.

Pete said that, from the minutes, Andy had something about choices, and Dan said something about growth of knowledge. Pete wants people to look at their choices and their consequences: TC makes choices based on sustainability indicators.

Jonathan said that part of the bounds we put on this group were focusing on resources. This is both his favorite and most frustrating group. The long-term vision of having sustainability indicators that cut across the community is the ideal, along with what Pete is saying- that consciousness is imbued in every aspect of this community. It is hard enough focusing on resources right now though.

Kelly said that she added “to use environmentally friendly products” because choice is important. She talked to Jana at Hungry Jack’s about how different products are doing. Household products are doing ok, diapers are great, but Horizon organic milk is selling out. We can put choice in here, we can ask grocers to give us data for the year. We need some element of choice that is measurable.

Andy has been looking at it from Who, what, where, when, why, how. He asked about answering “why” in the statement of ideal. Jonathan said you don’t need it- the fact that you exist is sufficient. A bunch of it comes down pretty easily, but he keeps coming back to what and how.

Jonathan tried to throw something out that just hit him. He is ultra-intrigued by energy use per meter, and the idea that it is probably going up. He would hope that we would have the ideal statement along the lines of using fewer resources and that would be a telling indicator. The ultimate bridge that we are trying to build is having indicators tell us where the statement of ideal is going. If we talked about using fewer resources as a collective, we could look at that indicator and say “we don’t seem to be using fewer btus- why not? What can we do to fix that?” if we can look at the four things we have talked about- trash, air, water, energy, & food, and incorporate a statement of ideal that moves in that direction. He is trying to get some bounds because otherwise it will get messy.

Andy said we can group our indices/resources- use resources efficiently based on developed sustainability indicators. Jonathan asked what the indicators add to the statement. Andy said it is trying to quantify “efficiently” The indicator will tell what is sustainable, but we don’t know what they are and we don’t have the data. Dan thinks this keeps abreast of what sustainability indicators are- sustainability is a changing thing, and we have to understand those changes. Andy said it doesn’t say anything about choice or quality. Meghan thinks you could narrow it down to the indicators we picked- they are resources. Pete gets stuck on efficiency- doing something efficiently doesn’t necessarily make it sustainable.

Dan doesn’t like efficiency- the short term decisions we are making. People could start making more efficient choices, and learn more about sustainability. Efficiency is good, but it isn’t the end all be all. What about responsibility? People have different definitions.

Jonathan asked Pete what sustainability was, and how it was more encompassing then efficiency. Efficiency is something you can unambiguously measure. At the crux of a lot of this stuff- sustainability is an ideal, and efficiency or using fewer resources is something you can unambiguously measure. Pete thinks that sustainability has ambiguity built into it- it is a personal response.

Kelly likes it from our group’s standpoint, but if you hand this to the public, what does this mean? She doesn’t think that using “sustainability indicator” explains to the community very well. Sustainability includes being responsible for your actions, which is an important concept to get here- perhaps in the overview. Without the understanding, accepting your consequences is the “why” underlying sustainability.

Kelly thinks that, as a citizen, sustainability indicators are going to be lost on Joe Sixpack. Andy asked what term we could use other than that. Jonathan thinks we can only compare us to ourselves- national averages here don’t work here b/c of tourism, degree days. Andy thinks it depends- there are different topics affected differently based on our location. Andy said that talking about sustainability, if we just compare it to ourselves, it might not be sustainable. We may be able to do something a little better, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be changes in our community.

Nate agreed with Kelly- we would all understand it, but people are going to want to know concrete things. Reducing energy use is concrete. We want this to be transparent and useful. Jonathan’s concern about the sustainability movement is that it is amorphous. We need to take something this amorphous and make it lowest common denominator. Pete said you need to be responsible for your actions and their consequences.

Jonathan said that if we come up with unambiguous definition of any of these terms, we can go with it. Dan thinks that we have definitions- he wants to put it in there, so we take control of the language by using the language and explaining it. In the chapter and discussion, we need to reclaim the word “sustainability” and make sure people understand it.

Dan thinks that our ideal statement is all of the 12 groups’ statements. We have tried to narrow ourselves looking at resources, but it is hard to define ourselves. We are trying to confine it, but the term is so big. Penny asked if we needed a cultural paradigm shift. Dan thinks that sustainability for our community. Nate thinks that this should be the opening for the project (UN Definition), and resource sustainability goes here. He doesn’t mind using it, as long as it has bullet points after it.

Kelly likes he idea of coming up with our own indicators, and checking them off. Do these 12 groups address these indicators? But that is the ideal statement of the whole project. That is why she steered away from it. It wasn’t focusing on resources for Joe Sixpack. Part of their group’s responsibility might be making sure that all of the aspects creating a sustainable community are being addressed.

Pete said that TC residents will understand sustainability- they will make choices to increase efficiency of their resource use. We could take the hospital choices- do they understand it? No. Are they making better choices? Rick suggested using resources efficiently, but sustaining for future generations. Jonathan said that it is nesting resource use into the UN plan. Kelly noted that this is the consequences part. Rick noted that there was a paragraph supporting this in the comment.

Jonathan asked how we would know if we were using resources now that leaves equal opportunity for future generations. Dan likes/hates efficiency. We don’t know what use of resources will allow for future generations to flourish. We don’t know limited capacities. We know we are using way too much now. Pete: residents will understand sustainability as it relates to efficient resource use.

Meghan asked about the definition of efficiency. Dan said that it would be less work in and more work out. Jonathan said think of the News and Guide: what will they take away? Andy said not our statement! Kelly thinks that what she ends up doing with convincing people to pay for curbside recycling is dealing with people who don’t buy this idea. You need to convince them that any step is a step in the right direction. On a day-to-day basis, if she can convince a restaurant to recycle their glass, it’s a big deal and a step in the right direction. Who is our audience? People aren’t all on the bandwagon with this kind of idea. This is where our percentages are going to change.

Dan asked if people can grasp efficiency. Kelly thought yes, but responsibly may be something different. Dan likes the idea of combining resource efficiency- TC residents will make decisions that maximize the efficient use of resources, but in such a way that doesn’t compromise the ability of future generations to have resources to use. We could break down resources into energy, water, etc. Jonathan said that the Achilles heel of mission statements is that they get larded up with ambiguous words and go on and on. There is something in there for everybody, but it loses its force. Nate: TC residents will use resources more efficiently. But he would also like to include sustainability, but maybe this evolves from the secondary working group. Andy and Pete want to add choose. Jonathan asked if it was redundant. Kelly said in Rafter J they are forced. Dan likes adding the component of responsibility. Nate said that if it is forced upon you or not, at least you are doing it. Pete wants to add hopeful.

Jonathan thinks that we have done a tremendous amount of work in 6 hours. We still haven’t resolved anything with the statement of ideal, though we have had a stimulating conversation. Lydia and Jonathan will work on the draft chapter- we have enough to get everywhere down to the statement of ideal portion. Think about having small successes- we don’t have to nail everything this year. He will veto ambiguity, or if it is not something that can be understood by Joe Sixpack, because that would ultimately harm the long term success of the project. Part of the reason we decided to do this conference is to have stuff in the paper- if we can get that much attention from everyone. Focus on resources in the statement of ideal, and lack of ambiguity. Shorter is better. With all of this, we will continue this over email. Hopefully we can come to a consensus among ourselves about the chapter; everything else will go in the appendix. In terms of the working group, he will leave it to your own devices to figure out when to get together.