|
|
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 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 is
appropriate to Joshua Tree National Park. Secondly, to identify the technical and
financial resources necessary to implement these practices. In essence, the SPOP process
is intended to align Joshua Tree National Park with the National Park Service’s
overall Mission. 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 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 strategy formulation phase. The sections included in this report are outlined
below: The final product of the SPOP strategy formulation phase outlined above
will be recommendations for sustainable development practices that should be selected for
the implementation phase. These recommendations will be based on an analysis of current
performance, specific constraints and appropriate performance targets. Subsequently, the
second phase will include a detailed plan outlining the technical and financial resources
required to implement these sustainable development 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 ‘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. This information provides the baseline for the subsequent phases of 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
3.0 SPOP Goals and Objectives ‘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, while increasing recycling and procurement of recycled products
‘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 are 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 sustainable practices. 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 visitations makes progress towards sustainability extremely difficult. It challenges the park’s ability to manage its natural and cultural resources. Eventually, the number of visitations can become too large for the local environment or ecological footprint to sustain it with adequate energy, water, air quality, materials and other resources. Evaluation The total number of visitors to Joshua Tree National Park was 525,000 and 1,200,000 in 1986 and 1997 respectively. This represents an increase of approximately 240% over the last decade. However, more recently the number of visitors has remained relatively steady, with a slight decline over the last five years (see trend-line). If this trend continues it is expected that the number of visitors to the park will remain relatively constant. Additionally, the percentage of visitors that enter the park through different access points and the time of visitations vary substantially. The majority of the visitors (40%) come from the Los Angeles Metropolitan area, and accesses the park through the West entrance. A minority of the visitors (10%) uses the visitors center facility. The highest visitor concentration is at the weekends, especially during the fall and spring seasons. These factors have significant implications for park management issues especially interpretation and law enforcement. Based on the analysis above, the proposed sustainable development practices should be primarily focused on the major access points, in order to achieve maximum interpretative impact. This prioritization will allow resources to be focused on the West and Main access points, which account for approximately 75% of access, by park visitors. 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 unit continue to track this indicator and its impact on sustainability.
Indicator – Operating Cost ß Declining Description This indicator identifies the effectiveness with which financial resources are used 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. Evaluation The maintenance department, which had the largest budget, accounted for approximately 30% of the overall park budget. 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 of 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 Energy Consumption & Cost ß Declining Description This indicator specifically measures the energy use from electrical sources utilized by the park unit during the period 1993-1997. The purpose of this indicator is to identify opportunities for substituting alternative fuels. The baseline year for improvements in energy efficiency established by federal executive order is 1985. Evaluation The primary energy source for Joshua Tree National Park is electricity. The pre-dominant electrical load is cooling during the summer. The electrical energy consumption was 213,000 kWh and 274,000 kWh in 1993 and 1997 respectively. The total cost for electrical energy consumption was $27,667 and $37,612 in 1993 and 1997. Based on an analysis of the historical data between 1993 and 1997 for electrical energy consumption at Joshua Tree National Park the following trends can be identified:
Conclusion and Linkages In summary, the electrical energy consumption and cost has increased at rate greater than the number of visitations over the same period. Therefore, electrical energy consumption is an area where improvements can be realized by implementing sustainable development practices.
Link to Benchmark
Indicator – Gas Consumption & Cost ß Declining Description This indicator specifically measures the energy use from gas consumption by the park unit from 1993-7. The purpose of this indicator is to identify opportunities for substituting alternative fuels. The baseline year for improvements in energy efficiency established by federal executive order is 1985. However, based on available data the baseline year for improvements in gas energy reduction and the use of alternative fuels will be 1993. Evaluation Gas is the secondary fuel source for Joshua Tree National Park. The total gas consumption was 2624 and 3996 units in 1993 and 1997 respectively. The total gas energy cost was $1,899 and $2,597 in 1993 and 1997 respectively. This energy was primarily used for heating during the winter season. Based on an analysis of the historical data between 1993 and 1997 for gas energy consumption at Joshua Tree National Park the following trends can be identified:
Conclusion and Linkages Park facility heating accounted for the majority of the gas consumption and cost. Therefore heating energy consumption is an area where improvements can be realized by implementing sustainable development practices.
Indicator – Propane Consumption & Cost Ý Improving Description This indicator specifically measures the energy use from propane consumption by the park unit from 1993-7. The purpose of this of this indicator is to identify opportunities for substituting alternative fuels. The baseline year for improvements in energy efficiency established by federal executive order is 1985. However, based on available data the baseline year for improvements in propane reduction and the use of alternative fuels will be 1993. Evaluation Propane is the tertiary fuel source for Joshua Tree National Park. The total propane consumption was 6720 and 1901 units in 1993 and 1997 respectively. The total propane cost was $5,226 and $2,119 in 1993 and 1997 respectively. This propane energy was primarily used for heating and cooking at remote sites. Based on an analysis of the historical data between 1993 and 1997 for propane energy consumption and cost at Joshua Tree National Park the following trends can be identified:
Conclusion and Linkages The significant decline in propane use is attributed to the substitution of other energy sources, primarily natural gas. Therefore, it is recommended that this should not be an area for improvement by implementing sustainable development practices.
Indicator – Fuel Consumption & Cost ß Declining Description This indicator specifically measures the use energy from fuel consumption by the park unit for 1997. 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 1997. Evaluation The fuel source for Joshua Tree National Site is primarily gasoline, diesel and compressed natural gas (CNG). The total fuel consumption for 1997 was approximately 23,828 gallons. The fuel was primarily used for transportation and maintenance equipment. The total cost for fuel was $28,187 (excluding CNG). Energy use from transportation at the park unit was approximately 1,550,000 kWh. This is approximately 340% higher than the total electrical energy consumption for all facilities (455,660,000 kWh). Therefore transportation energy accounts for 77% of the overall energy consumption at the park unit. Conclusion and Linkages Transportation activities accounted for the majority of energy consumption. Therefore transportation energy consumption is an area where improvements can be realized by implementing sustainable development practices. It is recommended that the park unit continue to substitute CNG for both gasoline and diesel to lower total energy consumption per mile and environmental impacts.
Indicator – % of Renewable Energy Sources Ý Improving 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 in 1997 for the Joshua Tree National Park was approximately 2 million kWh. The park unit is in the process of implementing 24kW of photovoltaics at the Cottonwood, Indian Cove and Jumbo Rock sites. 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. The proposed photovoltaic installations are expected to generate approximately 65,000 kWh per year. This represents approximately 3% of the total energy consumption of the park unit. Conclusions and Linkages The consumption of energy is driven by the activities that of the park unit. It is recommended that the park unit’s activities be assessed for opportunities to reduce overall non-renewable energy consumption on the supply side. In addition, the park unit should continue to implement renewable energy sources wherever practicable.
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 including electricity, propane, gasoline and diesel in 1997 for the Joshua Tree National Park was 2,005,660kWh, or 1.67 kWh per visitor. The energy consumption for facilities operations and transportation a represented 23% and 77% respectively. The total energy cost for Joshua Tree National Park was $70,515 in 1997. 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 that of the park unit. It is recommended that the park unit’s activities be assessed for opportunities to reduce overall energy consumption and cost. In particular, energy consumption related to electricity, gasoline and diesel present the best opportunity for reducing both cost and environmental impact. The following table is a summary of the energy use and cost by fuel type for 1997:
Indicator - Water Consumption & Cost ß Declining Description This indicator specifically measures the water consumed by the park unit during the period 1993-7. The baseline year for improvements in energy efficiency established by federal executive order is 1985. However, based on available data the baseline year for improvements at the park unit in water reduction will be 1993. Evaluation The water consumption at the park unit was 1,147 and 3,482 HCF in 1993 and 1997 respectively. The total water cost was $5,947 and $19,893 in 1993 and 1997 respectively. Based on an analysis of the historical data between 1993 and 1997 for water consumption at Joshua Tree National Park the following trends can be identified:
Conclusion and Linkages Based on the analysis above, there has been a significant increase in resource consumption and cost for the park unit, while visitations have remained steady. Therefore this is an area where improvements can be realized by implementing sustainable development practices. Irrigation and cooling water consumption are linked to weather patterns, energy consumption and landscape maintenance. Therefore 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) ß Declining 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 approximate total miles as reported by the park unit. Evaluation Vehicle miles traveled at Joshua Tree National Park in 1997 were approximately 660,000. This is an increase of 192% above 1995. 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 six areas. The number of vehicles utilized by the park has increased over the last three-year and therefore this has resulted in an increase in VMT during this period. Conclusion and Linkages In order to reduce the VMT, transportation costs and associated emissions, it is recommended that the park unit tracks 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 should continue to use compressed natural gas or electric vehicles as a substitute for gasoline or diesel and thereby reducing emission levels in the park. Link to Benchmark
Indicator– % of Alternate Transportation Modes Û SteadyDescription This indicator is a measure of the total miles traveled by all NPS vehicles in a given period of time, that utilize alternate transportation modes or fuel sources. Vehicle miles traveled per year are based on approximate total miles as reported by the park unit. Evaluation The park unit currently utilizes compressed natural gas as an alternate transportation fuel. The total transportation energy consumption for this fuel type was 36,625 kWh since 1996 or approximately 2% of total energy use for transportation. The park unit has should exercise the option to lease compressed natural gas, electric or bi-fuel vehicles from GSA, thereby substitute gasoline and diesel vehicles in the park fleet. The use of these alternative fuel sources 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 form transportation. Currently, transportation accounts for approximately 77% of the energy utilized and emissions generated by the park unit.
Indicator– Emissions Generated ß Declining Description This indicator specifically measures the emissions produced form energy consumption at the park unit during the period 1995-1997. 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. However, based on the available data, the baseline year for the SPOP process will be 1995. 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 1995 and 1997 were 209,342lbs. & 401,132lbs. respectively. The total sulfur dioxide emissions in 1995 and 1997 were 732,698g and 1,403,962g respectively. The total nitrogen oxide(s) emissions in 1995 and 1997 were 418,684g and 802,264g respectively. This represents a 192% increase in all emissions above the 1995 base date. The external costs of the emissions generated from the park unit in 1997 were $9,938. 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. The following table and graph are a summary of the emissions data for the park unit:
Link to Benchmark
Indicator– 29 Palms Air Quality Index ? Trend UnclearDescription 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 27% and the number of moderate days has decreased by 66% between 1993 and 1997. There has been one unhealthful day in three of the last five years. Therefore, the general trend in air quality in the vicinity of the park is tending towards improvement. However, this park unit has the worst air quality of all units in the National Park System. The interpretation of this air quality data may involve 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 considers the effects of park operations on this indicator.
Indicator – Solid Waste Generated ß Declining 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 in 1997. Paper and recyclable containers were the major sources of materials in the waste stream. Solid waste generated at the park has increase by 58% between 1995 and 1997. Therefore, the park unit should make every effort to 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. Conclusion and Linkages Increase in waste generation per visitor will result in larger amounts of solid waste being generated in the future, even though the number of visitors to the park has not increased significantly. While recycling should continue to increase, efforts should also be made to reduce consumption of disposable materials and the subsequent waste that is generated. Additionally, recycled content procurement policies can also minimize the use of non-reusable or non-recyclable products, packaging and waste by-products.
Indicator –Recycling ! Insufficient DataDescription 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 in 1997. Paper and recyclable containers were the major sources of materials in 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. Conclusion and Linkages Increase in waste generation per visitor will result in larger amounts of solid waste being generated in the future, even though the number of visitors to the park has not increased significantly. While recycling should continue to increase, efforts should also be made to reduce consumption of disposable materials and the subsequent waste that is generated. Additionally, recycled content procurement policies can also minimize the use of non-reusable or non-recyclable products, packaging and waste by-products.
Summary The following is a summary of the fifteen 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. The summary also indicates 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, eleven sets of benchmarks and performance targets have been developed. The indicators selected for further analysis include seven of the indicators that had declining trends signifying problem areas and five 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 fifteen indicators developed for the park:
‘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
‘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 1986. Performance Targets The available data for Joshua Tree National Park is from 1993-7. The baseline year for the SPOP process will be 1993. Therefore a 30% reduction in electrical consumption from 1993 represents a benchmark of 150,000kWh. 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 150,000 kWh for 2005. This represents a reduction of 63,000 kWh from the 1993 baseline. However, this represents an annual improvement over five years of approximately 25,500 kWh or 6% per year from the 1997 level. The largest electrical energy end uses are cooling and lighting. 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 $37,612 to $19,000 between 1997 and 2005 (exclusive of inflation). These savings should be used to finance the investment required to attain this level of performance.
Benchmark - Gas 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 1986. Performance Targets The available data for Joshua Tree National Park is from 1993-7. The baseline year for the SPOP process will be 1993. Therefore a 30% reduction in gas consumption from 1993 represents a benchmark of approximately 60,000kWh. In order to achieve the benchmark outlined above, the following performance targets have been developed for the park unit:
Recommendations The gas energy consumption benchmark is 60,000 kWh for 2005. This represents a reduction of 16,000 kWh from the 1993 baseline. However, this represents an annual improvement over five years of approximately 10,000 kWh or 6% per year from the 1997 level. The largest gas energy end use is heating. Therefore the park unit should target this use to reduce consumption to the benchmark by 2005. The operating costs for gas energy consumption at the park unit should simultaneously be reduced from $2,597 to $1,300 between 1997 and 2005 (exclusive of inflation). These savings should be used to finance the investment required to attain this level of 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 1986. Performance Targets The available data for Joshua Tree National Park is from 1995-7. The baseline year for the SPOP process will be 1997. Therefore a 30% reduction in gasoline, diesel and CNG consumption from 1997 represents a benchmark of approximately 1,050,000 kWh. 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 1,050,000 kWh for 2005. This represents a reduction of 500,000 kWh over five years or approximately 100,000 kWh or 6% per year from the 1995 level. Transportation accounts for approximately 77% 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 $28,187 in 1997 to approximately $20,000 in 2005.
Benchmark – % of Renewable Energy Policies The department of Energy implemented a policy of 10% renewable energy source for federal facilities energy consumption by 2005, assuming a base date of 1986. Performance Targets The available data for Joshua Tree National Park is for 1995-7. Therefore the baseline year for the SPOP process will be 1997. Therefore 10% of the total energy consumption for 1997 would represent a benchmark for renewable sources of approximately 200,000 kWh by the year 2005. The park unit currently is implementing photovoltaic arrays at Cottonwood, Indian Cove and Jumbo Rocks. Recommendations The total renewable energy benchmark is 200,000 kWh for 2005. The park unit is currently implementing 24kW of photovoltaic system arrays that are expected to generate approximately 65,000 kWh per year. Therefore the park unit should implement an additional 135,000 kWh of renewable energy by the year 2005, in order to attain the benchmark. The total annual operating savings from this investment should be approximately $21,000 (exclusive of inflation and deregulation 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 1986. In addition, 10% of the energy consumed in 2005 should be provided by renewable energy sources. Performance Targets The available data for Joshua Tree National Park is from 1995-7. The baseline year for the SPOP process will be 1997. Therefore a 30% reduction in energy consumption from 1993 represents approximately 600,000 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 1,400,000 kWh for 2005. This represents a reduction of 600,00 kWh over five years or approximately 120,00 kWh or 6% per year from the 1997 level. The park should attain this particular goal by reducing electrical, gas and fuel consumption by 30% as outlined in the previous performance targets. Facility electrical consumption and transportation fuel account for approximately 90% of the total energy consumed at the park unit. Therefore the park unit should target these areas to reduce consumption to the benchmark by 2005. The total energy costs for the park unit should also be reduced from $70,515 in 1997 to approximately $500,000 in 2005 (exclusive of inflation effects).
Benchmark - Water consumption per year Executive Order The Department of Energy has implemented a policy of a 30% reduction in water consumption by 2005, assuming a base date of 1986. Additionally, the Department of energy has set a financial criterion for water conservation investments of a 10-year payback or less. Performance Targets The available data for Joshua Tree National Park is from 1993-7. The baseline year for the SPOP process will be 1993. Therefore a 30% reduction in water consumption from 1993 represents a benchmark of approximately 800 HCF. 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 800 HCF by 2005. This represents a reduction of 250 HCF from the 1993 baseline. However, this also represents an annual improvement over five years of approximately 500 HCF or 15% per year from the 1997 level. The largest water end uses are cooling and irrigation. Therefore the park unit should target these uses to reduce consumption to the benchmark by 2005. The operating costs for water consumption at the park unit should simultaneously be reduced from $20,00 to $5,000 between 2000 and 2005 (exclusive of inflation). These savings should be used to finance the investment required to attain this level of performance.
Benchmark - Vehicle Miles Traveled 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 1986. Performance Targets The available data for Joshua Tree National Park is from 1995-7. The baseline year for the SPOP process will be 1997. Therefore a 30% reduction in vehicle miles traveled from 1993 represents approximately 200,000 miles per year. 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 460,00 by 2005. This represents a reduction of 200,000VMT over five years or approximately 40,000 VMT or 6% per year from the 1997 level.
Benchmark – % Alternate Transportation Modes Policies The department of Energy has implemented a policy of a 30% reduction in energy consumption by 2005, assuming a base date of 1986. Performance Targets The available data for Joshua Tree National Park is from 1996-7. The baseline year for the SPOP process will be 1997. Therefore a 30% decrease in total transportation energy consumption using alternate fuel sources from 1997 represents approximately 465,000 kWh per year. The total alternate fuel source consumption for 1997 was approximately 35,000 kWh. In order to achieve the benchmark outlined above, the following performance targets have been developed for the park unit:
Recommendations The alternate fuel source benchmark is 465,000 by 2005. Transportation accounts for approximately 77% of the total energy consumed and emissions generated at the park unit. The park should attain this particular goal by utilizing alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas and electric.
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 1986. Performance Targets The available data for Joshua Tree National Park is from 1995-7. The baseline year for the SPOP process will be 1997. In order to achieve the benchmark outlined above, the following performance targets have been developed for the park unit:
Recommendations The emissions benchmark is 280,000 lbs. C02, 980,000g S02 and 560,000g N0X by 2005. This represents a reduction of 120,000 lbs. C02, 420kg S02 and 240kg N0X over six years or 8% per year from the 1996 level. The park should attain this particular goal by reducing both electrical energy consumption by 30% as outlined in the previous performance targets. Facilities operations and transportation account for approximately 90% of the total emissions generated at the park unit. Therefore the park unit should target these uses to reduce consumption to the benchmark by 2005. The total emissions cost for the park unit should also be reduced from $9,938 in 1997 to approximately $7,000 in 2005.
Benchmark –Solid Waste Generated & Recycling Policies The relevant policies that are related to solid waste and recycling include the following:
Performance Targets The available data for Joshua Tree National Park is from 1995-7. The baseline year for the SPOP process will be 1995 for solid waste and 1997 for recycling. Therefore, based on the applicable NPS service-wide goals, the benchmark for the park unit is a 50% reduction in total solid waste generated by 1999 and a 40% increase in recycling by 2002. Due to insufficient time series data in this area, no performance targets can be developed at this time. It is recommended that the park develop an ISWAP plan as outlined in the NPS service-wide goals. This plan will provide data adequate for setting the appropriate benchmarks for solid waste and recycling. Recommendations The solid waste benchmark is a 50% reduction in 1995 levels by 1999. Since visitors account for the majority of waste generated, the park unit should target visitors to reduce solid waste to the benchmark by 2002. The total solid waste cost for the park unit should in 1998 was $40,000. The recycling benchmark is a 50% increase in 1998 levels by 2002. The park should attain this particular goal by increasing both recycling from park operations and visitors. Over 50% of the current waste stream is composed of paper and recyclable containers. Therefore the park unit should target these areas to reduce consumption to the benchmark by 2002.
The SPOP team has developed 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 twelve 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 Joshua Tree National Park. 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 75%.
The park has the opportunity to reduce VMT & emissions by 30%.
The park has the opportunity to reduce the solid waste generated by 68%, increase recycling & composting between 40-50%. 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 Visitors
(Mil) 1993 1.256 1994 1.189 1995 1.239 1996 1.098 1997 1.227 Budget
($M) Visitors
(Mil) Cost
per Visitor ($) 1993 2.405 1.26 1.91 1994 2.783 1.19 2.34 1995 2.939 1.24 2.37 1996 3.009 1.10 2.74 1997 3.179 1.23 2.58 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 213,970 145,164 164,501 272,627 274,307 27,667 24,850 34,757 29,528 37,612 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 2,624 2,562 3,208 3,262 3,996 76,909 75,092 94,026 95,609 117,123 1,899 2,011 2,797 2,111 2,597 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 6,720 7,448 5,434 3,648 1,901 196,963 218,301 159,271 106,923 55,718 5,226 6,412 4,762 2,755 2,119 1993 1.147 $
5.947 1.256 $
0.005 1994 0.796 $
8.175 1.189 $
0.010 1995 1.490 $
13.413 1.239 $
0.011 1996 4.025 $
18.995 1.098 $
0.017 1997 3.482 $
19.893 1.227 $
0.016 32% 25% 25% 10% 8% 100% 37% 16% 16% 16% 9% 6% 24% 24% 20% 20% 12% 26% 26% 12% 12% 12% 12% Appendix C – Indicator List for SPOP Process Indicators of Sustainable Community – Sustainable Seattle Environment
Population and Resources
Economy
Youth & Education
Health & Community
King County Benchmarks Economic Development
Environment
Transportation
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
