|
|
Table of Contents
"Which purpose is to conserve the scenery and natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations" - Organic Act, 1916 To the greatest extent possible each park unit should incorporate sustainable development practices that support the National Park Service’s ability to balance the conservation and recreation objectives described in the Organic Act and the Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design. The purpose of this Sustainable Practices and Opportunities Plan (SPOP) is twofold. Firstly, to formulate a strategic planning process for identifying, evaluating, and selecting sustainable development practices, that are appropriate to Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. Secondly, to identify the technical and financial resources necessary to implement these practices. In essence, the SPOP process is intended to align Fort Vancouver National Historic Site with the National Park Service’s overall Mission and GPRA goals. This SPOP management process is also intended to be replicable and transferable to other park units in the National Park System. In this regard, the SPOP process has been designed to accommodate the specific constraints of each park unit within the context of the overall National Park System. The importance of the SPOP process for the National Park System can be summarized into three benefits. Firstly, the implementation of sustainable development practices throughout the National Park System will reduce costs. Secondly, these practices will reduce harmful environmental impact. Finally, these practices will improve the quality of visitor experience. The combination of these three benefits provides an incentive for utilizing this management tool to improve the overall operational effectiveness of each park unit and the overall park system. The SPOP planning process is divided into three phases, site visit, strategy formulation and implementation. The scope of this report includes the second phase, strategy formulation. The sections included in this report are outlined below:
The final product of the SPOP strategy formulation phase outlined above will be recommendations for specific areas of the park unit’s operations in which sustainable development practices should be prioritized for the implementation in the next phase of the SPOP process. These recommendations will be based on an analysis of current performance, specific constraints and appropriate performance targets. Subsequently, the final phase will include a detailed implementation plan outlining the technical and financial resources necessary to execute these sustainable practices. "Sustainable design is the philosophy that human development should exemplify the principles of conservation and encourage the application of those principles in our daily lives" -National Park Service, 1993
2.0 Decision Making Process ‘If we could first know where we are, and whither we are
tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it’ - Abraham Lincoln,
1858 The purpose of the sustainable practices and opportunities planning
process is to reduce the costs and environmental impact of park operations while improving
the quality of the visitor experience. The SPOP decision making process is organized in
three phases:
The first phase of the SPOP process involves a site visit to the park unit and extensive interviews with park staff. The intent of this phase is to gather all relevant historical operational data as well as current issues and concerns facing the park unit. The park staff provides recommendations of those activities where sustainable practices would provide the most benefit. This information provides the baseline for the SPOP process.
The objective of this second phase of the SPOP process is to define the problems and opportunities associated with the operations of the park. This initial assessment includes the preparation of baseline information for indicators of sustainable development that characterize the problems and opportunities associated with the park unit. These indicators provide a baseline from which to proceed and measure progress.
The indicators are then utilized to set benchmarks and performance targets. These benchmarks and targets are developed through a process that includes a review of relevant executive orders, policies and precedents. The outcome of this phase is to identify specific areas for improvement in the park unit’s operations.
The objective of the third phase of the SPOP process is to develop best management practices for the park based on the performance targets established in the previous phase. These best management practices are organized into areas of improvement that include energy, water, air quality and materials.
The best management practices are subsequently prioritized based on an analysis performed during this phase. Those best management practices identified as most appropriate to the park unit are then selected for implementation. The implementation plan would also include an assessment of the technical and financial resources required as well as a schedule for completion.
The final effort for the SPOP process is to review progress made towards the performance targets by implementing sustainable practices. At this stage specific feedback will be given to the park unit to revise the strategy or adjust the implementation of practices. The following diagram illustrates the decision making process for the three phases of the SPOP process, site visit, strategy formulation and implementation:
During the strategy formulation phase of the SPOP process, specific indicators are developed for the park unit. These indicators represent the park's movement toward or away from sustainable development. The indicators are subsequently prioritized into the following four areas in order to prioritize best management practices for the park unit:
Ý Improving – indicates that the trend towards sustainability is improving ß Declining – indicates that the trend towards sustainability is declining Û Steady – indicates no significant change either toward or away from sustainability ? Trend Unclear – indicates that trending changes over time with no significant dominant trend ! Insufficient data – indicates that there is insufficient time series data to determine any trend This phase of the SPOP process results in the identification of areas in which sustainable practices should be prioritized for implementation at the park unit. The final phase of the SPOP report will include information about the technical and financial resources required, NPS staff contacts, and potential partnerships for he prioritized best practices. ‘Our nation will protect its environment, its natural resource base, and the functions and viability of natural systems on which all life depends.’ - President’s Council on Sustainable Development, 1996
‘The gross national product includes the destruction of the redwoods and the death of Lake Superior’ - Robert F. Kennedy The following goals and objectives are intended to guide the SPOP process in supporting each park unit to fulfill the larger mission of the National Park System: Goals
Provide park visitors with effective interpretation of sustainable practices
Utilize sustainable practices to reduce consumption and enhance park ecosystems
Utilize sustainable practices to maintain and restore cultural resources
Utilize sustainable practices to reduce cost and environmental impact
Form partnerships that provide resources and education for implementing practices
Objectives
Improve visitor experience.
Reduce consumption of non-renewable fuels and increase renewable energy production.
Reduce water consumption.
Improve air quality and reduce emissions of CO2, NOX and SOX.
Reduce solid waste, increase recycling and procurement of recycled products, and practice resource efficient building design. ‘The gross national product measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile; and it can tell us everything about America – except whether we are proud to be Americans’ - Robert F. Kennedy
4.0 Indicators
of Sustainability ‘Indicators of
sustainable development need to be developed to provide solid bases for decision-making at
all levels and contribute to the self-regulating sustainability of integrated environment
and development planning’ - Agenda 21, Chapter 40.4 Indicators represent leverage points within a system. Their presence or
absence, accuracy or inaccuracy, use or non-use can effect the behavior of the entire
system. The park units cannot respond to information they do not have, nor can they
achieve goals or targets of which they are not aware. The National Park System cannot work
toward sustainable development if the organization does not have clear accurate and
resonant indicators. Indicators are important as new measurement tools to communicate
progress and to stimulate behavioral and policy change that will ensure the sustainability
of the National Park System for future generations. Therefore, the indicators selected for
the SPOP process must be relevant, measurable and actionable. The indicators selected for the SPOP process are intended to be leading
indicators. Therefore the indicators must provide the park unit and system with
information while there is time to act. In this respect, leading indicators allow a
proactive rather than a reactive response. Additionally, the indicators must have
relevance for policy decisions and all stakeholders in the system. A set of indicators has been developed for the park system and units
(see appendix c) as part of the strategy formulation in the second phase of the SPOP
process. These indicators provide the baseline assumptions for park unit operations and
are used to identify problems, opportunities and areas where sustainable practices should
be focused. The indicators for the SPOP process have been developed into five categories: Within each category specific measurements have been developed that
provide information on the current level of sustainability as well as historic trends. The
following indicators include: The indicator’s relevance to the strategic planning process is
determined its overall trend, improving, steady or declining. Finally, indicators that
have insufficient data or an unclear trend are also identified. ‘If you want it to count, count it’ - anonymous Indicator – Visitors per Year ß Declining Description Rapid growth in park visitation makes progress towards sustainability extremely difficult. It challenges the park’s ability to manage its natural and cultural resources. Eventually, the number of visits can become too large for the local environment or ecological footprint to sustain it with adequate energy, water, air quality, materials and other resources. The current situation at Yosemite and other National Parks is a good illustration of this point. Evaluation The total number of visitors to the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site has increased by approximately 18% over the last five years. However, an 18% decrease in visitors to the fort, and a 29% increase in visitors to the park characterize this overall increase. If this trend continues, it is expected that the number of visitors to the park will continue to increase, and that activities associated with the operations of the park will have the greatest impact on the sustainability. Based on the analysis above, the proposed sustainable development practices should be primarily focused on the park rather than the Fort. This prioritization will allow resources to be focused on activities that are associated with the park’s operations in the park and are therefore more likely to effect the long-term sustainability of the overall park unit. Conclusion and Linkages This indicator strongly influences all other categories and is the primary driving force of sustainability for the park unit. Therefore it is recommended that the park continue to track this indicator.
Indicator – Operating Cost ! Insufficient Data Description This indicator identifies how financial resources are allocated to sustain the park unit. Therefore this statistic tracks cost data and is useful in making comparisons over time and between parks as to the effectiveness of utilizing financial resources towards sustainability. Evaluation Maintenance and interpretative activities accounted for 38% and 33% of the overall park budget respectively. The park unit should track this indicator to determine the effectiveness of overall operations. In particular the park unit should evaluate the proportion of financial resources allocated to those activities that improve visitor experience. The park unit should determine whether it is feasible to reallocate financial resources to those activities that contribute to the park unit’s objective and sustainability. Conclusion and Linkages This indicator is strongly influenced by the previous indicator, which tracks the overall visitation to the park unit. However, this indicator is also linked to all the resource consumption indicators, and is sensitive to the efficient use of those resources. Therefore it is recommended that the park continue to track this indicator. |
|
Indicator – Electrical Consumption & Cost ß Declining Description This indicator specifically measures the use energy from electrical sources utilized by the park unit during the period 1985-1996. Dividing the total consumption by the gross area of operational facilities has normalized the data. The baseline year for improvements in energy efficiency established by federal executive order is 1985. Evaluation The energy source for Fort Vancouver National Historic Site is primarily electricity. The pre-dominant electrical load is heating during the winter and irrigation during the summer. The energy consumption per gross square foot was 26,475 Btu in 1985 and 36,018Btu in 1996. The total cost for electrical energy consumption for 1996 was approximately $12,000. Based on an analysis of the historical data between 1985 and 1996 for electrical energy consumption at Fort Vancouver National Historical Site the following trends can be identified:
Conclusion and Linkages In summary, the electrical energy consumption and cost has increased at a rate greater than the number of visitations over the same period. In addition, the area of facilities serviced by the park unit has declined during the same period. In conclusion, electrical energy consumption is an area where improvements can be realized by implementing sustainable development practices.
Link to Benchmark
Indicator – Fuel Consumption & Cost ß Declining Description This indicator specifically measures the use energy from fuel consumption by the park unit for 1996. The purpose of this of this indicator is to identify opportunities for substituting alternative fuels. The baseline year for improvements in fuel reduction and the use of alternative fuels will be 1996. Evaluation The fuel source for Fort Vancouver National Historic Site is primarily diesel and gasoline. The total fuel consumption for 1996 was approximately 2,300 gallons. The fuel was primarily used for transportation (73%) and maintenance equipment (27%). The total cost for fuel was approximately $10,000. Energy use from fuel consumption at Fort Vancouver was approximately 315,000 kWh. This is approximately 10% higher than the total electrical energy consumption for all facilities (288,000 kWh). Conclusion and Linkages Transportation activities accounted for the majority of fuel consumption. Therefore transportation fuel consumption is an area where improvements can be realized by implementing sustainable development practices.
Indicator – Total Energy Consumption & Cost ß Declining Description Energy use, integral to every facet of our daily lives is a critical component of sustainable development. A park unit’s movement toward sustainable development is dependent on the extent to which long-term reliance on non-renewable resources can be decreased as well as developing renewable resources in an environmentally and economically responsible manner. Evaluation The total energy consumption (electricity and fuel) in 1996 for the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site was 603,150 kWh, or 1.4 kWh per visitor. The energy consumption for facilities operations, transportation and maintenance equipment represented 48%, 38% and 14% respectively. The total energy cost per year for Fort Vancouver National Historic Site is approximately $22,000.Based on the analysis above, facility electrical energy use and transportation fuel consumption are both areas where improvements can be realized by implementing sustainable development practices. Conclusions and Linkages The consumption of energy is driven by the activities of the park unit. It is recommended that the park unit’s activities be assessed for opportunities to reduce overall energy consumption and cost.
Indicator - Water Consumption & Cost ! Insufficient Data Description This indicator specifically measures the water consumed by the park unit during 1997. The baseline year for improvements in water consumption established by federal executive order is 1985. However, based on available data the baseline year for improvements in water reduction will be 1997. Evaluation The total water consumption for the park unit in 1997 was 898 HCF. The highest water use for the park unit is irrigation. The estimated water consumption for irrigation (non-potable use) during the summer months is 2000 gallons per day for 50 acres of irrigated land. Assuming a 4-month irrigation season, the total water consumption for irrigation is approximately 240,000 gallons per year. The water cost by end use for the park unit was 68% sewer, 24% water and 8% stormwater. The total water and wastewater cost was $256.82 in 1997. Additionally, the cost for water utility services is expected to increase at 13% for 1998. Based on an analysis of the historical data for 1997 for water consumption at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site the following issues can be identified:
Conclusion and Linkages Based on the analysis above, sewer and irrigation uses are the greatest opportunity for improvement at the park unit. Therefore these are areas where improvements should be realized by implementing sustainable development practices. In order to improve performance in this area the link to other indicators and practices must be considered. Finally, the park unit should continue to monitor this indicator and consider the addition of indicators that measure groundwater levels and quality.
Indicator – Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) ! Insufficient Data Description Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a measure of the total miles traveled by all NPS vehicles in a given period of time, usually a year. Vehicle miles traveled per year are based on the approximate total miles as reported by the park unit. Evaluation Vehicle miles traveled at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site in were approximately 34,950 and 42,500 in 1995 and 1994 respectively. This represents a decrease of approximately 20%. Historical data for previous years is not available and therefore 1995 will be used as the base year. This activity is directly related to the service level provided by the park and the number of vehicles utilized. The VMT is also a function of the layout of the park. The park unit’s operations are divided into two areas. The visitor’s center is located approximately 1/3 mile from the fort. The number of vehicles utilized by the park has increased over the last five-year and therefore it is expected that the VMT have also increased during this period. Conclusion and Linkages In order to reduce the VMT, transportation costs and associated emissions it is recommended that the park unit track this indicator in order to determine any trends. This indicator is strongly linked to the emissions and air quality indicators. The park unit should consider practices that contribute to the improvement of these other indicators while reducing the VMT. For example, the park unit should consider alternate transportation modes and fuel sources. For instance the park could utilize compressed natural gas or electric vehicles to reduce emission in the park.
*Estimate of VMT based on 25-MPG average for park vehicle fleet
Indicator– % of Alternate Transportation Modes Û Steady Description This indicator is a measure of the total miles traveled by all NPS vehicles on the park road system in a given period of time, that utilize alternate transportation modes. Vehicle miles traveled per year are based on approximate total miles as reported by the park unit. Evaluation The park unit does not currently utilize any alternate transportation modes. The park unit currently has 7 vehicles that utilize gasoline and diesel as fuel sources. Both the GSA and Department of the Interior supply these vehicles and can provide vehicles that use alternate fuel sources, as a substitute for the current fleet. The park unit has the option to buy or lease compressed natural gas or electric vehicles. The use of this type of transportation mode would reduce the emissions produced by the park’s fleet. Conclusion and Linkages The park unit should utilize alternate transportation modes as part of its vehicle fleet. This sustainable practice would improve the energy efficiency of the park unit as well as reducing the emissions generated from transportation. Currently, transportation accounts for approximately 38% of the energy utilized and subsequent emissions generated by the park unit.
Indicator– Emissions Generated ß Declining Description This indicator specifically measures the emissions produced from energy consumption at the park unit during the period 1985-1997. The emissions measured include carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide(s). The baseline year for improvements in emissions reductions are related to energy efficiency guidelines established by federal executive order is 1985. Evaluation There has been a steady increase in the level of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide(s) emissions, which is directly related to the increase in energy consumption at the park unit. The total carbon dioxide emissions in 1985 and 1996 were 101,156 lbs. and 120,603 lbs. respectively. The total sulfur dioxide emissions in 1985 and 1996 were 354,047g and 422,205g respectively. The total nitrogen oxide(s) emissions in 1985 and 1996 were 202,313g and 241,260g respectively. This represents a 19% increase in all emissions above the 1985 base date. The external costs of the emissions generated from the park unit in 1996 were $2,140.56. Conclusion and Linkages The primary driving force behind this indicator is energy consumption at the park unit. Therefore it is expected that improvements in this area will be linked to sustainable practices for the energy indicators, and that a similar level of improvement should be achieved.
* Source for emissions factors from NPS ‘Renew the Parks’ report, February 1995
Indicator– Vancouver Air Quality Index ? Trend Unclear Description The Pollution Standard Index (PSI) provides a nationally uniform method to report daily air quality levels. The PSI reflects the maximum levels of four key pollutants: carbon monoxide suspended particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and ozone. The concentration of each pollutant on a given day determines an index value and the pollutant with the highest value determines the PSI for that day. Air quality is fundamental to the health of both human and natural environments. Air pollution in any significant amount can make visitations unpleasant or even dangerous to human and ecological health. This indicator measures the number of days during the calendar year that ambient air quality (PSI) was considered to be good, moderate, unhealthful, very unhealthful, or hazardous. Evaluation The number of good days has increased by 6%, while the number of moderate days has decreased by 44% between 1994 and 1996. However, the number of unhealthful days has increased from zero in 1994 and 1995 to four in 1996. Therefore, even though the general trend is toward improved air quality in the vicinity, there have been more occasions during the year when air quality is unhealthful. In conclusion, air quality has become more extreme, as there are more days in the categories at each end of the spectrum. The interpretation of this air quality data may have several other considerations. Firstly, the time range for the data collected is very short, and therefore it is difficult to draw any significant long-term conclusions. Secondly, weather patterns have a significant effect on air quality, and therefore may bias the results. Conclusion and Linkages Based on the interpretation and evaluation, it is recommended that the park should not draw any conclusions for the available data at this time. However, it is recommended that the park continue to monitor air quality and consider the effects of park operations on this indicator.
Indicator – Solid Waste Generated ! Insufficient Data Description Solid waste generated defines the waste stream produced by park operations and visitors and is divided into two categories: waste disposal sent to landfills and other processing facilities and waste materials that is collected and recycled, typically paper, metal, glass, plastics or yard waste. Evaluation The data analysis identified visitors as the main driver of solid waste generated, accounting for 76% of the waste stream. An increase in visitations will be directly correlated with an increase in solid waste generated. Additionally, the park’s operations account for 24% of the waste stream. The park unit should continue to reduce the amount of solid waste generated by visitors and park operations while increasing the percentage of material diverted from the waste stream for recycling & Composting. Conclusion and Linkages Increase in waste generation per visitor coupled with increases in visitors to the park unit will result in larger amounts of solid waste generated. While recycling should continue to increase, efforts should also be made to reduce consumption of disposable materials and the subsequent waste that is generated. The park staff and visitors can be encouraged to avoid the use of such products and abstain from unnecessary consumption, through the use of educational and interpretative programs.
Indicator – Recycling ! Insufficient Data Description Recycling includes waste materials that are collected and recycled, typically paper, metal, glass, plastics or yard waste. Evaluation In 1997, 30% of the total solid waste generated was recycled. Paper and cardboard were the major sources of recycled materials and accounted for 79% of the total recycled materials. The source of this paper is primarily from the park unit’s operations. The other sources of recycled materials include aluminum, glass metals and wood. The park unit should continue to reduce the amount of solid waste generated by visitors and staff by increasing the percentage of material diverted from the waste stream for recycling and composting. Conclusion and Linkages Increase in waste generation per visitor coupled with increases in visitors to the park unit will result in larger amounts of solid waste generated. Therefore recycling initiatives should be focused on visitors (plastic and glass) and staff (paper & cardboard) to achieve the greatest impact. Additionally, The park staff should encourage visitors and staff to recycle waste through the use of educational and interpretative programs.
Indicator – Recycled Products Purchased per Year ! Insufficient Data Description Recycled products are defined as those products that include a percentage of either recycled or post consumer content. Evaluation In 1997, the park unit procured $2,554.97 of recycled products. This represents approximately 1% of the combined maintenance and administrative department budgets. The products procured primarily include paper and office supplies. The park unit should institute a procurement policy to increase the percentage of recycled products as part of the overall budget. Conclusion and Linkages The park staff should encourage visitors and staff to purchase recycled products through the use of educational and interpretative programs. The park should establish an affirmative procurement policy that stipulates a preference for EPP products and services. These Procurement policies can minimize the use of non-reusable or non-recyclable products, packaging and waste by-products. Product selection criteria should include such factors as percent of recycled content, size, durability, packaging and disposal.
Summary The following is a summary of the fourteen indicators that were developed for the park unit. This summary identifies areas that have improved, remained steady and declined. The summary also identifies the areas where there is no clear trend and those areas that have insufficient data to make any conclusions or recommendations. In these cases the park unit should continue to collect data. The intent is that these indicators will be updated annually, to provide management information and feedback to the park unit on performance improvements related to the implementation of selected best management practices. In the next section of the SPOP report, benchmarks and performance targets have been developed for nine of the indicators developed in this section. The indicators selected for further analysis include five of the indicators that had declining trends signifying problem areas and four indicators that represented opportunities for improving performance. These benchmarks and targets provide a guide for improving performance in the highest priority areas. The following table is a summary of the fourteen indicators developed for the park unit:
‘The indicators a society chooses to report to itself about itself are surprisingly powerful. They reflect collective values and inform collective decisions. A nation that keeps a watchful eye on its salmon runs or safety of its streets makes different choices than does a nation that is only paying attention to its GNP. The idea of citizens choosing their own indicators is something new under the sun – something intensely democratic.’ - Donella H. Meadows
5.0 Benchmarking and Performance Targets ‘A point of reference or a standard against which measurements can be prepared’ - Webster Dictionary The indicators developed in the previous section provide a baseline of current performance for the park unit. Subsequently, specific performance targets have been developed for the park unit as a benchmark for improvement, based on the National Park Service’s mission and policies, as well as federal executive orders that are relevant to the SPOP process. The process of benchmarking is setting measurable goals for specific progress to desired levels and using indicators as a comparison with a standard reflective of ‘best practices’ across jurisdictions or specific service areas. The performance targets are intended to identify preferred performance levels for the park unit. The performance targets are organized into the four categories to complement the indicator data in the previous section:
These performance measurements represent data that shows the progress toward specific results targeted to activities or actions, thus providing a way to evaluate the performance of those activities. The information provided by the indicators and performance targets creates the framework for a monitoring and reporting system that is consistent across all park units (see appendix c). With the changing climate around government accountability, many federal, state and local agencies have begun developing performance measurement systems to monitor service delivery. These reporting systems can be focused on specific areas of operation, or can be general in nature. The intent of the performance measurements for the SPOP process is to provide a balanced sustainability scorecard approach. The scorecard is a composite of indicator and performance measurement data. This balanced sustainability scorecard is intended to provide measurements for efficiency, quality, innovation, and visitor experience that can be used for continuous improvement programs. Therefore it is critical that this information be updated annually within the typical park budget cycle. Additionally, it is recommended that this balanced sustainability scorecard be linked to the park’s general management planning cycle. The following benchmarks are targeted at those areas of the park’s operations were improvements are recommended. In those areas where current performance is considered adequate, no recommendations or benchmarks have been developed. Each benchmark includes the following items:
Benchmark - Electrical Consumption & Cost Policies The Department of the Interior has implemented a policy of a 30% reduction in energy consumption by 2005, assuming a base date of 1985. Performance Targets The available data for the park unit is from 1985-96. Therefore a 30% reduction in electrical consumption from a baseline of 250,782 kWh in 1985 would generate a benchmark of approximately 175,000 kWh in 2005. In order to achieve the benchmark outlined above, the following performance targets have been developed for the park unit:
Recommendations The electrical energy consumption benchmark is 175,000 kWh for 2005. This represents a reduction of 113,000 kWh over five years or approximately 20,000 kWh or 7% per year from the 1996 level. The largest electrical energy end uses are heating, lighting and irrigation. Therefore the park unit should target these uses to reduce consumption to the benchmark by 2005. The operating costs for electrical energy consumption at the park unit should simultaneously be reduced from $12,000 in 1996 to approximately $6,000 in 2005 (exclusive of inflation effects). These savings should be used to offset the investment required to improve performance.
Benchmark– Fuel Consumption & Cost Policies The Department of the Interior has implemented a policy of a 30% reduction in energy consumption by 2005, assuming a base date of 1985. Performance Targets The available data for the park unit is for 1996. Therefore a 30% reduction in electrical consumption from a baseline of 315,000 kWh in 1996 would generate a benchmark of approximately 220,000 kWh in 2005. In order to achieve the benchmark outlined above, the following performance targets have been developed for the park unit:
Recommendations The fuel consumption benchmark is 220,000 kWh for 2005. This represents a reduction of 95,000 kWh over six years or approximately 15,000 kWh or 5% per year from the 1996 level. Transportation accounts for approximately 72% of total fuel consumption. Therefore the park unit should target this use to reduce consumption to the benchmark identified by 2005. The operating costs for fuel consumption at the park unit should simultaneously be reduced from $10,000 in 1996 to approximately $8,000 in 2005 (exclusive of inflation effects).
Benchmark – Total Energy Consumption & Cost Policies The policies outlined above represent a target of a 30% reduction in overall energy consumption for the park unit by 2005, assuming a base date of 1985. In addition, 10% of the energy consumed in 2005 should be provided by renewable energy sources. Performance Targets The available data from the park unit is for 1996. The baseline year for the SPOP process will be 1996. Therefore a 30% reduction in electrical consumption from a baseline of 603,000 kWh in 1996 would generate a benchmark of approximately 425,000 kWh in 2005. Additionally, 10% renewable energy sources for the park unit in 2005 represents approximately 42,500 kWh. In order to achieve the benchmark outlined above, the following performance targets have been developed for the park unit:
Recommendations The total energy consumption benchmark is 425,000 kWh for 2005. This represents a reduction of 178,000 kWh over six years or approximately 30,000 kWh or 5% per year from the 1996 level. The park should attain this particular goal by reducing both electrical energy and fuel consumption by 30% as outlined in the previous performance targets. Facilities operations and transportation account for approximately 88% of the total energy consumed at the park unit. Therefore the park unit should target these uses to reduce consumption to the benchmark by 2005. The total energy costs for the park unit should also be reduced from $22,000 in 1996 to approximately $14,000 in 2005 (exclusive of inflation costs). These savings should be used to offset the investment required to improve performance.
Benchmark - Water consumption per year Policies The federal government has not implemented a policy for reduction of water consumption at this time. However, the Department of energy has set a financial criterion for water conservation investments of a 10-year payback or less. For the purposes of the SPOP process, a target of 30% by the year 2005 has been used to complement the energy targets already established. Performance Targets The available data for the park unit is for 1997. The baseline year for the SPOP process will be 1997. Therefore a 30% reduction in water consumption from a baseline of 898 HCF in 1997 would generate a benchmark of approximately 630 HCF in 2005. In order to achieve the benchmark outlined above, the following performance targets have been developed for the park unit:
Recommendations The water consumption benchmark is 630 HCF by 2005. This represents a reduction of 260 HCF from the 1996 baseline. The largest water end use is irrigation. Therefore the park unit should target these uses to reduce consumption to the benchmark by 2005.
Benchmark - Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per Year Policies The Department of Energy has implemented a policy of a 20% reduction in fuel consumed by 2005, assuming a base date of 1985. This requirement is related to energy consumption for transportation. Performance Targets The available data for the park unit is for 1994-5. The baseline year for the SPOP process will be 1995. Therefore a 20% reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from a baseline of 34,950VMT in 1995 would generate a benchmark of approximately 28,000 VMT in 2005. In order to achieve the benchmark outlined above, the following performance targets have been developed for the park unit:
Recommendations The vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) benchmark is 28,000 kWh for 2005. This represents a reduction of 7,000 VMT over five years or approximately 1,400 VMT or 4% per year from the 1997 level. Transportation related to ground maintenance accounts for the majority of the total vehicle miles traveled by the park unit fleet. Therefore the park unit should target these uses to reduce VMT to the benchmark by 2005. The park unit should consider practices that contribute to the improvement of other indicators while reducing the VMT. For example, the park unit should consider alternate transportation modes and fuel sources. For instance the park could utilize compressed natural gas or electric vehicles to reduce emission in the park.
Benchmark – Emissions Generated per year Policies The Department of Energy has implemented a policy of a 30% reduction in energy consumption by 2005, assuming a base date of 1985. This policy would have an associated effect on the emissions generated by the park unit. Performance Targets The available data for the park unit is from 1985-96. The baseline year for the SPOP process will be 1985. Therefore a 30% reduction in emissions from a baseline of 1985 would generate a benchmark of approximately 70,000lbs. C02, 250kg S02, and 140kg N0X in 2005. In order to achieve the benchmark outlined above, the following performance targets have been developed for the park unit:
Recommendations The emissions benchmark is 70,000 lbs. C02, 250 kg S02 and 140 kg N0X by 2005. This represents a reduction of 50,000 lbs. C02, 170kg S02 and 100 kg N0X over five years or 7% per year from the 1996 level. The park should attain this particular goal by reducing both electrical energy and fuel consumption by 30% as outlined in the previous performance targets. Facilities operations and transportation account for approximately 88% of the total emissions generated at the park unit. Therefore the park unit should target these uses to reduce emissions to the benchmark by 2005. The total emissions cost for the park unit should also be reduced from $2,000 in 1996 to approximately $1,500 in 2005 (exclusive of inflation).
Benchmark –Solid Waste Generated Policies The relevant policies that are related to solid waste include the following:
Performance Targets Based on the applicable NPS policies the benchmark for the park unit is a 5% reduction in total solid waste generated by the 2002. Therefore a 5% reduction in solid waste would generate a benchmark of approximately 31,000 lbs. in 2002. In order to achieve the benchmark outlined above, the following performance targets have been developed for the park unit:
Recommendations This benchmark represents a reduction of 5% over four years from the 1996 level. Visitors account for the majority of waste generated at the park unit. Therefore the park unit should target visitors to reduce solid waste to the benchmark by 2002. Additionally, It is recommended that the park develop an ISWAP plan as outlined by the NPS.
Benchmark – Recycling & Composting Policies The relevant policies that are related to recycling and composting include the following:
Performance Targets Based on the applicable NPS and federal policies, the benchmark for the park unit is a 40% increase in recycling & composting by the 2002. Therefore a 40% increase in recycling would generate a benchmark of approximately 14,000 lbs. in 2002. In order to achieve the benchmark outlined above, the following performance targets have been developed for the park unit:
Recommendations This benchmark represents an increase of 4,000 lbs. over four years or 10% per year from the 1996 level. The park should attain this particular goal by increasing both recycling from park operations and visitors. Facilities operations and student groups account for the majority of recycling at the park unit. Therefore the park unit should target these groups to reduce consumption to the benchmark by 2002. Additionally, It is recommended that the park develop an ISWAP plan as outlined by the NPS.
Benchmark –Recycled Products Purchased per Year Executive Order The relevant policies related to product procurement include the following:
Performance Targets Based on the applicable NPS and federal policies, the benchmark for the park unit is a 220% increase in recycled product procurement by the 2005. Therefore a 220% increase in recycled product procurement would generate a benchmark of approximately $5,000 (total purchase value) by 2005. In order to achieve the benchmark outlined above, the following performance targets have been developed for the park unit:
Recommendations The maintenance and administrative departments account for the majority of purchasing based on dollar volume for the park unit. Therefore the park unit should target these departments to increase the procurement of recycled content products in order to reach the benchmark.
The SPOP team has developed nine sets of benchmarks and performance targets for areas of improvement based on relevant policies. These benchmarks and performance targets are intended to provide long-term management objectives for improving the sustainability of the park. The following table is a summary of the nine benchmarks that have been developed for the park:
The phase two strategy formulation of the SPOP process outlined above provides the foundation of a management approach for improving the sustainability of the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. This decision making process utilizes indicators and benchmarks to develop and evaluate sustainable practices and opportunities for improving the environmental and economic performance of the park. The following points are a highlight of the most relevant sustainability issues and opportunities facing the park over the next five years:
The park has the opportunity to reduce total energy consumption and costs by 30%, and provide 10% of this reduction through renewable energy initiatives.
The park has the opportunity to reduce water consumption and costs by 30%.
The park has the opportunity to reduce vehicle miles traveled by the fleet by 20% and reduce emissions generated by the park’s operations by 30%.
The park has the opportunity to reduce the solid waste generated by 5%, increase recycling & composting by 40% and dramatically increase the procurement of recycled products by 220%.
In addition to the operational cost savings provided by these practices, the park also has an opportunity to use these initiatives for educational and interpretive programs that can enhance the visitors overall experience. These sustainable practices will be developed and implemented as part of the third phase of the SPOP. This phase will involve developing options that achieve the targets established in this report. This implementation phase will also include a feasibility analysis of these options to determine which are most appropriate for the park unit. The sustainable practices that are determined to be feasible within the park’s economic constraints will be recommended for selection and implementation over the fiscal years 2000-2005. Finally, the implementation phase will complete the SPOP process and provide an ongoing mechanism for feedback and monitoring.
Appendix A – Online Information Resources
Appendix B – Data Sources for Indicators, Benchmarks & Performance Targets
Appendix C – Indicator List for SPOP Process This appendix includes three sets of indicators as examples of how sustainability is measured. The first set of indicators includes those developed by the SPOP team for Fort Vancouver Historic Site and Joshua Tree National Park. The second set of indicators include those developed by Sustainable Seattle, to measure the sustainability of the city. The final set of indicators include those developed by King County, to measure the sustainability of the county. Each set of indicators is designed for specific issues and a specific scale. These examples should be used as a reference on which to base indicators, but should be tailored to the information that needs to be presented. Indicators for SPOP Process– National Park Service General
Energy
Water
Air Quality
Materials
Indicators of Sustainable Community – Sustainable Seattle Environment
Population and Resources
Economy
Youth & Education
Health & Community
King County Benchmarks Economic Development
Environment
Transportation
|
