Expanding Recycling Streams at Crater Lake National Park

Kylie Moltzen, Jake Rivas & Erik Stout Southern Oregon University Environmental Science and Policy Program June 9th, 2017

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1

Background ...... 1

Goals ...... 3

Relevant Literature ...... 4

Methodology ...... 5

Results……………………………………………………………………………………...... …...8

Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………….….19

Conclusion ...... 20

Appendix A – Estimated Budget ...... 21

Appendix B – Stakeholders & Contacts ...... 22

Appendix C--Concept Map…………………………………………………...………………… 23

References ...... 24

Introduction

Crater Lake National Park is well known for its history as well as its beauty, but also because of the outdoor activities it provides. With so much to do, it’s no surprise that over 660K people came to park in 2015, the highest recorded in 25 years (Evans, 2016).

With the increased visitation, there is an increase in consumer waste. Water bottles, campsite trash, food waste, and post-consumer waste all accumulate at the park. Of that waste only 24% gets recycled, while the other 76% goes into a landfill. Working with the park’s concession provider, Xanterra, the goal for this project is to provide information about potential recycling implements via models, graphs, and conceptual maps to reduce the amount of waste going to landfills, and increase the amount of waste recycled.

Background

The lake reaches depths of almost 2,000 feet, making it the deepest lake in the

United States (National Park Service, 2016). The caldera-like lake was created when one of the volcanoes in the chain of the Cascades, Mount Mazama, erupted about 7,700 years ago. Water accumulated in the lake from rain and snowfall, having no streams or rivers flowing in or out, giving the water its crystal blue color (Klimasauskas, E., et al., 2013).

The park brings in a lot of tourism. The park has two motels, one lodge (Crater

Lake Lodge), cabins in the Mazama Village, as well as over 250 campsites. Rim Village

Café and Gifts, Annie Creek Restaurant, the Mazama Village Camper store, and the

Crater Lake Lodge Dining Room are all places that visitors can grab a quick bite to eat, stock up on food for camping, or sit down for a nice dinner with a stunning view. The map shown below highlights the parks campgrounds and facilities that will be targeted

during this project.

Xanterra, an award-winning concession company, is in control of the production at Crater Lake’s lodges, campground, and restaurants among many other parks in the

United States. As a company, they aim to lead by example to make the park sustainable and eco-friendly. In 2004, Xanterra set 10-year goals for Crater Lake, some of which included: 30% fewer greenhouse gas emissions, 50% sustainably sourced food and drink,

7% electricity from renewable sources, 25% decrease in water usage, and 50% solid waste diverted from landfills (Xanterra, 2014). In 2013, Xanterra was able to reduce the amount of water usage by 17.9%, reduce the heating fuel usage by 3.9%, use 3.8% less propane, increase the sustainably sourced food purchases by 33.7%, and increase the amount recycling by 36.5% (Keller, 2013). Now in 2016, Xanterra has earned an LEED certification at the new and improved Annie Creek Restaurant and Gift Shop. They have made progress in food sourcing from local farmers and businesses such as Tillamook

Cheese, Rogue Creamery, and Standing Stone Brewery. Nearly 34% of the food and drinks sold at Crater Lake are from local, organic, or certified sources (Keller, 2013).

With such high standards for the park, more analysis and data need to be modeled and constructed in order to get a better idea of what the next steps should be. A breakdown and analysis of where most of the waste and post-consumer waste is necessary to help guide the project on where implementations of recycling and composting need to be placed as well as what can be done about post-consumer waste that can’t be composted in order to reach the 70% recycling goal set by Xanterra.

Goals

Xanterra has been working to reduce the amount of waste produced at Crater

Lake but still hasn’t reached their goal of zero waste to landfill. The resort currently produces between 7 and 12 tons of waste during their operating season, which is 5 months out of the year. Of this waste, about 24% is recycled while the remaining 76% goes straight to the landfill. Most of the waste is produced at the Mazama Village

Campgrounds, the kitchens at the Annie Creek Restaurant and the resort’s main lodge.

As of now, there are only eight 70-pound recycling receptacles on the campgrounds with 81 trash only (35 gallon containers), and eight 70-pound trash containers. So most of the waste produced from the campground goes into the garbage and to the landfill. Xanterra has planned to add more recycling bins in 2017 to increase the percentage of waste from the campgrounds that could be recycled. The Lodge and the

Mazama dorms only have household sized trash and recycling containers in each other their rooms. There are currently no recycling bins in the Lodge (other than the household

sizes), outside the Dorms, or outside the Rim Gift Shop and Café, or Annie Creek

Restaurant. We plan to determine approximately how much waste can be averted from the landfill if more recycling bins are added and how this will affect the resort economically. Post-consumer food waste from the resort’s restaurant and lodge and the brown grease produced in the kitchens both add to the large amount of waste produced at the park, but for the sake of simplicity, brown grease will not be included in our modeling. Another option we plan to include in this project is the use of composting. In

2016, Xanterra reported that no composting was done, sending more waste that could be recycled to the landfill. BioCoTech is a company that has come up with an aerobic composting machine that will create a quicker and more efficient composting method.

Using there technology, we will also create a model to understand, if composting were implemented at the park, how much composting would help bring the 70% landfill waste to 30%.

Relevant Literature

Currently, with only eight 70-pound recycling bins available at the Mazama

Village campgrounds, there is limited opportunity for guests to recycle but, in a study on the frequency of recycling and convenience, in areas where recycling is made easier and more accessible through roadside pickup, the frequency of recycling increased (Domina,

Koch, 2002). Though there are recycling containers within a half-mile of the Mazama

Village Campground, it is less convenient for guests to haul their recycling to the 8 bins than it is to throw it in the regular waste bin closest to their campsite. So, with the introduction of recycling bins within the campgrounds, waste can be reduced due to

increased recycling from more accessible recycling bins. Recycling bins will also be added to the Lodge area, the cabins, the Mazama Dorms, the Annie Creek Restaurant and the Rim Village Café and Gift Shop.

The EPA reported 21% of all waste diverted to landfill was food waste (EPA,

2014). Post-consumer food waste is a more complex issue than improving recycling resources on-site. Because post-consumer food waste cannot be composted as easily as pre-consumer food waste due to issues such as increased moisture content, Xanterra’s current composting cannot handle post-consumer food waste (Risse, Faucette, 2012). One method of composting the post-consumer food waste is with aerobic composting procedures. BioCoTech Americas is an exclusive distributer of the BioSpeed in-vessel aerobic composting technologies that allow the processing of organic waste on-site.

Furthermore, the BioSpeed machines speed up the composting process, by processing waste thirty times faster than standard composting. BioSpeed can compost food waste

(with no exclusion), animal waste, human waste, paper-based cutlery, plates, napkins, wood chips, and tree debris (BioCoTech Americas).

Methodology

The modeling of each the aforementioned waste management strategies will be constructed using STELLA, a simulation modeling software. Before the creation the models however, we will develop a concept map depicting where waste is coming from, and where it is eventually ends up for each of the four-primary waste producing areas.

The four sites include the Mazama Village, Mazama Village Campground, Rim Village

Gift Shop and Cafe, and the Mazama Dorm area. Following the formation of the concept map, we will begin developing our models.

Each of the four given sites will require its own model considering each has different types of waste flow, and strategies for limiting the amount of waste going to a landfill. The Mazama Village’s waste flow for example, consists of pre-and post- consumer food waste, recyclable material such as plastic, aluminum, and glass bottles, cardboard, brown grease, and trash. Therefore, the model will show the fluctuation of the percent of waste going to a landfill, compared to that being recycled, after each strategy is inputted into the simulation. The data that will be used in these models, are secondary data collected by Xanterra in 2015, and provided to us by Susan Manganiello. At the conclusion of our models, we will understand which management strategies will decrease the amount of waste going to the landfill.

First, we provided figures to show what the recycling and landfill methods looked like over the 2016 season. Shown below (Figure 1 and Figure 2) are the 2016 models for total recycling and total landfill waste. All of the flow are using a monthly counter, to show how much waste was produced each month in each location. The recycling model does not have all five locations because the source of the recycling is unknown. Figure 3 shows the relationship between recycling and landfill waste current recycling strategies, totaling about 86,760 pounds by the end of the year as well as the total landfill waste in pounds, which totaled about 339,796.

Figure 1: Crater Lake Recycling (in Pounds) Model 2016

Figure 2: Crater Lake Landfill Waste Model (in Pounds) for 2016 Finally, the bar chart below (Figure 3) represents the broken down totals of what was recycled, which equals about 24% of total waste, and what was sent to the landfill, which was about 76% of the total waste. (Ash from the campgrounds and brown grease from the park’s kitchens was also included in the bar graph). This was calculated by, using the data provided by Xanterra from 2016, dividing the total pounds of recycled material from the total waste, which was around 445,276 pounds. The same calculations were made for material sent to the landfill.

2016 Waste Breakdown in Pounds 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Land0illed Recycled Ash From Brown Grease Campgrounds

Land0illed Recycled Ash From Campgrounds Brown Grease

Figure 3: Bar Graph of Recycling versus Landfill Waste in Pounds for 2016 We included these figures to provide a baseline for projecting the amount of recycling and composting that can be implemented for years to come to reach the 70% recycling and 30% landfill goal.

Results

In order to give accurate projections of what the recycling percentages would look like with more bins throughout the park, we modeled the recycling and landfill numbers in STELLA for the month with the highest amount of landfill waste. We used the month with the highest amount of waste in pounds (July) of 2016 and used it as our baseline for predicting changes with increasing recycling. Figure 4 shows the breakdown of what was sent to the landfill and what was able to be recycling in the month of July for 2016. The total waste for the month was around 88,738lbs, where 71,558lbs (80.6%) was sent to the landfill and 17,180lbs (19.4%) was recycled.

July 2017 Waste Breakdown

80000 60000

40000 Recycled Material 20000 Land0illed Waste 0 Recycled Land0illed Waste Material

Figure 4: Waste Totals for July 2016 According to Xanterra, most of the waste generated comes from the campgrounds, so that area is our first target. We broke down how much waste was collected for the month of July and calculated how much waste was generated per day.

From the data given to us from Xanterra, around 21,146 pounds of trash was sent to the landfill from the campgrounds that month. In order for this model to run, we divided that number by the number of days in the month, 31. This calculation gave us how much trash was generated per day, which was about 682 pounds. This number will act as our inflow in the model. To be accurate, we needed to include a maximum capacity for trash and for recycling, which was calculated by taking the number of trashcans and/or recycling bins and multiplying that by how many pounds the cans are able to hold. Since the campground has eighty-one 35-gallon (which we extrapolated to be 35-pounds for simplification), eight 70-pounds trash bins, and eight 70-pound recycling bins, our max capacity for trash came to about 3,395 pounds before the bins would start to overflow and the max capacity for recycling bins came to about 560. The state variables for this model were the amount of trash in pounds, the amount of recycled material in pounds, the total landfill in pounds, and the total recycled material in pounds diverted from the landfill. In

order to increase the amount recycled, we added converter variables labeled “additional recycled in lbs” that estimates the amount of waste per day multiplied by the additional pounds able to be recycled. For the projected amount of recycled material we added 81 more recycling bins to match the number of trash bins at the campgrounds. Instead of the ratio being 8 recycling to 89 trashcans, the ratio is now 89 recycling to 89 trashcans. With more recycling bins, the max capacity of trash able to be recycled increased to about

5,670 pounds, with an inflow of about 205 pounds of trash per day. A daily counter was used throughout the model for the outflows which represents the number of times per week that the trash and recycling was picked up and the bins were emptied. Before we added more bins, the recycling and trash was being picked up once per week. With the new model, the trash and recycling bins will need to be emptied twice a week in order to keep the bins from overflowing. Figure 4 models this information.

Figure 5: STELLA Model of Campground Trash/Recycling Data with Additional Recycling Bins Added

Figure 5 shows the fluctuations of trash collected and emptied and recycling that is collected and emptied throughout the month of July. As the model shows, the recycling is much greater than the amount of waste sent to the landfill over the 31 days of the month. At the end of this model, we calculated that about an additional 50% of the overall waste would be recycled with the added recycling bins.

Figure 6: Campground Recycled and Landfill Waste over One Month with Added Recycling Bins The next area we wanted to target was the Rim Village Gift Shop and Café. The same layout was used for every location for the models built in STELLA. For the Café and Gift Shop however, what gets recycled the most is cardboard. As shown in Figure 6, cardboard is an added state variable as well recycling for this area of the park. As with the other models, the cardboard would be picked up twice a week with the recycling

(Figure 7), and never exceeding its maximum capacity, which is about 5000 pounds for cardboard and . The Gift Shop and Café generate a very small percentage of waste compared to the campgrounds, totaling about 8120 pounds of landfilled waste for the month of July. With the focus on cardboard recycling in this area, the total pounds of recycling equaled to about 1,640 diverted from the landfill for cardboard, 773 pounds of

recycled material, and 7,334 pounds of waste sent to the landfill. This makes a smaller percentage of total waste diverted than the campgrounds at about 25%.

Figure 7: STELLA model of Rim Village Gift Shop and Café Recycling, Cardboard and Landfilled Waste The graph (Figure 7) below shows the fluctuations of cardboard recycling and regular recycling with an added 70-pound bin and landfilled waste throughout the month of July.

Even though the pounds of waste sent to the landfill exceed the weight of the cardboard recycled, it is a very small portion of the total waste generated at Crater Lake.

Figure 8: Graph of Rim Village Gift Shop/Cafe Cardboard Recycling and Landfilled Waste The next location we modeled for the month of July was the Mazama Dorms.

These dorms are inhabited by employees all year long, and all of the rooms have household sized recycling and trash bins. As mentioned earlier, we added two 70-pound recycling bins in and/or around the building to allow for more recycling outside of the dorms. Like the first model of the campgrounds, we used a max capacity for trash and for recycling, calculated by multiplying the number of trashcans/recycling bins and their weight. Figure 8 shows the model created in STELLA to show the inflows and outflows of trash and recycling throughout the month of July. As for all the models, we used a converter, “Percent Diverted” so show how our new implementations of recycling bins affected the amount of waste sent to the landfill and the amount of recycling being done.

This percentage was calculated by dividing the total recycled from the total landfill plus the total recycled.

Figure 9: STELLA Model of the Mazama Dorms Flows of Recycling and Landfill Waste With increasing the amount of recycling bins by two, the amount of waste that was diverted from the landfill was 55% of the total waste for this location for the month of July. By the end of the month, about 3,358 pounds of trash would be recycled and only about 2,728 pounds of waste would be sent to the landfill. Figure 9 shows the fluctuations of waste and recycling from this location as waste is built up and emptied twice per week. As shown in the graph (Figure 9), no more than 400 pounds of recycling or trash is kept in either bins until being emptied out twice per week.

Figure 10: Graph of Recycling and Landfilled Waste at the Mazama Dorms

The next location was Annie Creek Restaurant. Currently, there are no recycling bins in or around the restaurant, making it impossible to recycle anything in this area. We added two 70-pound recycling bins to this area as well, to increase the amount diverted from the landfill. Obviously, a lot of the waste generated in this location is post -consumer food waste. This means that a good amount of the waste generated here cannot only be recycled but composted as well. We added a new state variable to this model in order to account for the potential composting that could be done here with the BioCoTech composting machine. Figure 10 highlights the model created in STELLA with 3 state variables accounting for the fluctuations of waste, recyclables, and compost (annie creek waste, annie creek recycling, and food waste annie creek). The percent diverted in this model was calculated by dividing the total amount recycled plus the total amount composted from the total amount landfilled plus the total amount composted plus the total amount recycled.

For this location, about 3,398 pounds of waste would be able to be recycled, about

1,813 pounds composted, while about 7,247 pounds would be sent to the landfill.

After adding the pounds of waste recycled and pounds of waste composted, about

42% of the total waste for this area would be diverted from the landfill.

Figure 11: STELLA Model of Annie Creek Restaurant Landfill Waste, Composted Waste, and Recycled Waste The graph (Figure 11) below shows the amounts of landfill waste, compost, and recyclables throughout the month after filling up the bins and being emptied twice a week.

Figure 12: Annie Creek Waste Fluctuations The final location modeled for this project was the Crater Lake Lodge. Like

Annie Creek Restaurant, this location produces waste that could be composted as well, so this model also includes the use of a BioCoTech machine. As shown in the STELLA model of Crater Lake Lodge Waste Flows (Figure 12), this area also has a compactor that influences the max capacity of the locations waste. Currently, the Crater Lake Lodge has no large recycling bins in or around the building other than the household sized trash and recycling bins in each room. These small household bins were accounted for in the model

(number of trash cans) when calculating the maximum capacity for the trash. With the implementation of four recycling bins placed in or around the Lodge building and with the use of the BioCoTech machine for composting, this location would be able to divert about 36% of the total waste at this location. About 4,146 pounds of waste would be able to be composted, assuming that what is able to be composted is, and about 1,312 pounds of waste would be able to be recycled. This would leave almost 10,000 pounds of waste sent to the landfill and 5,458 pounds of waste diverted.

Figure 13: STELLA Model of Crater Lake Lodge Waste Stream The graph below (Figure 13) represents the fluctuations throughout the month with implemented recycling bins and composting methods.

Figure 14: Crater Lake Lodge Waste Flows In order to fully grasp the changes that were made, we made a bar graph (Figure

14) that compares July 2016 diverted waste and landfill waste to the projected diverted waste and landfill waste with the implementation of more recycling bins and composting.

July 2016 versus Projected July Waste/Recycling Totals in Pounds 80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0 July 2016 Recycling July Projected Recycling July 2016 Land0ill July Projected Land0ill

Figure 15: Bar Graph of Crater Lake 2016 Diverted Waste/Landfill to New Projected Diverted Waste/Landfill in Lbs

From Figure 14, one can see that the July 2016 Diverted Waste was fairly low, totaling at 17,180 pounds recycling. With additional recycling bins and introduction of composting methods via BioCoTech machinery, the total diverted waste could total up to 27,891 pounds of recycling/composted material. In July of 2016, Crater

Lake sent 71,558 pounds of waste to the landfill. With the new recycling and composting strategies in place, the projected number of pounds sent to the landfill for this month could be as low as 37,091lbs.

Discussion

After modeling each of the five locations at Crater Lake during the busiest month of the season, we have determined that with the implementation of ninety 70-pound

recycling bins, the amount of waste sent to the landfill will decrease drastically. Before adjusting the strategies for recycling, in July, 19.4% of waste was recycled, while 80.6% was sent to the landfill. With the introduction of more recycling and composting, we estimated that about 10,710 more pounds of waste could be recycled and/or composted for the month of July. So in total, 34,467 less pounds of waste can be sent to the landfill, which is a 51.8% decrease for July. The new percentages of recyclable material is about

59% (51,647lbs) and 41% (37,091lbs) would be sent to the landfill. Although the 30% landfill and 70% recycle goal was not met, these implementations will be a step in the right direction for waste disposal at the park. We have also determined that with the help and use of the BioCoTech composting machine, post-consumer food waste that was originally sent to the landfill could be recycling and used in a compost garden if so desired.

Conclusion

The transition from a majority of waste being transported to landfills, to a majority of it either being recycled/composted may be a taxing job, but will definitely help Xanterra reach new sustainability goals. Another positive is these changes will reduce pollution, greenhouse gasses, and methane (CH4) from landfills. This research will provide other Xanterra operated National Parks a reference to methods that they too could implement to reduce their waste. Lastly, the potential implementation of these green initiatives could increase tourism to Crater Lake National Park, thereby increasing gross revenue.

Appendix A: Estimated Budget

The price for a 70-pound recycling bear proof bin is estimated to be around

$1,000 per unit. For this project, a purchase of 90 bins would be required to reach the percentages diverted, totaling about $90,000. This cost would be covered by Xanterra

LLC. Costs of the BioCoTech machinery to be determined.

Appendix B: Stakeholders and Contacts

1. John Gutrich- Professor of Environmental Science and Policy

[email protected] , (541) 552-6482

2. Susan Manganiello- Crater Lake National Park Director of Sustainability Xanterra

[email protected]

3. Vincent Smith- Professor of Environmental Sciences and Policy/Sociology and

Anthropology and Associate Professor and Chair of Environmental Science and

Policy

[email protected] , (541) 552-6802

4. Crater National Park, (541) 594-3000

5. National Park Service

Appendix C: Concept Map

References

BioCoTech. (n.d). BioCoTech Americas. Retrieved from

http://www.biocotechamericas.com/landing

Domina, T., & Koch, K. (2002) Convenience and frequency of recycling implications for

including textiles in curbside recycling programs. Environment and Behavior.

Evans, J. (January 29, 2016). 2015 Visitation to Crater Lake National Park highest in 25

years. National Park Service: Department of the Interior. Retrieved from

https://www.nps.gov/crla/learn/news/2015-visitation-to-crater-lake-national-park-

highest-in-25-years.htm

Keller, M. (2013). Our softer footprint, Crater Lake National Park lodges. Xanterra.

Retrieved from http://www.craterlakelodges.com/assets/Crater-Lake-In-Room-

Poster-Digital-v01.pdf

Klimasauskas, E., Bacon, C., & Alexander, J. (2013). Mount Mazama and Crater Lake:

Growth and destruction of a Cascade volcano. US Geological Survey: Cascade

Volcano Observatory. Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs092-02/

National Park Service. (April 26, 2016). Welcome to Crater Lake National Park. National

Park. Retrieved from http://www.national-park.com/welcome-to-crater-lake-

national-park/

Risse, M., & Faucette, B. (2002) Food waste composting: Institutional and industrial

application. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension: College of

Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, College of Family and Consumer

Sciences. Retrieved from

http://extension.uga.edu/publications/files/pdf/B%201189_3.PDF

Xanterra. (2014) Our softer footprint, Corporate social responsibility report. Xanterra:

Sustainability. Retrieved from http://www.xanterra.com/sustainability-

report/files/assets/basic-html/page-1.html