xedit qw00.03.html National Park Service (NPS)/Water Resources Division (WRD) Water-Quality Monitoring and Assessment (WQMA) Partnership for fiscal year (FY) 2001
National Park Service (NPS)/Water Resources Division (WRD) Water-Quality Monitoring and Assessment (WQMA) Partnership for fiscal year (FY) 2001

In Reply Refer To:
Mail Stop 412                                          March 23, 2000

OFFICE OF WATER QUALITY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 2000.03

Subject:  National Park Service (NPS)/Water Resources Division (WRD)
          Water-Quality Monitoring and Assessment (WQMA) Partnership for
          fiscal year (FY) 2001

The NPS/WRD WQMA Partnership (see WRD Memorandum 99.17;
wwwoper.er.usgs.gov/memos/99/auto.html) is anticipated to continue in FY
2001 (pending congressional approval). This memorandum prescribes the WRD
process to propose, select, and fund water-quality work for NPS. District
Chiefs should be the primary liaison to the Parks regarding projects in the
NPS/WRD WQMA Partnership.

The selection of NPS/WRD water-quality work begins with discussions among
NPS Park Superintendents and staff and WRD managers and scientists.  Ideas
for new projects can be pursued in several ways.  Districts can expect
contacts from Park Superintendents who wish to do water-quality assessment
and monitoring projects as part of this program.  The Park Superintendents
will be asking for U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) assistance in developing
preliminary project proposals.  In addition, District and National Research
Program (NRP) scientists are encouraged to propose and discuss new research
topics with appropriate Park staff and should inform the appropriate
District Chief(s)of any decisions made in order to pursue formal proposals.
NRP scientists are expected to work collaboratively with District
scientists on projects funded by this program.  Also, please note that
fixed-station monitoring is planned to occur on a 2- to 3-year rotation.
Thus, long-term (for example, permanent discharge gaging stations)
data-collection sites are not expected to be part of the program.

The process begins with the development of preliminary project proposals
which are limited to annual funding levels ($85,000 for intensive studies
and $42,500 for synoptic or fixed-station monitoring studies) as suggested
in the NPS, "Natural Resources Stewardship and Science FY2001 Unified
Project and Technical Assistance Call" that was sent out by NPS on February
25, 2000. Each preliminary proposal should follow standard guidelines and
protocol determined by the respective District and clearly reserve
appropriate funds for anticipated products.  The resulting preliminary
project proposals will be submitted through District Chiefs (with approval
through the respective Region where necessary) to Park Superintendents to
NPS for internal screening and initial prioritization using criteria
described in Attachment 1. Keep in mind that this is a Partnership Program
and the NPS must submit preliminary proposals (referred to as "project
statements" by NPS) using their own guidelines and protocol.  Attachment 1
contains the pertinent portions of the NPS Unified Call to help you
understand the NPS procedures and evaluation criteria (the entire Unified
Call can be found in Attachment 2 if you're interested) for your use in
developing the preliminary proposals.


Upon completion and submittal of the preliminary project proposals,
approximately 43 will be submitted to an NPS-USGS work group (3 NPS and 3
USGS members) for final prioritization and funding in FY 2001. Up to 50
percent of the 43 proposals may be selected for funding.  If a proposal is
selected for funding, the responsible District must prepare a fully
detailed, Region-approved proposal/work plan for final acceptance and
funding.

It is suggested that preliminary project proposals address all the criteria
outlined in attachment 1 and should include:

(1) A statement of how the proposed work contributes to and focuses on an
    enhanced understanding of Park water-quality management issues. In
addition,
    proposals that include state-of-the-art water-quality methods
    or enhance process understanding are preferred;
(2) Statements about collaboration with scientists from NRP, other
Districts,
    National Water-Quality Laboratory, or other USGS Divisions and
academia;

Multi-year projects funded in previous years and proposed for FY 2001
funding will be subject to annual review and approval. Continuing projects
must prepare and submit a progress report following the suggested format
(see Attachment 3). The timeline for the steps of the preliminary proposal
prioritization, selection process, and progress reports is detailed in
Attachment 4.  The first deadline will be May 26, 2000, when the
preliminary proposals (i.e., project statements) and progress reports are
to be submitted to the NPS Regions and Headquarters. Note, the sequence of
NPS internal screening and initial prioritization of preliminary project
proposals includes NPS clusters and regions and finally NPS headquarters.
Districts should coordinate with Park Superintendents to insure meeting NPS
cluster and region timelines for submitting proposals.

Questions concerning the NPS/WRD Partnership should be directed to
Mike Focazio (703-648-6808, mfocazio@usgs.gov).



                                        Janice R. Ward
                                        Acting Chief, Office of Water
Quality
Attachments (4)
     Attachment 1--Background and Guidance for Project Statements (from
     Sections of Unified Call for FY 2001 Natural Resource Project Funding
     Proposals and for Natural Resource Program Center Technical Assistance
     in FY 2001)

     Attachment 2--Entire Unified Call for FY 2001 Natural Resource
     Project Funding Proposals and for Natural Resource Program Center
     Technical Assistance in FY 2001

     Attachment 3--FY 2000 Continuing Project Progress Report Format

     Attachment 4--Timeline for Submission, Review, and Selection of
     Preliminary Proposals (i.e., "Project Statements"), Workplans, and
     Progress Reports.

The memorandum does not supersede any other Office of Water Quality
Technical Memorandum.

Distribution: A, B, DC, NAWQA Study Unit Chiefs (1991, 1994, 1997)
===========================================================================
==

Attachment 1.  Selected portions of the NPS "Natural Resources Stewardship
and Science FY2001 Unified Project and Technical Assistance Call"

Taken from Pages 2-12
I.  Instructions and Criteria

                        I.A.  General Instructions

These instructions apply to all the natural resources funding programs that
follow.  Note that some individual programs also have other specific
requirements or criteria that may apply.

Number of Projects Submitted per Region: For competitive project funding,
the NR-MAP workload analysis is used to determine how many projects or the
total cost of projects that may be submitted by each region.  Regions with
greater NR-MAP workloads, determined by the extent and complexity of
natural resources managed, may submit more projects or projects of a higher
estimated cost than regions with relatively smaller workloads.

Project Duration: To be eligible for Natural Resources funding, projects
must:
·    Be non-recurring,
·    Be funded and completed within the specified 1 to 3 year time limit,
and
·    Provide useful results even if no follow-up work is undertaken.

In unusual circumstances and with WASO approval, project duration may be
extended an additional year where necessary for such things as completion
of reports; however, no additional funding will be provided.  The proposal
should justify schedules exceeding three years and, in general, such
requests should not relate to the need for additional field seasons.
Continuation of previously funded projects may be submitted as new projects
only if adequate justification is provided.

Subject of Projects: All natural resource management projects are eligible,
except those projects funded through other Servicewide natural resource
programs.  That is, eligible projects are those that may focus on any
natural resource other than:

·    Air as an entity (e.g., visibility and pollutant monitoring and
meteorological monitoring are not eligible, while the natural resource
impacts of air resource threats are eligible),
·    Acid precipitation as an entity (e.g., monitoring of precipitation and
water body acidification changes are not eligible, while natural resource
impacts of acidification on species or habitats are eligible),
·    Water as a commodity (e.g., determining the location and amount of
water available for human consumption is not eligible), or
·    Biological research (if a project is dependent upon biological
research, the research component and its cost must be listed separately).

Exclusions:  Natural Resources project funds may not be used for:

·    Salaries of permanent NPS employees,
·    Maintenance of existing structures, or
·    Construction or rehabilitation of structures that are not directly
related to preservation or restoration of natural resources.

Projects with Research Components: Biological research is not eligible for
Natural Resources Program funding, except through NRPP-Research funds
managed through USGS-BRD.  If a natural resource management project is
dependent upon the results of biological research, the project statement
must delineate that portion which is ineligible research from the eligible
natural resource management component.  The proposal should discuss how the
biological research component is going to be accomplished and address the
certainty of the research results being available for carrying out the
natural resource management portion of the project.  This information will
be used in ranking the project in terms of information available on the
problem and project feasibility.

Non-biological research is eligible for Natural Resources Program funding,
and may be combined with follow-up management or mitigation.  Also eligible
are pilot field-testing, methods refinement, or monitoring components.
Such projects must meet the duration limit above and must:

·    Support in annual reports the amount of resource management or
mitigation funding that will be needed, and
·    Be reviewed after research is completed and before the resource
management or mitigation funds are allotted.


Documentation: All proposals for Servicewide natural resource funding are
to be submitted in the form of Project Statements in the format prescribed
in the December 1994 RMP instructions.  Project statements may not exceed
the 12-page length that is the maximum provided in the RMP software.  The
12-page maximum should be obtained using standard 12-pt-sized fonts;
non-conforming proposals will not be considered.  Two additional pages may
be appended to provide a map and graphic, if these contribute substantially
to explaining the project.  Submitters are encouraged to be as succinct as
possible.  Past experience has shown that length does not necessarily
contribute to the quality of a proposal.

Proposal documentation should include the following:

  1)  In the upper right corner of the project statement indicate:
·    Name of Regional Office submitting proposal
·    PMIS number(s) of the project
·    Reference to any proposal submitted earlier that is modified, updated,
or changed by this submission
·    Do not include regional priority ranking.

  2)  A project title clearly stating the project.  An abstract, not to
   exceed 10 lines, that describes the project purpose and expected
   results.  Pages should be numbered.

  3)  For a Regional Office proposal that involves multiple parks, one
   project statement describing the combined project should be provided
   that references all relevant park project statements.  Attach a cover
   sheet briefly describing the justification for and benefits of the
   multi-park proposal and a list of the parks involved.

Multi-regional Projects: Proposals may be submitted that includes parks in
more than one region.  The proposal should identify the lead responsibility
and the proportion of funding attributable to each region, where regions
are given a funding cap.  Where regions have a maximum number of projects,
the proposal must identify which region's total the project counts against.
Also, attach a cover sheet that includes the names of regions involved, the
lead region, and a brief justification for and benefits of the multi-region
approach.

                FY 2001 Natural Resources Funding Schedule


May 26, 2000:  Project proposals for all Natural Resources funding
               categories are due to NPS national program office.*  Region
               nominations for evaluation panels are also due.  (NOTE:
               Regions may have earlier dates for project submittals to
               allow regional review and ranking.)

June 12-16, 2000:   Panels convene to evaluate Water Resources and
               AML/Disturbed Lands Restoration projects.

September 15, 2000: Technical assistance requests for FY 2001 are due to
               Natural Resources Program Center Division Chiefs

October 2, 2000:    Detailed implementation plans submitted for projects
               expected to be funded in FY 2001.


December 30, 2000:  Progress reports for all projects are due.  Detailed
               implementation plans revised as appropriate and approved.
               WASO Budget Office requested to transfer funds to the
               respective regions for new and continuing projects, if
               eligibility criteria and progress reporting requirements are
               met.  Fund transfer date is contingent on approval of the
               program office financial plans.


             I.B.  Natural Resources Project Ranking Criteria

These criteria are to be addressed and included with proposals for all
Natural Resources funding programs.

1.   Significance of the Resource or Issue to the Park: How important is
the resource or issue to the park involved, relative to it's other
resources and issues?  (Weighting Factor = X2)

     5    High significance: resource or issue is one of the most
          significant in the park, defined as unique, the subject of the
          enabling legislation, fundamental to this park's ecosystem and
          purposes (as opposed to basic resources such as air and water
          that are fundamental to all parks), high priority in park RMP (is
          not sufficient in itself), on federal or state lists as
          endangered or threatened, required by statute, etc.  A "5" will
          generally require several of these criteria to be met.

     3    Moderate significance: resource or issue is important, but not
          singularly so for that park.

     1    Resource or issue only peripherally related to park's purposes or
          uses.

2.   Severity of Resource Threat, Problem, or Need(s): (Weighting Factor =
X3)

     5    Resource threat, problem, or need is current or imminent, and is
          extensive, persistent, immediate, complex, likely irreversible, a
          current or imminent risk to public health or safety, and/or
          hazardous.  Delaying the project will result in, or continue,
          significant resource degradation.

     3    Resource threat, problem, or need is potential, or moderate in
          extent, persistence, and/or complexity.  Delay of the proposed
          project may result in, or continue, limited resource degradation.
          A potential public health or safety threat exists.


     1    Resource threat, problem, or need is minor, infrequent, remote,
          and/or temporary.  Immediate action is not necessary to protect
          resources.  Delaying the project will not result in, or continue,
          significant resource degradation.  Public health/safety is not an
          issue.

3.   Problem definition and information base: How well is the problem
defined?  (Weighting Factor = X2)

     5    The project statement clearly defines the problem.  The
          information base regarding the problem is well described and
          provides sound foundation for problem resolution. If problem is
          lack of information, project statement clearly documents extent
          of existing information or lack thereof.

     3    The project statement describes the problem in general terms.
          The information base is mentioned but only moderately well
          described.

     1    Problem is poorly defined and/or availability of information is
          not addressed.

4.   Feasibility: (Weighting Factor = X3)

     5    Objectives are clear; methodologies, procedures, and proposed
          actions are technically sound; and time frame is reasonable to
          accomplish project objectives.

     3    Objectives are fairly clear; or methodologies, procedures, and
          proposed actions are more or less technically sound; or project
          objectives may not be accomplished within time frame.

     1    Objectives are not clearly stated; or methodologies, procedures,
          and proposed actions are not technically sound; or project cannot
          be accomplished within time frames.

5.   Problem resolution: Will the proposed use of funds contribute directly
     to decisions or actions that, when implemented, will meaningfully
     resolve a management issue? (Weighting Factor = X3)

     5    The proposed project implements [for USGS...or develops
          information for implementing...] specific management
          prescriptions that will result in the final resolution of a
          natural resource issue or threat [for USGS.. once the management
          phase is implemented...]; no additional actions other than
          follow-up monitoring are anticipated.


     3    The proposed project will contribute to the future resolution of
          a natural resource issue or threat by clarifying management
          issues, articulating techniques or procedures, supporting an
          inter-agency or regional strategy, etc.  Additional studies,
          management actions, and/or planning will be necessary to
          completely resolve the stated issue or threat.

     1    The proposed project is not directly related to the development
          of management actions to resolve a specific issue or threat, but
          will contribute basic information about park natural resources.
          The focus here is on collection of baseline data, rather than
          implementation of a management action.

6.   Transferability: How widely will the project protocols or results be
     useful? (Weighting Factor = X1)

     5    The protocols or results of the project can contribute to
          tangible needs at the national level (NPS or other organization),
          and the park demonstrates the intention and ability to make the
          information available widely.

     3    The protocols or results of the project can contribute to
          tangible needs at several parks or other organizations. The park
          demonstrates the intention and ability to make the information
          available to other units or organizations.

     1    The project's tangible benefits are limited to the park.

7.   Cost effectiveness:  Given problem statement and proposed methodology,
are cost estimates realistic and commensurate with the results to be
produced? (Weighting Factor = X2)

     5    Costs are realistic, well researched, clearly spelled out, and
          defensible.

     3    Costs appear reasonable given stated project objectives and
          procedures, but proposal does not provide supportive data to
          indicate how they were determined.

     1    Costs appear disproportionately high or low in relation to the
          stated project objectives and procedures; proposal does not
          indicate that costs have been accurately evaluated.


8.   Project Support: What resources (including in-kind contributions) are
the park, region or other partner(s) willing to commit to this project?  A
detailed description of total project costs, including contributions is
required.  (For NRPP projects, if matching non-federal funds contribute at
least 10% of the total project cost the weighting factor is = 2X.)

     5    70% or more of the project costs covered by park, region or
          partner(s)

     4    51% - 69% of the project costs covered by park, region, or
          partner(s)

     3    39% - 50% of project costs covered by park, region, or partner(s)

     2    38% - 10% of project costs covered by park, region, or partner(s)

     1    less than 10% of project costs covered by park, region, or
          partner(s)

9.   Scientific Merit: What is the technical and scientific value of the
project?
     NOTE:  This criterion is applicable only to the NPS-USGS Geologic
     Science and Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Partnerships.
     (Weighting Factor = X3)

     5    The proposed project exhibits superior scientific merit by
          applying existing or new techniques to study unique and/or
          complex park problems, and by providing high quality information
          to managers and the public in useful and original products.

     3    The proposed project exhibits scientific merit by applying
          existing techniques to address park problems, and by providing
          quality information to park managers and the public.

     1    The proposed project does not exhibit scientific merit but will
          provide basic water resource information to park managers and the
          public.

Fee Demo Adjustment Factor: After proposals are scored on a technical
basis, each proposal's total point score will be adjusted based on the
park's fee collection status as follows: add 5 points for non-fee parks, 3
points for parks with less than $100,000/year in fee collections, and 0
points for parks with $100,000/year or more in fee collections.

Taken from Pages 30-35:

       NPS-USGS Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Partnership

In FY 2001, funding is available from the U.S. Geological Survey's Water
Resources Division (USGS-WRD) to address NPS identified water quality
assessment and monitoring needs.  Contingent on Congressional approval,
approximately $2.0 million will be allocated in FY 2001 to implement new
and continuing water quality projects in parks.  While total project funds
are lower than last year due to budget restructuring in USGS, it is
expected that net project funds will remain about the same for project
activities.  Project funds are not transferred to participating parks.
Rather, parks collaborate with USGS District Offices that will conduct the
water quality assessments and monitoring studies needed to satisfy the park
needs.

Funding Amounts for Project submittals:
   Intensive Studies: $85,000/project/year
   Synoptic Studies: $42,500/project/year
   Fixed-Station Monitoring Studies: $42,500/project/year
   Technical Assistance Requests: $10,000/request

Project duration: Not to exceed three years.

Number of projects per region: Based on NR-MAP workload. The number of
submissions is intended to allow funding for approximately 50% of projects.
The region may adjust the submissions among categories, but not exceed the
total project number.
|----------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
|                |            |   Recommended Category Distribution  |
|----------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
|                |  Total #   |Intensive/ Synoptic                   |
|      Region    |  Project   |StudiesFixed-Station Monitoring       |
|                |  Statements|StudiesTechnical Assistance           |
|----------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
|  Alaska        |      5     |                  221                 |
|----------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
|  Intermountain |      10    |                  442                 |
|----------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
|Midwest         |     5      |                  221                 |
|----------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
|National Capital|     3      |                  111                 |
|----------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
|Northeast       |     5      |                  221                 |
|----------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
|Pacific West    |     10     |                  442                 |
|----------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
|Southeast       |     5      |                  221                 |
|----------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
|  TOTALS        |      43    |                 17179                |
|----------------+------------+--------------------------------------|



Subject of Projects: Projects will be accepted in the four categories
below.  Project are encouraged to include a data analysis and
interpretation component by USGS to make the information immediately
applicable by NPS resource managers and also make specific provisions for
park interpreters and the USGS to present the information to the public.

1.  Intensive Studies: Relatively large projects of that require in-depth
   study of park water quality.  Designed to characterize known or
   suspected water quality problems, these will also focus on understanding
   causes of contamination and the implications of water quality impairment
   to aquatic biota.  Most intensive studies are strongly issue-driven and
   oriented towards priority water quality issues confronting the National
   Park Service.


2.  Synoptic Studies: Short-term investigations of water quality from
   several sites during selected seasonal periods or hydrologic conditions.
   Designed to focus on park-specific issues that may have broader regional
   implications.  Synoptic studies are intended to provide a quick
   assessment of aquatic conditions at selected locations and to evaluate
   the spatial relationships or contributions to those conditions, or to
   provide baseline data and information where little exists.

3.  Fixed-Station Monitoring: Monitoring that documents long-term trends in
   water quality and determines if management actions are achieving water
   quality objectives.  Fixed-station monitoring will be designed to enable
   park managers to know the health of nationally significant NPS water
   bodies, know the effects of remediation actions, and document whether
   external activities adversely affect park water quality.  Generally,
   fixed-station monitoring will be implemented using a "site rotation"
   concept.

4.  Technical Assistance: USGS technical assistance will consist of
   evaluating water quality information and issues to assess watershed
   management, engineering, maintenance or regulatory actions to protect,
   mitigate or restore park water quality conditions.

USGS Coordination: Early in the process of assembling project proposals for
submission, parks must contact local USGS offices to inform them of park
needs, discuss strategies, and receive assistance in writing or revising
project statements and addressing the ranking criteria.  The local USGS
District Chief should certify each submission, indicating that the work is
feasible and the schedule and costs are appropriate.

Documentation, Criteria, Selection and Approval Process, and Schedule:
Standard requirements for proposals to the national program office are
presented in section I.A. General Instructions.  For this partnership
program, an NPS-USGS work group will evaluate the project statements
submitted to the national office using the standard NR criteria plus
criteria #9, Scientific Merit, below. The NPS-USGS work group will develop
a list of priority projects for each funding category.  The NPS Water
Resources Division will participate on the work group and will provide
assistance to parks during all stages of the process.

     Criterion 9.  Scientific Merit: What is the technical and scientific
     value of the project?  This is applicable only to the NPS-USGS
     Geologic Science Partnership and the Water Quality Assessment and
     Monitoring Partnership.  (Weighting factor = X3)

     5    The proposed project exhibits superior scientific merit by
          applying existing or new techniques to study unique and/or
          complex park problems, and by providing high quality information
          to managers and the public in useful and original products.

     3    The proposed project exhibits scientific merit by applying
          existing techniques to address park problems, and by providing
          quality information to park managers and the public.

     1    The proposed project does not exhibit scientific merit but will
          provide basic water resource information to park managers and the
          public.

Detailed Implementation Plans: For the projects chosen for funding,
detailed implementation plans (or scopes of work) must be developed.  The
implementation plans will be evaluated for technical adequacy by each park
and participating USGS District Office, then submitted for approval by the
applicable USGS Regional Office.  The NPS-USGS work group will then review
USGS-approved implementation plans, with the assistance of independent
reviewers as appropriate.  Implementation plans requiring revision will be
returned to the USGS offices and/or parks.  Projects will not be initiated
until implementation plans have received final approval from the NPS-USGS
work group.

Proposal Submission: Send proposals to Dan Kimball, Chief, Water Resources
Division, 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80525.

Technical assistance: Guidance is available from the NPS-WRD and the
USGS-WRD in selecting project statements for submission, preparing the
overall project proposal submissions, and facilitating coordination with
USGS.  To obtain assistance or information (including USGS District
personnel who can assist your park), please contact Barry Long, NPS-WRD, at
(970) 225-3519 (barry_long@nps.gov) or Mike Focazio, USGS-WRD, at (703)
648-6808 (mfocazio@usgs.gov).
==========================================================================
                 NATURAL RESOURCES STEWARDSHIP AND SCIENCE
           FY 2001 UNIFIED PROJECT AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CALL
40

                 NATURAL RESOURCES STEWARDSHIP AND SCIENCE
           FY 2001 UNIFIED PROJECT AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CALL
                                  ATTACHMENT 2
                               Table of Contents



I.  Instructions and Criteria                                     2
   I.A.  General Instructions                                     2
       FY 2001 Natural Resources Funding Schedule                 7
   I.B.  Natural Resources Project Ranking Criteria               8
   I.C.  Natural Resource Project Ranking Criteria Form           12
   I.D.  Parks as Classrooms Grants Related to Natural Resource Proposals
   13
       Parks as Classrooms Funding Criteria                       13



II.  Natural Resources Unified Project Call                       15
   II.A.  Natural Resource Preservation Program (NRPP)            15
       NRPP/ Resource Management                                  15
       NRPP/Disturbed Land Restoration                            16
       NRPP/Threatened and Endangered Species                     17
       NRPP/Regional Small Park Block Grants                      18
       NRPP/Research                                              18
   II.B.  Biological Resources                                    19
       Biological Resource Management Projects                    19
       USGS-BRD Species at Risk Program                           20
   II.C.  Geologic Resources                                      22
       Abandoned Mineral Lands (AML) Reclamation Projects         22
       NPS-USGS Project Funding Partnership: Geological Science for Parks
       23
       USGS Geology Projects Linked To Parks                      25
   II.D.  Water Resources                                         27
       Water Resources Management Projects                        27
       Recreational Fisheries Restoration                         29
       NPS-USGS Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Partnership    30
       Level 1 Water Quality Inventories                          32



III.  Natural Resource Program Center Technical Assistance        35
   III.A.  Air Resources Division                                 35
   III.B.  Biological Resource Management Division                36
   III.C.  Environmental Quality Division                         37
   III.D.  Geologic Resources Division                            38
   III.E.  Water Resources Division Technical Assistance          39



IV.  External Funding and Assistance Programs                     41
   IV.A.  Forest Pest Management Program                          41
   IV.B.  Native Plant Conservation Alliance Initiative           43
   IV.C.  Pulling Together Initiative                             45

I.  Instructions and Criteria

                        I.A.  General Instructions

These instructions apply to all the natural resources funding programs that
follow.  Note that some individual programs also have other specific
requirements or criteria that may apply.

Number of Projects Submitted per Region: For competitive project funding,
the NR-MAP workload analysis is used to determine how many projects or the
total cost of projects that may be submitted by each region.  Regions with
greater NR-MAP workloads, determined by the extent and complexity of
natural resources managed, may submit more projects or projects of a higher
estimated cost than regions with relatively smaller workloads.

Resource Management Plans (RMPs) and PMIS requirement: To be eligible for
Servicewide funding programs in past years, a park was required to have a
current resource management plan (RMP) in place.  Due to ongoing changes in
the RMP, this requirement is suspended for FY 2001 funding only.  However,
projects submitted for funding must be entered in the Project Management
Information System (PMIS), reflect the same funding level as the PMIS
project (may be reflected as part A, part B, etc., of a project), and
assigned a PMIS number.  Regions and parks are advised that beginning in
FY2002, RMPs must be up to date at the time a project proposal is submitted
in order to be eligible for funding.

Project Duration: To be eligible for Natural Resources funding, projects
must:
·    Be non-recurring,
·    Be funded and completed within the specified 1 to 3 year time limit,
and
·    Provide useful results even if no follow-up work is undertaken.

In unusual circumstances and with WASO approval, project duration may be
extended an additional year where necessary for such things as completion
of reports; however, no additional funding will be provided.  The proposal
should justify schedules exceeding three years and, in general, such
requests should not relate to the need for additional field seasons.
Continuation of previously funded projects may be submitted as new projects
only if adequate justification is provided.

Subject of Projects: All natural resource management projects are eligible,
except those projects funded through other Servicewide natural resource
programs.  That is, eligible projects are those that may focus on any
natural resource other than:

·    Air as an entity (e.g., visibility and pollutant monitoring and
meteorological monitoring are not eligible, while the natural resource
impacts of air resource threats are eligible),
·    Acid precipitation as an entity (e.g., monitoring of precipitation and
water body acidification changes are not eligible, while natural resource
impacts of acidification on species or habitats are eligible),
·    Water as a commodity (e.g., determining the location and amount of
water available for human consumption is not eligible), or
·    Biological research (if a project is dependent upon biological
research, the research component and its cost must be listed separately).

Exclusions:  Natural Resources project funds may not be used for:

·    Salaries of permanent NPS employees,
·    Maintenance of existing structures, or
·    Construction or rehabilitation of structures that are not directly
related to preservation or restoration of natural resources.

Projects with Research Components: Biological research is not eligible for
Natural Resources Program funding, except through NRPP-Research funds
managed through USGS-BRD.  If a natural resource management project is
dependent upon the results of biological research, the project statement
must delineate that portion which is ineligible research from the eligible
natural resource management component.  The proposal should discuss how the
biological research component is going to be accomplished and address the
certainty of the research results being available for carrying out the
natural resource management portion of the project.  This information will
be used in ranking the project in terms of information available on the
problem and project feasibility.

Non-biological research is eligible for Natural Resources Program funding,
and may be combined with follow-up management or mitigation.  Also eligible
are pilot field-testing, methods refinement, or monitoring components.
Such projects must meet the duration limit above and must:

·    Support in annual reports the amount of resource management or
mitigation funding that will be needed, and
·    Be reviewed after research is completed and before the resource
management or mitigation funds are allotted.

Projects with Cultural Resource Elements: Projects dealing with the natural
resource component or processes of historic scenes or cultural resources
are eligible if their purposes are to focus specifically on the natural
resource components.

Projects with Social Science Elements: Social science projects are eligible
if they relate to a need to protect or interpret natural resources.  The
NPS Social Science Program can provide limited technical assistance in
developing project proposals and/or can help locate social scientists that
can provide needed expertise.  Contact Visiting Chief Social Scientist Gary
Machlis at 202-208-5391 for assistance.

Parks as Classrooms Grants:  To encourage interpretation of natural
resource management issues to the public, -the NPS -Parks as Classrooms
(PaC) initiative will provide matching funds for appro-priate educational
components of pro-jects (See section I.D.).  The total cost of the
educational element should not be more than 20% of the total project
funding, with a maximum educational element cost of $25,000.  The request
for matching funds should be no more than 50% of the cost of the
educational element (e. g., 10% of the total project cost.)  Since this is
a cost-matching program with Interpretation, the proposal must include
concurrence from the park interpretation division.

The PaC -application must be submitted with the overall project proposal.
The project proposal should identify the specific educational element and
its funding. Since the possibility exists that a project could be selected
and approved for funding from the Natural Resources Program but not be
approved for funding from PaC, please provide information on whether or how
the educational component of the project could be accomplished with only
half the amount requested.

Documentation: All proposals for Servicewide natural resource funding are
to be submitted in the form of Project Statements in the format prescribed
in the December 1994 RMP instructions.  Project statements may not exceed
the 12-page length that is the maximum provided in the RMP software.  The
12-page maximum should be obtained using standard 12-pt-sized fonts;
non-conforming proposals will not be considered.  Two additional pages may
be appended to provide a map and graphic, if these contribute substantially
to explaining the project.  Submitters are encouraged to be as succinct as
possible.  Past experience has shown that length does not necessarily
contribute to the quality of a proposal.

  Proposal documentation should include the following:

  1)  In the upper right corner of the project statement indicate:
·    Name of Regional Office submitting proposal
·    PMIS number(s) of the project
·    Reference to any proposal submitted earlier that is modified, updated,
or changed by this submission
·    Do not include regional priority ranking.

  2)  A project title clearly stating the project.  An abstract, not to
   exceed 10 lines, that describes the project purpose and expected
   results.  Pages should be numbered.

  3)  For a Regional Office proposal that involves multiple parks, one
   project statement describing the combined project should be provided
   that references all relevant park project statements.  Attach a cover
   sheet briefly describing the justification for and benefits of the
   multi-park proposal and a list of the parks involved.

Multi-regional Projects: Proposals may be submitted that includes parks in
more than one region.  The proposal should identify the lead responsibility
and the proportion of funding attributable to each region, where regions
are given a funding cap.  Where regions have a maximum number of projects,
the proposal must identify which region's total the project counts against.
Also, attach a cover sheet that includes the names of regions involved, the
lead region, and a brief justification for and benefits of the multi-region
approach.

Natural Resources Project Ranking Criteria: A set of criteria and a
response form to be included with all proposals for all funding sources are
included in section I.B.  The response to each criterion is limited to 200
words.  Responses exceeding this limit will not be accepted.  The responses
must be submitted as an attachment to the project statement.  This
procedure is designed to facilitate fair and objective comparisons among
competing projects.  However, project statements must still stand on their
technical merit.

Matching Non-Federal Funds: The Administration has directed the NPS to seek
matching non-federal funds for NRPP funds.  Therefore, NRPP projects
demonstrating matches with non-federal dollars will receive additional
credit (See Criterion #8).

Fee Demo Adjustment Factor: To encourage parks to use fee demo funds for
natural resource management and restoration work, in FY 2000 we will adjust
proposal scores based on the park's fee status.  This continues a practice
begun in FY 1999.  NPS management has made it clear that fee demo funds are
available for natural resource projects, and many parks are using fee funds
for resource management projects.  Proposals that include fee funds as part
of the budget presently get point credit under ranking criterion #8,
Project Support.  To "level the playing field" for parks with limited or no
access to fee money, an adjustment to the proposal point scores will be
made as follows (after projects are ranked on a technical basis): add 5
points for non-fee parks, 3 points for parks with less than $100,000/year
in fee collections, and 0 points for parks with $100,000/year or more in
fee collections.  This adjustment will be applied to all Natural Resources
Program administered Servicewide funds.

Proposal Submission, Selection, and Approval Process: Proposals should be
submitted to the program contacts indicated in each funding section.
Electronic submittals are strongly encouraged to facilitate compilations.
However, hardcopy submittals are acceptable and some fund sources may
request a hardcopy.  For each fund source, an independent panel of regional
representatives will be convened to evaluate proposals and develop a ranked
Servicewide list.  Regions are requested to submit panel member nominations
to the appropriate program contacts.

Detailed Implementation Plans: Regions/parks submitting projects proposals
that are selected for possible funding will be required to develop a
detailed implementation plan.  These plans must include a statement of the
problem, specific objectives to be addressed, approach and methods, tasks,
schedule, deliverables, principal project managers and their
qualifications, staffing needs and costs, products, and budget.
Implementation plans should address quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) planning, and consideration should also be given to including
specific plans for data management, analysis, and interpretation to the
public.

Implementation plans will be evaluated for technical adequacy by the
responsible funding office, with the assistance of independent reviewers as
appropriate.  Implementation plans requiring revision will be returned to
the regional offices and/or parks.  Funds will not be transferred until
detailed implementation plans have been approved and eligibility
requirements have been met.


Reporting Requirements: All natural resource funding sources measure
accountability through project accomplishment reports.  Annual
accomplishment reports are due by December 30th of each year and should be
completed using the RMP accomplishments reporting process, the
Investigator's Annual Report submissions for research, or other similar
formats approved in the detailed implementation plan.  For projects going
into a second or third year, an acceptable progress report must be received
before second or third year funds are transferred.  Also, accomplishment
reports for previously funded projects must be completed before funds are
allocated for new projects in a particular park.



                FY 2001 Natural Resources Funding Schedule


May 26, 2000:  Project proposals for all Natural Resources funding
               categories are due to NPS national program office.*  Region
               nominations for evaluation panels are also due.  (NOTE:
               Regions may have earlier dates for project submittals to
               allow regional review and ranking.)

June 5-9, 2000:     Panel convenes to evaluate Biological Resource
               Management projects.

June 12-16, 2000:   Panels convene to evaluate Water Resources and
               AML/Disturbed Lands Restoration projects.

June 19-23, 2000:   Panel convenes to evaluate NRPP/Resource Management and
               T&E projects.

June 30, 2000: Regional small park allocation requests due to Associate
               Director, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science.

September 15, 2000: Technical assistance requests for FY 2001 are due to
               Natural Resources Program Center Division Chiefs

October 2, 2000:    Detailed implementation plans submitted for projects
               expected to be funded in FY 2001.

December 30, 2000:  Progress reports for all projects are due.  Detailed
               implementation plans revised as appropriate and approved.
               WASO Budget Office requested to transfer funds to the
               respective regions for new and continuing projects, if
               eligibility criteria and progress reporting requirements are
               met.  Fund transfer date is contingent on approval of the
               program office financial plans.


-----------------------------
* For external funding sources, the following national deadlines apply:

          USGS Geology Project Preproposals - April 7, 2000
          Plant Conservation Alliance Initiative - June 2000
          Forest Pest Management Program - September 5, 2000
          Pulling Together Initiative - October 2000
          USGS-BRD Species at Risk Program - Unknown; likely after January
               2001

             I.B.  Natural Resources Project Ranking Criteria

These criteria are to be addressed and included with proposals for all
Natural Resources funding programs.

1.   Significance of the Resource or Issue to the Park: How important is
the resource or issue to the park involved, relative to it's other
resources and issues?  (Weighting Factor = X2)

     5    High significance: resource or issue is one of the most
          significant in the park, defined as unique, the subject of the
          enabling legislation, fundamental to this park's ecosystem and
          purposes (as opposed to basic resources such as air and water
          that are fundamental to all parks), high priority in park RMP (is
          not sufficient in itself), on federal or state lists as
          endangered or threatened, required by statute, etc.  A "5" will
          generally require several of these criteria to be met.

     3    Moderate significance: resource or issue is important, but not
          singularly so for that park.

     1    Resource or issue only peripherally related to park's purposes or
          uses.

2.   Severity of Resource Threat, Problem, or Need(s): (Weighting Factor =
X3)

     5    Resource threat, problem, or need is current or imminent, and is
          extensive, persistent, immediate, complex, likely irreversible, a
          current or imminent risk to public health or safety, and/or
          hazardous.  Delaying the project will result in, or continue,
          significant resource degradation.

     3    Resource threat, problem, or need is potential, or moderate in
          extent, persistence, and/or complexity.  Delay of the proposed
          project may result in, or continue, limited resource degradation.
          A potential public health or safety threat exists.

     1    Resource threat, problem, or need is minor, infrequent, remote,
          and/or temporary.  Immediate action is not necessary to protect
          resources.  Delaying the project will not result in, or continue,
          significant resource degradation.  Public health/safety is not an
          issue.

3.   Problem definition and information base: How well is the problem
defined?  (Weighting Factor = X2)

     5    The project statement clearly defines the problem.  The
          information base regarding the problem is well described and
          provides sound foundation for problem resolution. If problem is
          lack of information, project statement clearly documents extent
          of existing information or lack thereof.

     3    The project statement describes the problem in general terms.
          The information base is mentioned but only moderately well
          described.

     1    Problem is poorly defined and/or availability of information is
          not addressed.

4.   Feasibility: (Weighting Factor = X3)

     5    Objectives are clear; methodologies, procedures, and proposed
          actions are technically sound; and time frame is reasonable to
          accomplish project objectives.

     3    Objectives are fairly clear; or methodologies, procedures, and
          proposed actions are more or less technically sound; or project
          objectives may not be accomplished within time frame.

     1    Objectives are not clearly stated; or methodologies, procedures,
          and proposed actions are not technically sound; or project cannot
          be accomplished within time frames.

5.   Problem resolution: Will the proposed use of funds contribute directly
     to decisions or actions that, when implemented, will meaningfully
     resolve a management issue? (Weighting Factor = X3)

     5    The proposed project implements [for USGS...or develops
          information for implementing...] specific management
          prescriptions that will result in the final resolution of a
          natural resource issue or threat [for USGS.. once the management
          phase is implemented...]; no additional actions other than
          follow-up monitoring are anticipated.

     3    The proposed project will contribute to the future resolution of
          a natural resource issue or threat by clarifying management
          issues, articulating techniques or procedures, supporting an
          inter-agency or regional strategy, etc.  Additional studies,
          management actions, and/or planning will be necessary to
          completely resolve the stated issue or threat.

     1    The proposed project is not directly related to the development
          of management actions to resolve a specific issue or threat, but
          will contribute basic information about park natural resources.
          The focus here is on collection of baseline data, rather than
          implementation of a management action.

6.   Transferability: How widely will the project protocols or results be
     useful? (Weighting Factor = X1)

     5    The protocols or results of the project can contribute to
          tangible needs at the national level (NPS or other organization),
          and the park demonstrates the intention and ability to make the
          information available widely.

     3    The protocols or results of the project can contribute to
          tangible needs at several parks or other organizations. The park
          demonstrates the intention and ability to make the information
          available to other units or organizations.

     1    The project's tangible benefits are limited to the park.

7.   Cost effectiveness:  Given problem statement and proposed methodology,
are cost estimates realistic and commensurate with the results to be
produced? (Weighting Factor = X2)

     5    Costs are realistic, well researched, clearly spelled out, and
          defensible.

     3    Costs appear reasonable given stated project objectives and
          procedures, but proposal does not provide supportive data to
          indicate how they were determined.

     1    Costs appear disproportionately high or low in relation to the
          stated project objectives and procedures; proposal does not
          indicate that costs have been accurately evaluated.

8.   Project Support: What resources (including in-kind contributions) are
the park, region or other partner(s) willing to commit to this project?  A
detailed description of total project costs, including contributions is
required.  (For NRPP projects, if matching non-federal funds contribute at
least 10% of the total project cost the weighting factor is = 2X.)

     5    70% or more of the project costs covered by park, region or
          partner(s)

     4    51% - 69% of the project costs covered by park, region, or
          partner(s)

     3    39% - 50% of project costs covered by park, region, or partner(s)

     2    38% - 10% of project costs covered by park, region, or partner(s)

     1    less than 10% of project costs covered by park, region, or
          partner(s)

9.   Scientific Merit: What is the technical and scientific value of the
project?
     NOTE:  This criterion is applicable only to the NPS-USGS Geologic
     Science and Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Partnerships.
     (Weighting Factor = X3)

     5    The proposed project exhibits superior scientific merit by
          applying existing or new techniques to study unique and/or
          complex park problems, and by providing high quality information
          to managers and the public in useful and original products.

     3    The proposed project exhibits scientific merit by applying
          existing techniques to address park problems, and by providing
          quality information to park managers and the public.

     1    The proposed project does not exhibit scientific merit but will
          provide basic water resource information to park managers and the
          public.


Fee Demo Adjustment Factor: After proposals are scored on a technical
basis, each proposal's total point score will be adjusted based on the
park's fee collection status as follows: add 5 points for non-fee parks, 3
points for parks with less than $100,000/year in fee collections, and 0
points for parks with $100,000/year or more in fee collections.  This
adjustment will be applied to all Natural Resources program administered
Servicewide funds.


           I.C.  Natural Resource Project Ranking Criteria Form

Responses are mandatory and are limited to no more than 200 words for each
criterion.    Responses that exceed this limit will not be accepted.

1.   Significance of the Resource or Issue to the Park: How important is
the resource or issue to the park involved, relative to it's other
resources and issues?


2.   Severity of Resource Threat, Problem, or Need(s):


3.   Problem definition  and information base: How well is the problem
     defined?


4.   Feasibility:


5.   Problem resolution: Will the proposed use of funds contribute directly
     to decisions or actions, which, when implemented, will meaningfully
     resolve a management issue?


6.   Transferability: How widely will the project protocols or results be
     useful?


7.   Cost effectiveness:  Given problem statement and proposed methodology,
     are cost estimates realistic and commensurate with the results to be
     produced?


8.   Project Support: What resources (including in-kind contributions) are
     the park, region or other partner(s) willing to commit to this
     project?  A detailed description of total project costs, including
     contributions is required.


9.   Scientific Merit : What is the technical and scientific value of the
     project? (Only applicable to the NPS-USGS Geologic Science and
     NPS-USGS Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Partnerships.)



  I.D.  Parks as Classrooms Grants Related to Natural Resource Proposals

To encourage inter-pretation to the public of critical natural resource
management and research concerns, -the NPS Interpretation Division's Parks
as Classrooms (PaC) program will provide matching funds for appro-priate
inter-pretive and educational components of natural resources pro-jects.
The PaC criteria are explained below and the PaC application form is
included.  For additional information, contact the natural resource staff
listed in the specific portions of this call, or Bob Huggins in the WASO
Interpretation Division at (202) 565-1056.

For natural resource projects that include education/interpretation
elements, the project statement should identify the specific educational
element and its funding.  The description must include information on how
the resource managers plan to develop and implement the educational or
interpretive project, including how the interpretive and/or educational
staff in the park will be involved.  The PaC application must be filled out
and submitted with the overall project proposal.  The Division of
Interpretation and Education will review these proposals based on the
criteria listed below.

The total cost of the educational element cannot exceed 20% of the total
project funding requested, with a maximum cost of $25,000.  Those projects
chosen for funding can receive matching funds from PaC of no more than 50%
of the cost of the educational element.  That is, the Natural Resources
Program will fund half of the educational/interpretive component of the
project and PaC will fund half.  Parks selected to receive PaC funding must
include the educational component of the project in the required progress
reports.

                   Parks as Classrooms Funding Criteria

Servicewide Implications - What direct effect will the project have on the
National Park Service and what benefits will be provided to the public and
other park areas?  The operative words are direct effect and the response
should be quantitative.  Simply stating the "other Civil War parks can use
the product" does not demonstrate any widespread use, nor do justifications
such as "because it will be published on our Web Site, everybody in the
world could benefit from it."

Curriculum Based - (Natural resource educational projects that are not
curriculum-based will not be penalized.  However, if the project is
curriculum-based, this criterion must be addressed.)  How does the proposal
relate to established school curriculum?  Is there a direct relationship
between the park and a school or school district?  Curriculum based
programs are those in which the park and the school(s) are working together
to establish a program or product that will become an integral part of the
teaching/learning process in the school(s) for an extended period of time.

Program Impact - This criterion looks at both quantity and quality.  The
total number of individuals that will be impacted is important
statistically, but the quality of the experience must also be taken into
consideration.  A high quality program that reaches a relativity small
audience may have a greater overall impact (benefit to the NPS) than a more
"generic" program that reaches a large audience.  One question to ask with
any program or product is "are we getting the best value (cost:benefit
ratio) for the buck?"

Program Outreach - The program is responsive to under-represented or
non-traditional audiences.  These are programs specifically designed to
provide high quality educational experiences to audiences that
traditionally do not participate in the park or park service programs.

Longevity and Sustainability - What is the "lifetime" of the program and
how will it be sustained after the initial funding period?  We are looking
for programs or products that have strong park and community support and
are able to sustain themselves for the anticipated life of the program.
(Examples: Video = long; curricula = long; three-year personal services
program = medium; one event = short)

Cost Support - How much support does the project have from the park and
community?  What attempts have or will be made to secure additional funding
sources.  Program funding could include park operating funds; in-kind
donations; outright donations of money, products, services and equipment;
National Park Foundation Grants; cooperating association funds; etc.
Normal park operating expenses and salaries of employees who would
otherwise be employed should not be counted.  The proposal must contain a
detailed budget.




              FY 2001 PARKS AS CLASSROOMS/NR FUNDING PROPOSAL

Park Name: __________________________Region:
_______________________________

Program Title:   _______________________________________________

Park Contact Person:                                              Phone:


Audience:

Program Description:


Identify the products that will result from this program:


Number of anticipated audiences and participants served:
Students           Teachers          School Districts          Park
Visitors_____ Other ____ (explain)

Please address the applicable PaC criteria:


Budget Description ? Amount Requested and Matching Funds:


II.  Natural Resources Unified Project Call

            II.A.  Natural Resource Preservation Program (NRPP)

                           NRPP/ Resource Management

This program call solicits proposals for funding to begin in FY 2001, or
later.

The FY 2000 budget increased the NRPP base funding level.  This increase
will fund general resource management projects.  Also, a portion of the
increase will fund projects in two specific categories: a) disturbed lands
restoration, and b) threatened and endangered species approved recovery
plan actions assigned to the NPS.  Procedures for submitting proposals for
these two categories are described in the following sections of this call.

Funding Amount: Each proposal must be at least $50,000, but not more than
the lesser of $900,000 or the funding limit for the respective region
listed below.

Number of Projects Eligible For Submission: Regions may submit proposals
not to exceed the dollar amount specified below.  To ensure that a
sufficient number of high quality projects are submitted, the total dollar
amount represents approximately twice the funding expected to be available
in 2001.

   Alaska      $451,000
   Intermountain    $1,465,000
   Midwest          $845,000
   National Capital $225,000
   Northeast        $733,000
   Pacific West     $1,296,000
   Southeast        $902,000

Project Duration: Projects must be completely fundable within three fiscal
years.

Subject of Projects, Documentation, Criteria, Selection and Approval
Process, and Schedule: Requirements for proposals to the national program
office are presented in section I.A., General Instructions.

Parks as Classrooms Grants: Educational elements are eligible for -Parks 
as
Classrooms (PaC) matching funds, as explained in section I.D.

Proposal Submission: Submit proposals to Mr. Gary Johnston, Biological
Resource Management Division, National Park Service, Room 3223-MIB, 1849 C
St. NW Washington, DC 20240.

Reporting Requirements: Annual accomplishment reports are due by December
30th and should be submitted to Mr. Gary Johnston, at the address above.


                      NRPP/Disturbed Land Restoration

This call solicits proposals for project funding to begin in FY 2001.

Funding Amount:  Each proposal must be at least $50,000, and not more than
$250,000 total project cost.
   NOTE: Restoration projects over $250,000 should be submitted to the
   NRPP/Resource Management category.  When appropriate, projects under
   $50,000 may be submitted to the Abandoned Mineral Lands, NRPP/Threatened
   and Endangered Species, or Water Resources Restoration categories.

Number of Requests per Region: Based on NR-MAP estimates, expected
available funding and average cost.  We anticipate funding 30% to 40% of
the submitted projects.
|---------------+-----------|
|     Region    | Number of |
|               | projects  |
|---------------+-----------|
|  Alaska       |      1    |
|---------------+-----------|
|Intermountain  |     3     |
|---------------+-----------|
|Midwest        |     2     |
|---------------+-----------|
|National       |     1     |
|Capital        |           |
|---------------+-----------|
|Northeast      |     2     |
|---------------+-----------|
|Pacific West   |     3     |
|---------------+-----------|
|Southeast      |     2     |
|---------------+-----------|
|  TOTAL        |     14    |
|---------------+-----------|



Subject of Projects: Disturbed Land Restoration Projects involve actions to
reestablish natural processes or to correct resource damage caused by human
developments that have significantly altered the landscape structure and
function.  Examples of such disturbances include abandoned structures;
abandoned mineral lands; abandoned or unauthorized roads; disrupted natural
stream channels, floodplains, wetlands, or shoreline processes; and other
abandoned developments or facilities (excluding prescribed fire, fire
rehabilitation, and grazing).  Restoration activities should address the
biological and physical components of impaired natural systems as necessary
to reestablish naturally functioning terrestrial and aquatic habitats and
processes.  Site-specific activities may include mitigating impaired soil
conditions; reestablishing natural hydrologic patterns, original contours,
and native vegetation; and reestablishing critical habitat elements.
Activities connected to site restoration, such as characterization,
compliance, design etc., are eligible as long as the primary project
purpose is the mitigation of natural resource impacts caused by human
development.

Documentation, Criteria, Selection and Approval Process, and Schedule:
Requirements for proposals to the national program office are presented in
section I.A. General Instructions.

Parks as Classrooms Grants: Educational elements of restoration projects
are eligible for -Parks as Classrooms (PaC) matching funds, as explained in
section I.D.

Proposal Submission: Submit proposals to Dave Shaver, Chief, Geologic
Resources Division, via cc:Mail.  Electronic submittals are strongly
preferred.  Hardcopies are acceptable if necessary for maps, photos, etc.,
mailed to NPS-GRD, P.O. Box 25287, Lakewood, Colorado, 80225.

Reporting Requirements: Annual accomplishment reports are due by December
30th and should be submitted to Dave Steensen via cc:Mail or at the address
above.

Technical assistance: Guidance is available from the Geologic Resources
Division in developing, preparing, or revising project proposals.  To
obtain such assistance and/or information, please contact Dave Steensen via
cc:Mail or phone at 303-969-2014.


  NRPP/Threatened and Endangered Species - Approved Recovery Plan Actions

Funding Amount: Approximately $500,000 will be available in FY 2001.  Total
project costs may not exceed $150,000.
   NOTE: Threatened and Endangered Species projects over $150,000 should be
   submitted to the NRPP/Resource Management category.

Number of projects to be submitted by each Region: Based on NR-MAP regional
workload.

   Alaska            2
   Intermountain          5
   Midwest                3
   National Capital       1
   Northeast              3
   Pacific West           5
   Southeast              3

Subject of Projects: Each project proposal must identify the listed
species, the specific recovery action that it will implement, and reference
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service
approved recovery plan.

Documentation, Criteria, Selection and Approval Process, and Schedule:
Requirements for proposals to the national program office are presented in
section I.A. General Instructions.

Proposal Submission: Submit proposals to Loyal Mehrhoff, Biological
Resources Management Division, via cc:Mail or mail to NPS-BRMD, 1201 Oak
Ridge Drive, Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80525.

Reporting Requirements: Annual accomplishment reports are due by December
30th and should be submitted to Loyal Mehrhoff via cc:Mail or at the
address above.

                   NRPP/Regional Small Park Block Grants

In FY 2001, $1,000,000 in Servicewide NRPP funding is available for block
grants to regions for projects in small parks.  For regional planning
purposes, the FY 2001 allocation is listed below.  These funds are
allocated to regions based on the number of parks listed in the "lower
third" of parks in the current year Budget Justification (for 2001, the FY
2000 justification was used). As a rule of thumb, parks under 10,000 acres
are considered small parks for purposes of this funding, but regions may
modify this criterion as appropriate to their region.

Regional Allocations for FY 2001: The allocation is proportionate to the
NR-MAP workload needs analysis of eligible parks.
   |-----------------+---------------|
   |Region           |FY2001 Funding |
   |-----------------+---------------|
   |Alaska           |    $20,000    |
   |-----------------+---------------|
   |Intermountain    |   $196,000    |
   |-----------------+---------------|
   |Midwest          |   $168,000    |
   |-----------------+---------------|
   |NCR              |     $82,000   |
   |-----------------+---------------|
   |Northeast        |   $104,000    |
   |-----------------+---------------|
   |Pacific West     |   $208,000    |
   |-----------------+---------------|
   |Southeast        |   $222,000    |
   |-----------------+---------------|
   |Total            |  $1,000,000   |
   |-----------------+---------------|



Regional Submittal Process: Regions should submit allocation requests to
the Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science by June
30, 2000, to avoid end of year problems with fund transfers.  This request
must be accompanied by a list of park projects to be funded.  Projects
should have a descriptive title and dollar amount, and included the PMIS
number where applicable.  Regions should submit the allocation request and
project list to Debby Peck via cc:Mail.  As in prior years, small park
funds will be released by the Associate Director upon receipt from the
region of a list of parks and projects fitting the criteria.




                               NRPP/Research

Procedure for FY 2001 Project Proposals:  The call for proposals, review
and rating of proposals, and transmittal to USGS-BRD of approved proposals
for the biological research NRPP will be made by each collaborative group
of NPS regions that was established in partnership with each BRD region.
Each collaborative group of NPS regions will announce its own specific
requirements as a follow up to this unified call.  Contact whomever in your
regional office serves as your NPS regional science advisor for information
about your region's or your collaboration of regions' specific requirements
for the biological research NRPP proposal submission, evaluation, and
reporting process.

                        II.B.  Biological Resources

                  Biological Resource Management Projects

The Biological Resource Management Division (BRMD) plans to fund biological
resource management projects in FY 2001.

Funding amount and duration: no more than $50,000 per project, two year
project maximum.

Number of Submitted Projects per Region: Based on NR-MAP workload
percentages, expected funding available, a $50,000/project average, and a
multiplier to provide a sufficient pool of projects.  Regions may decide
the project category, but the total number of projects submitted may not
exceed the number of projects listed below.

   Alaska        3
   Intermountain    10
   Midwest            6
   National Capital   2
   Northeast          5
   Pacific West       9
   Southeast          6
   Total       41

Subject of Projects: Projects may include, but are not limited to,
integrated pest management, wildlife and vegetation management, exotic
species, wildlife health and disease, threatened and endangered species,
and ecosystem restoration.  Projects will be funded in the following three
categories:

1. Species and Population Status: Projects in this category will be
designed to provide information about the number of species present, their
range, and distribution in the park.  Proposed projects can supplement or
provide more detailed findings than inventories done under the Inventory
and Monitoring Program, but projects must not duplicate or overlap I&M
efforts.  For example, projects could undertake specialized surveys to
determine if there are obligate insects on endangered host plants,
determine reproductive rates, or identify migration corridors.  This
category will not fund recurring monitoring processes.

2. Assessment and Planning: Projects in this category will be designed to
assess the extent of a biological resource management issue, identify
management alternatives, prepare related management plans, and undertake
public review and comment on proposed actions.

3. Management Actions: Projects in the category will focus on the actual
management of species or ecosystems in parks.  These projects must
implement priority management actions identified in management plans or
other planning documents.

Documentation, Criteria, Selection and Approval Process, and Schedule:
Requirements for proposals to the national program office are presented in
section I.A. General Instructions.

Parks as Classrooms Grants: Educational elements of biological resource
management projects are eligible for -Parks as Classrooms (PaC) matching
funds, as explained in section I.D.

Proposal Submission: Submit proposals to Chief, Biological Resource
Management Division, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO
80525.

Reporting Requirements: Annual accomplishment reports are due by December
30th and should be submitted to the Chief, Biological Resource Management
Division.



                     USGS-BRD Species at Risk Program

The USGS-Biological Resources Division (BRD) Species at Risk Program offers
opportunities for parks to solicit inventory and research projects that
address sensitive or listed species.  For a park to be eligible for this
program, the park's species of concern must be included on lists maintained
by U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Regional Offices.  Parks wishing
to benefit from this program must recruit prospective researchers in BRD,
other federal organizations, Native American Tribes or Nations, state
organizations, private organizations, or academia to submit pre-proposals
in response to the annual call issued by BRD.

Subject of Projects: Species at Risk (SAR) projects are survey and research
activities that produce scientific information on the status of sensitive
species or groups of species for which there is concern but limited
information regarding abundance, distribution, and/or status.  Projects
deal with the relationship of species abundance and distribution to habitat
conditions and stresses.  Projects that focus on multiple species of
concern within the same habitat or ecosystem are encouraged.  Projects
optimize partnerships with Federal agencies, states, universities, and the
private sector; and are conducted by investigators who have identified
small but critical gaps in our biological knowledge.  The resulting
information will support development by Federal agencies of conservation
agreements, action plans, management alternatives, etc., that provide for
the protection of species and their habitats and thereby preclude the need
for listing species as threatened or endangered.

Funding amount and duration: In the FY 2000 SAR program, BRD provided
$740,000.  The call for FY 2001 likely will approach the same amount of
funding. Projects are short duration, lasting no more than 18 months from
the date of initiation.

Proposal Submission and Review Process: Applicants submit Species at Risk
pre-proposals in response to, and according to the requirements of, the BRD
annual call.  Pre-proposals are subjected to a screening process for
determining relevancy to meet high priority management needs.  The authors
of top-rated pre-proposals are requested to develop full proposals.  Fully
developed proposals are evaluated by peer reviewers for scientific merit,
technical capability, and technical feasibility.  The timing and specific
requirements of this proposal preparation, submission, and review process
are identified in the annual call for proposals.

Schedule: BRD's annual call for FY 2001 funding is expected in early FY
2001.

Evaluation criteria: BRD evaluates projects on how well they identify or
develop useful information; focus on areas of particular concern identified
by the USFWS; are of short duration; can be completed for no more than
$80,000; meet format and P.I. requirements; clearly summarize methods and
expected results; and include partnerships.  Pre-proposals and proposals
will be evaluated by BRD against evaluation criteria regarding their
scientific merit or technical innovation; technical feasibility;
qualifications of personnel; budget; partnerships; matching funds;
products; timing; and opportunity for information transfer.

Species at Risk Program Contact: Dr. Al Sherk at al_sherk@usgs.gov or at
(703) 648-4076.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Contacts for Identifying Species of
Particular Concern:
Region 1 - Contact: Denny Lassuy at 503-872-2763; denny_lassuy@fws.gov
Region 2 - Contact: Kathy Granillo at 505-248-6818; kathy_granillo@fws.gov
Region 3 - Contact: Sean Kelly at 612-713-5470; sean_kelly@fws.gov
Region 4 - Contact: Jim Brown at 404-679-7125; jim_brown@fws.gov
Region 5 - Contact: Jay Hestbeck at 413-253-8527; jay_hestbeck@fws.gov
Region 6 - Contact: John Nickum at 303-236-7917 ext 409;
john_nickum@fws.gov
Region 7 - Contact: Janet Hohn at 907-786-3544; janet_hohn@fws.gov

NPS Contact: Loyal Mehrhoff, Biological Resource Management Division, Fort
Collins, CO.  Voice:  970-225-3521;  Fax:  970-225-3585; email:
loyal_mehrhoff@nps.gov (Loyal Mehrhoff on cc:Mail).



                         II.C.  Geologic Resources

            Abandoned Mineral Lands (AML) Reclamation Projects

This call solicits proposals for project funding to begin in FY 2001.

Funding Amount: $5,000 to $50,000 per project, 2 years maximum.
   NOTE: AML projects over $50,000 should be submitted to the
   NRPP/Disturbed Lands Restoration category, or if over $250,000 to the
   NRPP/Resource Management category.

Number of Requests per Region: Allocation is based on workload estimates
from the Servicewide AML database.  Considering available funding and
expected average project cost, we anticipate funding about 50% of submitted
projects.
   |--------------+----------------|
   |  Region      |     # of AML   |
   |              |     Projects   |
   |--------------+----------------|
   |  Alaska      |        4       |
   |--------------+----------------|
   |Intermountain |       4        |
   |--------------+----------------|
   |Midwest       |       2        |
   |--------------+----------------|
   |National      |       1        |
   |Capital       |                |
   |--------------+----------------|
   |Northeast     |       2        |
   |--------------+----------------|
   |Pacific West  |       5        |
   |--------------+----------------|
   |Southeast     |       3        |
   |--------------+----------------|
   |  TOTAL       |        21      |
   |--------------+----------------|



Subject of Projects: Abandoned mineral lands projects may involve
reclamation, restoration, or mitigation actions on NPS-administered sites
related to abandoned mineral exploration or development.  Abandoned mineral
lands include surface and underground mines, oil and gas well-sites,
mineral material sites (e.g., sand and gravel) and ancillary disturbances,
such as access roads, structures, dams, etc.  Specific activities may
include reclamation of mining-related disturbances to naturally functioning
conditions and processes, plugging abandoned oil and gas wells, mitigating
off-site natural resource degradation, conserving critical habitats, and
mitigating safety hazards.  Activities connected to site reclamation, such
as inventory, characterization, contaminants screening, compliance, and
design, are eligible as long as the primary project purposes are the
resolution of natural resource impacts and/or safety problems.

Documentation, Criteria, Selection and Approval Process, and Schedule:
Requirements for proposals to the national program office are presented in
section I.A. General Instructions.

Parks as Classrooms Grants: Educational elements of restoration projects
are eligible for -Parks as Classrooms (PaC) matching funds, as explained in
section I.D.


Proposal Submission: Submit proposals to Dave Shaver, Chief, Geologic
Resources Division, via cc:Mail.  Electronic submittals are strongly
preferred.  Hardcopies are acceptable if necessary for maps, photos, etc.,
mailed to NPS-GRD, P.O. Box 25287, Lakewood, Colorado, 80225.

Reporting Requirements: Annual accomplishment reports are due by December
30th and should be submitted to Dave Steensen via cc:Mail or at the address
above.

Technical assistance: Guidance is available from the Geologic Resources
Division in developing, preparing, or revising project proposals.  To
obtain such assistance and/or information, please contact Dave Steensen via
cc:Mail or phone at 303-969-2014.



    NPS-USGS Project Funding Partnership: Geological Science for Parks

The FY 2001 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) budget proposal includes $750,000
to address NPS needs for geologic mapping, research, and interpretation.
Contingent on Congressional approval, USGS will fund new geology projects
in parks. Similar to the current USGS-WRD partnership, no project funds
will be transferred to participating parks.  Rather, parks will collaborate
with USGS Regional Offices and USGS geologists who will conduct the work
specified in the project statements.

Funding Amounts and Duration: Maximum annual cost per project is $150,000
(from this funding source; but other funding sources, including other USGS
funds, may be used to cover additional costs of larger projects.)  Projects
may not exceed three years.

Total Projects per Region: Based on NR-MAP workload and expecting to fund
about 40% of the project submittals.
    |-----------------+------------------|
    | Region          | Total for All    |
    |                 | Projects         |
    |-----------------+------------------|
    | Alaska          |$160,000          |
    |-----------------+------------------|
    |Intermountain    | $460,000         |
    |-----------------+------------------|
    |Midwest          | $290,000         |
    |-----------------+------------------|
    |National Capital | $  70,000        |
    |-----------------+------------------|
    |Northeast        | $270,000         |
    |-----------------+------------------|
    |Pacific West     | $430,000         |
    |-----------------+------------------|
    | Southeast       | $350,000         |
    |-----------------+------------------|



Subject of Projects: Proposals should address one or more of the following
themes:
-    Production of digital bedrock or surficial geologic maps to address
park resource management or planning needs, including compilation or
digitization of existing maps.
-    Assessment, mapping, or monitoring of surficial processes and geologic
hazards potentially affecting parks, particularly volcanic, earthquake, and
landslide hazards.
-    Characterization of coastal processes, including baseline data on
shoreline morphology, impacts of human changes to the shoreline, and the
effects of sea or lake level change.
-    Studies of the dynamics of and threats to cave and karst systems,
including regional studies.
-    Geological components of local or regional geohydrological studies.
-    Studies linking geology to park and regional ecosystem processes.
-    Analyses of the potential impacts of mineral extraction.
-    Development of geologic education materials for park management or the
public, including producing interpretive products, website development, and
training of park interpretive staff.

Projects are encouraged that include an educational component by USGS to
make information immediately pertinent to NPS resource managers and also
make specific provisions for interpreting the information to the public.

USGS Coordination: In developing proposals, parks should work closely with
USGS scientists to help target projects toward one or more of the
programmatic strengths of the USGS.  Geological expertise in the USGS is
focused in several broad thematic areas: Geologic Mapping, Geologic
Hazards, Coastal and Marine Processes, Surficial Geologic Processes,
Mineral Resources, and Energy Resources.  Proposals are also encouraged
that would involve emeritus geologists and USGS interpretive specialists.
Early in the process of developing proposals for submission, parks should
contact local USGS offices to inform them of park needs, discuss
strategies, and receive assistance in preparing proposals.

Documentation, Criteria, Selection and Approval Process, and Schedule:
Standard requirements for proposals are presented in section I.A. General
Instructions.  For this partnership, an NPS-USGS work group will evaluate
the project statements submitted to the national office using the standard
criteria plus criteria #9, Scientific Merit, below.  The NPS Geologic
Resources Division will participate on the work group and will provide
assistance to parks during all stages of the process.

     Criterion 9.  Scientific Merit: What is the technical and scientific
     value of the project?  This is applicable only to the NPS-USGS
     Geologic Science Partnership and the Water Quality Assessment and
     Monitoring Partnership.  (Weighting factor = X3)

     5    The proposed project exhibits superior scientific merit by
          applying existing or new techniques to study unique and/or
          complex park problems, and by providing high quality information
          to managers and the public in useful and original products.

     3    The proposed project exhibits scientific merit by applying
          existing techniques to address park problems, and by providing
          quality information to park managers and the public.

     1    The proposed project does not exhibit scientific merit but will
          provide basic water resource information to park managers and the
          public.

Detailed Implementation Plans: For projects selected for funding, the lead
USGS geologist must develop detailed implementation plans.  The
implementation plans will be evaluated for technical adequacy by each park
and participating USGS program, then submitted for approval by the
applicable USGS Regional Office.  The NPS-USGS work group will then review
USGS-approved plans, with the assistance of independent reviewers as
appropriate.  Projects will not be initiated until implementation plans
have received final approval from the NPS-USGS work group.

Proposal Submission: Send proposals to Dave Shaver, Chief, Geologic
Resources Division, via cc:Mail. Electronic submittals are strongly
preferred.  Hardcopies are acceptable if necessary for maps, photos, etc.,
mailed to P.O. Box 25287, Lakewood, Colorado, 80225.

Technical assistance: Guidance is available from the NPS-GRD and the USGS
in selecting project statements for submission, preparing the overall
proposal submission, and facilitating NPS coordination with USGS.  To
obtain assistance or information (including USGS personnel who can assist
your park), contact one of the NPS liaisons to the USGS: Lindsay
McClelland, USGS headquarters and eastern region, (202-208-4958); Bruce
Heise, USGS central region (303-969-2017); or Judy Rocchio, USGS western
region (415-427-1431).




                   USGS Geology Projects Linked To Parks

USGS Call for Project Proposals: In 2001 the USGS Geologic Division will
continue working with the NPS to develop a process to identify park
geology-related needs, and link them to ongoing USGS geology projects.
Since this is part of the ongoing USGS program, these park projects
generally need to be incorporated in broader USGS projects.  The USGS
program does not provide direct funding to the NPS.  Instead, USGS staff is
assigned to the geologic projects.  Parks are expected to provide
appropriate in-kind and logistical support, including facilitation of the
permit process.  Geologic projects that parks have found useful in the past
include geologic mapping, geologic hazards and resource assessments,
studies of coastal processes, and work with interpretive programs.  For FY
2001, the NPS and USGS will jointly select new projects through the process
outlined below, designed to target the highest priority park needs.

NOTE: This is a different process from the one used for park projects
submitted under the new NPS/USGS Geologic Science Support for Parks
(described in the previous section), which is part of a proposed program in
the Department's FY 2001 budget.  Parks should not submit the same or
similar proposals through both processes.  NPS contacts can provide advice
on selection of the appropriate process for a given proposal.

Proposal Development: Parks interested in USGS geology projects need to
coordinate directly with USGS scientists to develop proposals.  The USGS
uses a 2-stage internal process to select projects.  More than a year is
often required to develop an approved project, typically involving
workshops and other consultation between USGS scientists, parks, and other
potential project collaborators and beneficiaries.  Although proposals
initiated now are unlikely to be funded before FY 2002, parks are
encouraged to submit preproposals to begin the process of project
development.

For each project, USGS geologists submit a brief preproposal, which USGS
management reviews and  suggest improvements or refinements.  These
suggestions are incorporated into full proposals, which USGS geologists
submit through the USGS Geologic Division annual planning process.  To be
successful, full proposals must demonstrate that effective science will be
used to address important management issues.  To facilitate the process,
copies of preproposals and proposals should be provided via cc:mail to
Lindsay McClelland, the NPS liaison with the USGS national office.

Proposal format: The USGS proposal format must be used and is available
through USGS contacts.  A park manager and the appropriate USGS Team Chief
Scientist are required to approve preproposals and proposals.  Potential
permitting concerns (such as collecting methods and locations, access to
project sites, and wilderness issues) should be addressed in the proposal.

Proposal topics: A unified prospectus for the USGS Geologic Division
outlining project opportunities and requirements may be obtained from USGS
geologists or one of the NPS liaisons to USGS in early March.  Projects may
involve a single geologic topic, such as landslide hazards, coastal
erosion, or geologic mapping, or geology may be an element of a larger
project such as ecosystem assessment, disturbed land restoration, cave and
karst management, or park planning.  Interdisciplinary proposals that
involve more than one program or USGS Division are encouraged, as are
cooperative projects that involve state geological surveys and/or
university-based scientists.  Where appropriate an interpretation or
education component is also encouraged.

Evaluation and ranking: The USGS scientific partner is responsible for
submitting the joint USGS-NPS proposal.  USGS Chief Scientists and Program
Coordinators evaluate preproposals for mission relevance and USGS
capabilities, and provide feedback to USGS investigators and parks to
refine and develop full proposals.  A joint NPS/USGS review panel will
evaluate the full proposals for new projects and work plans for ongoing
projects using USGS criteria that emphasize scientific merit and linkage to
USGS program priorities.

Schedule:      Preproposals due to NPS WASO and USGS ? mid-April 2000
          Preproposal evaluation to principal investigators and parks ?
     mid-May 2000
          Full proposals due to NPS WASO and USGS ? mid-June 2000
          USGS project evaluation ?- summer 2000

More specific dates will be available upon release of the geologic
component of the USGS integrated prospectus.

NPS Contacts: Parks with potential projects should contact the NPS liaisons
to USGS:
     Lindsay McClelland, USGS headquarters and eastern region,
     (202-208-4958);
     Bruce Heise, USGS central region (303-969-2017); or
     Judy Rocchio, USGS western region (415-427-1431).
They can facilitate USGS coordination and provide assistance on proposal
preparation.

                          II.D.  Water Resources

                    Water Resources Management Projects

This call solicits proposals to begin in FY 2001.

Funding Amount and Duration: $50,000 maximum per project, 2 years maximum.
     NOTE:  Water resources/wetlands restoration projects in the  $50,000
     to $250,000 range should be submitted to the NRPP - Disturbed Land
     Restoration category.  Restoration projects greater than $250,000
     should be submitted to NRPP - Resource Management.

Number of projects allowed per region: Based on NR-MAP workload.  The
project limit is intended to result in about 50% of submitted projects
receiving funding. Regions may adjust the number of submis-sions among
categories, but may not exceed the total projects number.
  |-------------+----------+------------------------------------------|
  |             |  Total   |                                          |
  |    Region   | Projects |    Recommended Category Distribution     |
  |-------------+----------+------------------------------------------|
  |             |          |  Water Quality Mitigation, Restoration,  |
  |             |          |    and AssessmentWetlands Restoration,   |
  |             |          |    Inventory, and ProtectionHydrology,   |
  |             |          |     Watershed Management and Planning    |
  |-------------+----------+------------------------------------------|
  |Alaska       |    6     |                    222                   |
  |-------------+----------+------------------------------------------|
  |Intermountain|    12    |                    444                   |
  |-------------+----------+------------------------------------------|
  |Midwest      |    6     |                    222                   |
  |-------------+----------+------------------------------------------|
  |National     |    3     |                    111                   |
  |Capital      |          |                                          |
  |-------------+----------+------------------------------------------|
  |Northeast    |    6     |                    222                   |
  |-------------+----------+------------------------------------------|
  |Pacific West |    12    |                    444                   |
  |-------------+----------+------------------------------------------|
  |Southeast    |    6     |                    222                   |
  |-------------+----------+------------------------------------------|
  | TOTALS      |    51    |                  171717                  |
  |-------------+----------+------------------------------------------|



Subject of Projects:  Projects will be accepted in the following three
categories:

1.  Water Quality Mitigation, Restoration and Assessment: Projects support
park-based activities, including the design of information management
systems, regulatory assessments, riparian/stream and watershed restoration
and protection projects with water quality goals or other water quality
improvement projects.  May also include design and implementation of Best
Management Practices required to improve water quality to meet
state-mandated polluted runoff or nonpoint source pollution control or
other park water quality goals and objectives.  In addition, projects that
encompass one-time assessments or inventories of water quality baseline
conditions or contaminants may be submitted.  Project statements requesting
more than $50,000 for monitoring, complex assessments of water pollution,
and other special study needs must be submitted to the NPS-USGS Water
Quality Assessment and Monitoring Partnership program.

2.  Wetlands Restoration, Inventory, and Protection: Projects include
wetland restoration design and implementation, impact or condition
assessments, inventories, functional assessments, applied research,
protection efforts, monitoring, and other wetland projects consistent with
NPS policies, directives, and procedures.

3.  Hydrology, Watershed Management and Planning: Projects include
groundwater assessment and monitoring, well and spring inventories, stream
and riparian habitat restoration, stream function assessments, channel and
bank stability investigations, stream type classifications, watershed
condition assessments, watershed management, surface water hydrology
studies, floodplain assessments, river management, water resources
management planning, and other water resources-related projects.

Note: Water resources funding for monitoring in these categories is
intended for:  1) design and establishment of new monitoring programs that
would subsequently be sup-ported by base funds or other sources, or  2)
short-term, issue-specific monitoring efforts which could be completed
(including data analysis) as part of the project.  This funding is not
intended to serve as a source of "soft money" to keep long-term monitoring
programs running for two or three years.

Documentation, Criteria, Selection and Approval Process, and Schedule:
Requirements for proposals to the national program office are presented in
section I.A. General Instructions.

Parks as Classrooms Grants: Educational elements of restoration projects
are eligible for -Parks as Classrooms (PaC) matching funds, as explained in
section I.D.

Reporting Requirements: For projects going into year two, the Water
Resources Division must receive acceptable progress reports before
second-year funds are transferred.

Proposal Submission: Send proposals to Dan Kimball, Chief, Water Resources
Division, 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80525.

Technical assistance: Technical Assistance and guidance are available from
the Water Resources Division in evaluating and revising project proposals.
To obtain assistance or information, please contact Dan Kimball at
970-225-3501 (General Inquiries), Gary Rosenlieb at 970-225-3518 (Water
Quality), Joel Wagner at 303-969-2955 (Wetlands), Gary Smillie at
970-225-3522 (Hydrology), or Mark Flora at 303-969-2956 (Planning).


                    Recreational Fisheries Restoration

NPS Funding: No funding is available in the Water Resources program for
fisheries restoration projects, but fisheries projects may qualify for
funding under the NRPP/Resource Management, NRPP/Disturbed Lands
Restoration, and NRPP/Threatened and Endangered Species categories.

Recreational Fisheries Restoration Partnership: Proposals submitted to the
Water Resources Division will become part of the Heritage Fisheries
Restoration Program and the division will seek funding through the American
Sportfishing Association and the National Park Foundation.  To be eligible
for funding by these organizations, projects must provide direct benefits
to recreational fisheries, must be completed within three years, and must
involve on-the-ground improvements of fish populations and/or habitats, or
fishing access facilities.

Partnership Funding Amount and Duration: Total project not to exceed
$30,000 ($10,000/year maximum) with 3 year maximum duration.

Proposal Format: No special format is required for projects in the
Recreational Fisheries category.  RMP project statements or PMIS statements
that include a description of the work, benefits to recreational fisheries,
a proposed budget and a list of cooperators or partners will be adequate
for review purposes.

Number of Projects per Region: For FY 2001, each region may submit no more
than the following number of Water Resources Recreational Fisheries
Restoration project statements:

     Alaska              2
     Intermountain       4
     Midwest        2
     National Capital    1
     Northeast      2
     Pacific West        4
     Southeast      2

Proposal Submission: Dan Kimball, Chief, Water Resources Division, 1201 Oak
Ridge Drive, Suite 250, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80525.

Technical assistance: Technical Assistance and guidance are available from
the Water Resources Division in evaluating and revising project proposals.
To obtain assistance or information, please contact Jim Tilmant at
970-225-3547.


       NPS-USGS Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Partnership

In FY 2001, funding is available from the U.S. Geological Survey's Water
Resources Division (USGS-WRD) to address NPS identified water quality
assessment and monitoring needs.  Contingent on Congressional approval,
approximately $2.0 million will be allocated in FY 2001 to implement new
and continuing water quality projects in parks.  While total project funds
are lower than last year due to budget restructuring in USGS, it is
expected that net project funds will remain about the same for project
activities.  Project funds are not transferred to participating parks.
Rather, parks collaborate with USGS District Offices that will conduct the
water quality assessments and monitoring studies needed to satisfy the park
needs.

Funding Amounts for Project submittals:
   Intensive Studies: $85,000/project/year
   Synoptic Studies: $42,500/project/year
   Fixed-Station Monitoring Studies: $42,500/project/year
   Technical Assistance Requests: $10,000/request

Project duration: Not to exceed three years.

Number of projects per region: Based on NR-MAP workload. The number of
submissions is intended to allow funding for approximately 50% of projects.
The region may adjust the submissions among categories, but not exceed the
total project number.
  |--------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
  |              |            |   Recommended Category Distribution  |
  |--------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
  |              |  Total #   |Intensive/ Synoptic                   |
  |     Region   |  Project   |StudiesFixed-Station Monitoring       |
  |              |  Statements|StudiesTechnical Assistance           |
  |--------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
  |  Alaska      |      5     |                  221                 |
  |--------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
  |  Intermountai|      10    |                  442                 |
  |  n           |            |                                      |
  |--------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
  |Midwest       |     5      |                  221                 |
  |--------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
  |National      |     3      |                  111                 |
  |Capital       |            |                                      |
  |--------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
  |Northeast     |     5      |                  221                 |
  |--------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
  |Pacific West  |     10     |                  442                 |
  |--------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
  |Southeast     |     5      |                  221                 |
  |--------------+------------+--------------------------------------|
  |  TOTALS      |      43    |                 17179                |
  |--------------+------------+--------------------------------------|



Subject of Projects: Projects will be accepted in the four categories
below.  Project are encouraged to include a data analysis and
interpretation component by USGS to make the information immediately
applicable by NPS resource managers and also make specific provisions for
park interpreters and the USGS to present the information to the public.

1.  Intensive Studies: Relatively large projects of that require in-depth
   study of park water quality.  Designed to characterize known or
   suspected water quality problems, these will also focus on understanding
   causes of contamination and the implications of water quality impairment
   to aquatic biota.  Most intensive studies are strongly issue-driven and
   oriented towards priority water quality issues confronting the National
   Park Service.

2.  Synoptic Studies: Short-term investigations of water quality from
   several sites during selected seasonal periods or hydrologic conditions.
   Designed to focus on park-specific issues that may have broader regional
   implications.  Synoptic studies are intended to provide a quick
   assessment of aquatic conditions at selected locations and to evaluate
   the spatial relationships or contributions to those conditions, or to
   provide baseline data and information where little exists.

3.  Fixed-Station Monitoring: Monitoring that documents long-term trends in
   water quality and determines if management actions are achieving water
   quality objectives.  Fixed-station monitoring will be designed to enable
   park managers to know the health of nationally significant NPS water
   bodies, know the effects of remediation actions, and document whether
   external activities adversely affect park water quality.  Generally,
   fixed-station monitoring will be implemented using a "site rotation"
   concept.

4.  Technical Assistance: USGS technical assistance will consist of
   evaluating water quality information and issues to assess watershed
   management, engineering, maintenance or regulatory actions to protect,
   mitigate or restore park water quality conditions.

USGS Coordination: Early in the process of assembling project proposals for
submission, parks must contact local USGS offices to inform them of park
needs, discuss strategies, and receive assistance in writing or revising
project statements and addressing the ranking criteria.  The local USGS
District Chief should certify each submission, indicating that the work is
feasible and the schedule and costs are appropriate.

Documentation, Criteria, Selection and Approval Process, and Schedule:
Standard requirements for proposals to the national program office are
presented in section I.A. General Instructions.  For this partnership
program, an NPS-USGS work group will evaluate the project statements
submitted to the national office using the standard NR criteria plus
criteria #9, Scientific Merit, below. The NPS-USGS work group will develop
a list of priority projects for each funding category.  The NPS Water
Resources Division will participate on the work group and will provide
assistance to parks during all stages of the process.

     Criterion 9.  Scientific Merit: What is the technical and scientific
     value of the project?  This is applicable only to the NPS-USGS
     Geologic Science Partnership and the Water Quality Assessment and
     Monitoring Partnership.  (Weighting factor = X3)

     5    The proposed project exhibits superior scientific merit by
          applying existing or new techniques to study unique and/or
          complex park problems, and by providing high quality information
          to managers and the public in useful and original products.

     3    The proposed project exhibits scientific merit by applying
          existing techniques to address park problems, and by providing
          quality information to park managers and the public.

     1    The proposed project does not exhibit scientific merit but will
          provide basic water resource information to park managers and the
          public.

Detailed Implementation Plans: For the projects chosen for funding,
detailed implementation plans (or scopes of work) must be developed.  The
implementation plans will be evaluated for technical adequacy by each park
and participating USGS District Office, then submitted for approval by the
applicable USGS Regional Office.  The NPS-USGS work group will then review
USGS-approved implementation plans, with the assistance of independent
reviewers as appropriate.  Implementation plans requiring revision will be
returned to the USGS offices and/or parks.  Projects will not be initiated
until implementation plans have received final approval from the NPS-USGS
work group.

Proposal Submission: Send proposals to Dan Kimball, Chief, Water Resources
Division, 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80525.

Technical assistance: Guidance is available from the NPS-WRD and the
USGS-WRD in selecting project statements for submission, preparing the
overall project proposal submissions, and facilitating coordination with
USGS.  To obtain assistance or information (including USGS District
personnel who can assist your park), please contact Barry Long, NPS-WRD, at
(970) 225-3519 (barry_long@nps.gov) or Mike Focazio, USGS-WRD, at (703)
648-6808 (mfocazio@usgs.gov).



                     Level 1 Water Quality Inventories

As part of the Servicewide Inventory and Monitoring Program, the Water
Resources Division will assist the parks listed below in the initiation and
completion of  "Level I" water quality inventories.  Several basic water
quality parameters for "key" water bodies within park boundaries are
required for a complete inventory including alkalinity, pH, conductivity,
dissolved oxygen, temperature, and flow.  Other constituents (as determined
on a case-by-case basis) may include toxic elements, clarity/turbidity,
nitrate/nitrogen, phosphate/phosphorous, chlorophyll, sulfates, and
fecal-indicator bacteria.

Targeted Level I Parks for FY 2001 Funding: Using an assessment of over 200
Baseline Water Quality Data Inventory and Analysis Reports prepared to
date, WRD has identified the parks with the least water quality information
on surface-water resources.  Based on this

information, the following 19 parks are invited to submit Inventory Project
Plans for conducting Level I water quality inventories in FY 2001:
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|Intermountain      |Golden Spike National Historic Site          |
|Region             |                                             |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|                   |Hovenweep National Monument                  |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|                   |Yucca House National Monument                |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|                   |Petrified Forest National Park               |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|                   |Coronado National Memorial                   |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|                   |Canyon De Chelly National Monument           |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|                   |Casa Grande Ruins National Monument          |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|                   |Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|                   |Fossil Butte National Monument               |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|Midwest Region     |Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial            |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|                   |Fort Union Trading Post National Historic    |
|                   |Site                                         |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|                   |Fort Larned National Historic Site           |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|                   |Fort Scott National Historic Site            |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|                   |Herbert Hoover National Historic Site        |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|                   |Mount Rushmore National Memorial             |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|Northeast Region   |Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site      |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|Pacific West Region|Manzanar National Historic Site              |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|                   |Fort Vancouver National Historic Site        |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|Southeast Region   |Russell Cave National Monument               |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|
|                   |                                             |
|-------------------+---------------------------------------------|


Due Date: August 14, 2000

Funding Amounts:  $5,000 per key waterbody, NTE $30,000 per park

Project Duration: One year

Inventory Project Plan Requirements:  Each park electing to conduct the
Level I inventory must submit a project plan that includes the following
elements:

1.  Introduction:  Include a description of each key water body (such as
stream, spring, or river), its significance to the park, and a map
depicting the location of each of the key water bodies where water quality
inventories will occur.

2.  Principal Investigators:  Describe who will be responsible for
supervising and conducting the inventory.  The Principal Investigators can
be members of the park staff, university professionals, other government
agency staff (see technical assistance below), or a contracted consultant.
The laboratory that will be used for any chemical analysis should also be
identified.

3.  Sampling Plan: Include a listing of the Level I parameters that will be
inventoried, the frequency that each key water body will be sampled, and a
sampling schedule that considers seasonal variations in flow and climate.
Quarterly sampling should be sufficient for most park inventories.
However, higher frequencies will be permitted if justified by unique or
unusual hydrologic or climatic conditions in the park.  A brief discussion
of the Quality Assurance/ Quality Control procedures should also be
included.

4.  Field and Analytical Protocols:  Describe sampling and analytical
methods that will be employed.  Inventories should use established
protocols such as those in the latest edition of Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater.  WRD has a publication that summarizes
several suitable protocols for the inventory of freshwater environments
entitled Water Quality Inventory Protocol: Riverine Environments that will
be provided on request.

5.  Data Management and Archiving: All water-quality inventory data
(physical, chemical, and biological) collected during this project must be
permanently archived in the Environmental Protection Agency's STORET
Version 1.1 water quality database.  This will be a primary responsibility
of the Principal Investigator.  To fulfill this requirement, Principal
Investigators may directly archive the data in STORET themselves or elect,
in writing, for the NPS Water Resources Division to archive the data in
STORET.  Irrespective of who archives the data, the Principal Investigator
must furnish (on disk with the final report) the following four files:

     Water Quality Inventory Data
     Water Quality Parameter Definitions
     Water Sampling Location Information
     Project Background Information

6.  Budget:  A tabular summary of salaries, equipment, analytical cost,
travel, and the total cost of the inventory is required.

Reporting Requirements: Upon completion of the field portion of the
inventory, an administrative report shall be prepared and submitted to the
Park Superintendent and the NPS Water Resources Division.  The report must
contain a brief description of the inventory process, goals, and
objectives; a map depicting the sites inventoried; tables depicting the
results of the laboratory and field analyses; and a 3.5" diskette
containing the four files documenting the water-quality inventory results
as outlined in Data Management and Archiving above.

Technical Assistance: Technical assistance is available from the Water
Resources Division for developing Level I inventory project plans.  If the
park does not have the staff to develop an inventory plan, or otherwise
conduct the work necessary to complete the Level I inventory requirements,
the WRD will negotiate an agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey to
complete the inventory in FY2000.  Questions should be directed to Gary
Rosenlieb of the Water Resources Division   (970-225-3518).  For answers to
questions concerning the content or format of the four files for archiving
water-quality inventory data in STORET, Principal Investigators should
contact Dean Tucker (970-225-3516).

Send inventory project plans to: Gary Rosenlieb, Water Resources Division,
National Park Service, 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 80525.

III.  Natural Resource Program Center Technical Assistance Requests

                      III.A.  Air Resources Division

Requests for Air Resources Division (ARD) technical assistance should be
forwarded to Chris Shaver, Chief, ARD, by September 15, 2000.  No special
format is required; however, a prioritized list from each region is
requested.  The ARD will cover travel and staff costs associated with
technical assistance provided by the ARD.  As in the past, the ARD will
evaluate the response to this call and, depending on staff availability,
respond to as many of these technical assistance requests as possible.  The
ARD will identify the planned FY 2001 technical assistance activities in
its FY 2001 Work Plan.

There is no Servicewide funding for new monitoring sites or research
projects, but a moderate amount of funding is expected to be available for
interpretive projects and for preparing inventories and control strategies
for emissions sources within parks.  There is not sufficient funding to
warrant a formal competitive process, but regions are asked to prioritize
requests for interpretive projects and to identify up to 3 parks, in
priority order, where in-park emission inventories or control strategies
would be helpful.

The Air Resources Division has technical expertise in all areas of air
resource management, including air quality modeling, monitoring,
interpretation, planning, regulatory development, effects of air pollution
on biological resources and visibility, emission control technology, and
smoke management.  Assistance in areas that are part of the ARD's
Servicewide program need not be specifically requested (e.g., federal
legislative and regulatory processes, permit reviews for major new sources
wishing to locate near Class I areas, maintaining air quality monitoring
network and central databases, development of modeling techniques for
assessing the impact of single or multiple sources on air quality or air
quality related values).  However, assistance with site-specific
information needs or legislative, regulatory or policy issues should be
requested in advance if the need for such assistance is known.

The Division can provide technical assistance to the parks in the specific
areas listed below.

Impacts of New Air Pollution Sources.   For projects that may affect air
quality in NPS units, review of environmental impact statements (EISs) for
adequacy of pollution control technology, air quality modeling analysis
(pollution concentra-tion estimates), and potential for effects on
sensitive resources in the parks; guidance for potential EIS preparers;
review of construction permit applications for new air pollution sources
proposing to locate near NPS units not designated as Class I areas.

State Interaction.  Coordination with state air agencies and assistance in
the development of state air programs that are consistent with the
preservation and protection of NPS units; coordination with lead
superintendent/region on state air activi-ties.

NPS Planning, Operations, Training, and Interpretation.  Coordination of
air quality portions of park management plans and associated environmental
compliance documents (e.g., general management plans, resource management
plans, fire/smoke management plans); inventories of emission sources within
parks; pollution prevention and control strategies for in-park pollution
sources;  development of air quality interpretive materials and
coordination of their use with field; development of a public health air
quality advisory program; development of air quality training programs and
materials for NPS personnel.  As noted above, funding is available to
support some these projects.

Information Management and Data Analysis.   Provide assistance in
incorporating park-specific air quality-related data into the air resource
portion of "Synthesis" (the natural resource information management
system); perform statistical analysis of air quality and air quality
related data; provide technical assistance to parks in the collection,
analysis, reporting, and interpreta-tion of air quality data; application
of GIS technology to air resource management issues and problems; prepare
and disseminate to the parks, regions, the Directorate, and the public
periodic reports of air quality information obtained from the research and
monitoring programs.

Analyses of Visibility Conditions.  Application of analytic/mathematical
methods to determine causes and sources of visibility impairment; conduct
and assess studies on the causes of visibility impairment and to identify
remedial strate-gies to reduce documented impairment.

Analyses of Ecological Effects.  Assessment of the effects of air pollution
on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in parks; assessment of the
sensitivities of elements in the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems with
respect to air pollution; development of models to predict ecosystem
changes that might result from increases in pollution stress resources;
assistance in developing project proposals and identifying funding sources,
including, liaison with the U.S. Geological Survey's Biological Resources
and Water Resources Divisions.

Please contact the Air Resources Division if assistance is needed in
identifying and/or developing technical needs.




              III.B.  Biological Resource Management Division

Requests for Biological Resource Management Division (BRMD) technical
assistance should be forwarded to the Chief, BRMD, 1201 Oak Ridge Drive,
Suite 200, Ft. Collins, Colorado, 80525.  BRMD will provide technical
assistance in the areas of exotic species and integrated pest management,
restoration ecology, threatened and endangered species, and wildlife
management (including wildlife capture, chemical anesthesia, and health and
disease).

Requests should be received by September 15, 2000.  Although no special
format is required, a prioritized list from each region is requested.
Travel and staff costs associated with technical assistance is funded by
BRMD.  The BRMD will evaluate each request and depending upon staff
availability and expertise, will respond to as many technical assistance
requests as possible.


                  III.C.  Environmental Quality Division

Requests for Environmental Quality Division (EQD) technical assistance in
FY99 should be forwarded to Jacob Hoogland, Chief, EQD, by September 15,
2000.  No special format is required; however, a prioritized list from each
region is requested.  The EQD can provide technical assistance to parks in
any of the areas described below, depending on staff availability.  The
division can also facilitate access to specialists in non-governmental
organizations, academic institutions, and other agencies.

Environmental Impact Analysis and Conservation Planning: Under the National
Environmental Policy Act, federal agencies may have an obligation to
conduct and prepare environmental analysis of their proposed activities.
The Division can provide advice and assistance in preparing these documents
as well as integrating other state or federal requirements into a single
analysis.  Assistance can also be provided on issues such as cumulative
impact analysis, alternative development, and related issues.  These
include but are not limited to: environmental justice issue analysis,
environmental impact analysis training, interagency coordination,
environmental mediation, evaluation of environmental documents, federal
energy regulatory commission processes, external review processes, public
participation, and impact analysis and consultation under section 4(f).

Emergency Response: Assistance and on-site support for oil spills and
hazardous substance releases under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), Clean Water
Act (CWA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) when emergency actions are required or recommended
under the National Contingency Plan (NCP) including: NPS policy guidance,
emergency spill response contractor (on-call nationally 24 hours),
emergency medical response/monitoring for chemical exposures (contracted
service), Federal funding support, financial management and cost
reimbursement, liaison with USCG/USEPA/other federal and state response
agencies, certified on-scene coordinator (OSC) and unified command support,
emergency response checklists and guidance (24 hour in-house service),
spill response training, and national and regional response team support
(NRT & RRT).

Contingency Planning: Technical and financial assistance on pre-spill
planning and internal compliance requirements under the Oil Pollution Act
(OPA), CERCLA, and RCRA including: NPS policy and guidance, national
emergency response plan, regional and area planning under OPA and NCP
mandates, vessel management and facility management plans, new EPA one-plan
support, PREP exercises.

Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Direct support and technical assistance
on natural resource damage claims under OPA, CWA, CERCLA, and the National
Park System Protection Act (16 USC 19jj) including: Natural resource damage
assessments (NRDA) training, case management, and contract support; NPS
policy and NPS authorized official; DOI NRDAR funding support, regulatory
process and guidance; restoration planning and implementation; liaison and
coordination with SOL, DOJ; coordination with other federal, state and
tribal natural resource trustees; economic valuation procedures and
methodologies; injury determination and quantification criteria; natural
resource damage settlements and covents not to sue; damage assessment cost
recovery; negotiations with responsible parties and insurers; memorandum of
agreements and funding agreements with responsible parties.



                    III.D.  Geologic Resources Division

Requests for Geologic Resources Division (GRD) technical assistance in
FY2000 should be forwarded to Dave Shaver, Chief, GRD, by September 15,
2000.  No special format is required; however, a ranked list of all
projects is requested from each region.  Successful technical assistance
requests generally involve services that can be provided by GRD staff and
completed within a relatively short time.  The division can provide
assistance directly or can facilitate access to specialists in other
agencies and the academic community.

The GRD will evaluate the response to this call and respond to as many of
these technical assistance requests as possible.  Planned technical
assistance activities will be identified in the division's FY2001 Work
Plan, which is provided to each Regional Geology Coordinator.

Areas of technical expertise within the Geologic Resources Division
include:

Disturbed Land Restoration and Abandoned Mineral Land Reclamation Projects:
Assist with disturbed area and AML inventory, site characterization,
resource impact assessments, and issue identification; conduct human health
and safety hazards analysis and mitigation design; conduct geomorphic
analyses, volumetric surveys, and provide materials/equipment cost
estimates; provide landform restoration design, engineering, contract
scopes-of-work, and project oversight assistance; facilitate access to
multidisciplinary expertise for natural systems restoration; and provide
training in applying geomorphic concepts to natural systems restoration.

Geologic Resources Projects: Cave and karst planning, protection, and
resource management;
paleontological resource management planning, research permitting, and
resource protection; geology interpretive planning and program development,
geology publications, and seasonal interpreter training; active surface
processes (e.g., erosion, glaciers, volcanism, rockfalls and landslides)
issue identification, characterization, and scoping; geologic resource
management planning and development of RMP project statements.

Geologist-in-the-Parks: Assist placements of temporary geologists in parks
to work with geologic resources management, research or interpretation.
GRD expects to make about 50 placements in FY2001.  Placements usually
include stipend funding of up to $2,500, provided by GRD and external
partners, and require the park to provide housing.  Requests for
assistance, should be submitted using the GIP Proposal Form, which is
available through the GRD website at http://www2.nrintra.nps.gov/grd/gip/.

Minerals Management: Evaluate in-park mineral development proposals for
technical and regulatory adequacy, mitigation techniques, and feasibility
of reclamation; evaluate external mineral development proposals and develop
park protection recommendations; assist with mineral appraisal to private
mineral rights in parks, or to estimate value of damages to mineral
specimens, crystals, cave features, fossils, etc.; assist park minerals
management planning; provide minerals management training (e.g., mine and
petroleum engineering, mitigation, regulations and permitting, and mineral
geology and economics); assist parks resolve policy and regulatory concerns
with mineral development in and adjacent to parks; provide specialized
skills (e.g., drilling, engineering, , safety) to ensure operator
compliance during in-park mineral operations, or to evaluate atypical
mineral development operations.

Additional Information: Contact the Geologic Resources Division for
assistance in preparing submissions or in identifying available expertise.
Direct disturbed lands concerns to Dave Steensen (303-969-2014),  geology
concerns to Bob Higgins (303-969-2018), minerals management items to Jim
Woods (303-969-2635), and policy or regulatory issues to Carol McCoy
(303-969-2096).


           III.E.  Water Resources Division Technical Assistance

Requests for Water Resources Division (WRD) technical assistance in FY2001
should be forwarded to Dan Kimball, Chief, WRD, by September 15, 2000.  No
special format is required; however, a prioritized list from each region is
requested.  Travel and staff costs associated with WRD technical assistance
are funded by WRD.  Successful technical assistance requests generally
involve assistance, which can be provided by in-house staff and completed
within a relatively short period of time.

As in the past, WRD will evaluate the response to this call and depending
upon staff availability and expertise, will respond to as many technical
assistance requests as possible.  WRD FY 2001 technical assistance
activities will be listed within the Division's FY 2001 Annual Work Plan,
which will be provided to the Region or Cluster Water Resources
Coordinator.

Areas of technical expertise within the Water Resources Division include:

Hydrology:  Hydrologic issue analysis; hydrologic measurements (surface and
groundwater); hydrologic impact assessments; surface and groundwater
modeling; watershed runoff and erosion evaluation and modeling; fluvial
geomorphic analysis and sediment transport modeling; groundwater
assessments including well siting and testing, drawdown analysis, aquifer
assessment and modeling,  surface water ? ground water interactions, and
groundwater impact assessments; stream restoration; analytic methods;
statistical hydrology; specialized equipment loan and training;
standardized procedures and protocols; floodplain compliance; hydrologic
databases; and contract specification and product review.

Water Quality: Water chemistry; water quality instrumentation and sampling
design; water chemistry laboratory selection and sample analysis; water
quality inventory and monitoring protocols and study designs; ground water
quality monitoring and impact assessments;  toxicity and contaminants
assessments and aquatic risk assessments; aquatic biomonitoring; water
quality databases; water quality modeling; water quality information
interpretation; water quality ? fisheries interaction; and strategies for
protecting park water quality.

Wetlands: Wetland inventories; wetland mapping; wetland resource protection
strategies; wetland restoration planning and implementation; regulatory
issues (e.g., Clean Water Act Section 404 permit issues, compliance with
NPS Director's Order 77-1); wetland impact assessments; wetland functional
assessments; wetland issue scoping and project statement development;
wetland training; monitoring; and related topics.  NOTE:   Wetland
delineation for Section 404 permits should be conducted by private
contractors or appropriately trained park/ regional staff.  WRD can provide
assistance with scopes of work and product review.

Fisheries Management: Fish stock and population assessments; restoration of
native species; control of exotic and non-native species; evaluations of
recreational and commercial fisheries regulations; angler use and creel
censuses; National Fishing Week Programs; and assessments of fish disease
and environmental/habitat alterations on fish populations and fisheries.
Assistance is also provided for Fishery Management Planning and the
development of partnerships and cooperative programs with state and federal
fisheries management agencies.

Water Resources Planning: Water-related issues overviews or scoping
reports; review of water-related aspects of Natural and Cultural Resource
Management Plans, GMPs and other planning documents; assistance with
preparation of Water Resources Management Plans, including advice on the
need for a plan, methods for plan development, scopes of work, and review
of draft plans; and conducting water resources planning workshops for
groups of parks.

Water Rights: New off-park (non-NPS) water development that may be
injurious to park resources or water use; changes in off-park water
consumption; changes in locations or types of off-park water use; changes
in in-park (NPS) water consumption that may be injurious to other water
users; changes in locations or types of park water use, including new or
replacement wells; administrative hearings relative to off-park or park
water use; policy interpretation related to use of park water; and
facilities planning/design where facilities affect or are affected by water
use.

Contacts: The Water Resources Division will assist to identify and/or
develop technical assistance needs.  Program contacts are Gary Rosenlieb at
970-225-3518 (Water Quality), Joel Wagner at 303-969-2955 (Wetlands), Gary
Smillie at 970-225-3522 (Hydrology), Mark Flora at 303-969-2956 (Planning),
Jim Tilmant at 970-225-3547 (Fisheries), or Chuck Pettee at 970-225-3505
(Water Rights).

46

IV.  External Funding and Assistance Programs

                   IV.A.  Forest Pest Management Program

                        DUE DATE: September 5, 2000

All Forest Pest Management funds are transferred from the U.S. Forest
Service to the National Park Service on a project by project basis.  In
recent years, funds have been sufficient to cover nearly all projects for
which biological needs were clearly established.

There has been confusion about fiscal management of these funds.  Legally,
the funds received from the Forest Service are no-year funds.  However, the
Forest Service staff reserves the right to re-approve project funding each
year.  Therefore, the Park Service manages these funds as though they were
annual funds.  At the end of each field season year, the WASO Budget
Division now pulls back all funds remaining in field accounts.  These
"carryover" funds are combined with new funds and reallocated to parks
based on the Forest Service project approvals.

The lack of parallel timing between the fiscal years and the field seasons
can cause problems in parks that must conduct field operations in the fall.
This occurs most often in southern parks that experience very long field
seasons.  Budget proposals should include estimates of expenditures for
fall, even though this work will be done in the following fiscal year.
Accomplishment reports, which are due September 1, should address total
expenditures for the field season, including estimates of the expenditures
to be incurred in the fall.  (Estimates of fall expenditures should be
reported as expenditures, not as carryover funds.  Only funds that will be
available for the subsequent field season should be reported as carryover.)

Send proposals to: Terry Cacek, IPM Coordinator, Biological Resource
Management Division, 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 200, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 80525; cc:Mail- Cacek, Terry; phone 970- 225-3542.

Funding Amounts: Greater than $3,000 per project with no upper limit.
Amounts under $3,000 may be requested only to complete ongoing projects.

RMP and PMIS Eligibility Requirement: See I.A. General Instructions.

Reporting Requirements: A "Forest Pest Management Program Accomplishment &
Expenditures Report" for each on-going project must be submitted by
September 5, 2000 .  A copy of the report form is available from Terry
Cacek.

Funding exclusions: Only direct field costs may be requested.  Parks and
cluster or field offices may not add indirect or overhead charges.

Scope of projects: The Forest Pest Management program is targeted at the
suppression of populations of insects and disease organisms that affect
trees in natural, cultural, or urban settings.  Projects addressing weed
control are not eligible.  Projects aimed at inventory and long-term
monitoring of forest insects and diseases have been approved only in rare
cases.  However, monitoring that is an integral part of the control work
may be funded.  For example, funds may be used to field a crew that will
measure insect population densities to determine the exact locations to be
sprayed a few days later.

                     Instructions for proposal format

For universal requirements, see General Instructions, Section I.A.

Proposals must be submitted on Forest Service forms entitled "Forest Pest
Management Project Proposal" (FS-3400-2), available from Terry Cacek.
Parks should consult with Forest Service entomologists or plant
pathologists in preparing these forms.  Each proposal should be accompanied
by a biological evaluation prepared by Forest Service staff.  If the
biological evaluation is not available in a timely manner, a note
indicating the status of the biological evaluation should accompany the
proposal.

All proposals must be accompanied by economic analyses.  These typically
will be only two or three pages in length, but must demonstrate the
economic efficiency of the proposals.  Typically, this will be demonstrated
by a ratio of benefits to costs that exceeds 1:1.  Contact Terry Cacek for
a set of detailed instructions and examples of completed analyses.

                      Selection and Approval Process

Terry Cacek, IPM Coordinator, will screen all proposals to ensure that they
meet eligibility criteria and are consistent with NPS Management Policies.
He will then forward them to the Forest Service.  Project approvals are
granted by the Forest Service based on the biological evaluations.  Late
arrival of the biological evaluations in the Forest Service's Washington,
D.C., office is a major cause for delays in project approval.  Therefore,
the earliest possible coordination between parks and the Forest Service is
advised.  In the case of unexpected emergencies, proposals may be submitted
at any time. These situations are expected to occur rarely.

                                 Schedule

March 2000     Parks should contact local U.S. Forest Service staff to
               discuss need for FY 2001 projects.
September 5,  2000  Proposals for 2001 and Accomplishment and Expenditures
               Reports for  2000 are due to Terry Cacek.
Late Sept. 2000     Proposals submitted to the U.S. Forest Service by Terry
Cacek.
October 2000        Terry Cacek meets with U.S. Forest Service to discuss
proposals.
March 2001     U.S. Forest Service transfers funds to NPS, which are then
               distributed to the field.

           IV.B.  Native Plant Conservation Alliance Initiative

                           DUE DATE:  June 2000

Established in 1994, the Native Plant Conservation Initiative brings
together public and private organizations dedicated to preserving native
plants in this country.  Signatory agencies of the Federal Plant
Conservation Alliance MOU are: ARS, BLM, DOD, USFS, FWS, USGS/BRD, NPS,
OSM, and NRCS.  More than 150 non-federal organizations are cooperating in
this effort.

A major goal of the Initiative is to fund on-the-ground plant conservation
projects.  In the past three years, through a partnership with the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), the Initiative has funded 75 projects
worth over $1,300,000 on federal and private lands.

The information in this call will allow resource managers to plan for the
official request for Plant Conservation Alliance Initiative proposals,
which will go out in March 2000 with a due date of June 2000.

The program will once again emphasize on-the-ground plant conservation
projects that provide immediate results and benefits.  The goal is to have
high quality projects from across the U.S. that involve as many of our
agencies and cooperators as practical, and that demonstrate our capability
to deliver on-the-ground conservation results.  Projects can involve
species/communities/habitat protection and restoration, public outreach, or
species/communities inventory and assessment.  Integrated projects
involving more than one of these categories and agencies are most
desirable.

Contact: Loyal Mehrhoff, Biological Resource Management Division, 1201
Oakridge Road, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80525

Funds Available: For 2001, funds are $250,000

Funding Amounts: Funding for FY 2001 is anticipated to be approximately
$50,000 per project.  For a $50,000 project, the breakdown would be:
$25,000 federal funds from NFWF, and  $25,000 non-federal matching cash or
in-kind matching services raised by project grantee.  Successful grantees
will be required to supply non-federal funds and services from third
parties to match NFWF federal funds.

                            Subject of projects

Project proposals should involve as many of the following parameters as
possible.

1.                                    An ecological approach to habitat
protection/restoration and/or cooperative efforts with state agencies to
protect native plant species and communities, coupled with revised land
management practices that eliminate the cause(s) of degradation.

2.   A major segment of the habitat of a species or community, so as to
have a significant impact on the overall status of the species and the
ecosystems on which they depend.

3.   Public information/education or conservation oriented projects that
will lead to subsequent on-the-ground action (e.g., assessment and
inventory).

4.   The participation of partners (e.g., state, local, tribal, and
non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals), particularly
those who can contribute non-federal dollars and non-federal professional
services and/or materials to assist with matching the NFWF grant.  Federal
funds passed through a non-federal entity do not qualify as matching funds
(e.g., federal Section 6 funds passed through a state agency).

5.   Interagency or public-private collaboration across land ownership.

Projects must be successfully completed within one year.  All environmental
clearances (NEPA, state, etc.) and permits must be in-hand or obtainable in
time to complete the project within a year of the grant award.

                      Selection and Approval Process

Projects will be submitted to the NFWF.  Further guidance, including
details for proposals will be distributed by spring 2000

Tentative schedule

     March 2000          Call for proposals issued.
     June 2000      Proposals due to NFWF.
     October 2000        Funding allocated and recipients notified.

                    IV.C.  Pulling Together Initiative

                            DUE DATE: Fall 2000

The Pulling Together Initiative brings together public and private
organizations dedicated to managing invasive plants.

A major goal of the Initiative is to fund on-the-ground invasive plant
management projects.  In the past three years, through a partnership with
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), the Initiative has funded
more than 70 projects worth over $2,000,000 on federal and private lands.

The information in this call will allow resource managers to plan for the
official request for Pulling Together Initiative proposals, which will go
out in August 2000 with a due date of fall (probably November) 2000.

The program emphasizes on-the-ground invasive plant management projects
that provide immediate results and benefits.  The program also requires
partnership-based projects.  The goal is to have high quality projects from
across the U.S. that involve as many agencies and cooperators as practical,
and that demonstrate our capability to deliver on-the-ground conservation
results.  Projects can involve species/communities/habitat protection and
restoration, public outreach, or species inventory and assessment.
Integrated projects involving more than one of these categories and
agencies are most desirable.

Contact:  Gary Johnston, (202) 208-5886, (cc:Mail: Johnston, Gary),
Biologist, Biological Resource Management Division, National Park  Service,
Room 3223-MIB, 1849 C ST NW, Washington, DC 20240

Funds Available: For 2001, funds are expected to be about $250,000.

Funding Amounts: Funding for FY 2001 is anticipated to be approximately
$50,000 per project.  For a $50,000 project, the breakdown would be $20,000
federal funds from NFWF, $20,000 non-federal matching cash raised by
project grantee, and $10,000 in-kind matching services raised by project
grantee.  Minimum request is $5,000.  Successful grantees will be required
to supply non-federal funds and services from third parties to match NFWF
federal funds.

                            Subject of projects

Project proposals should involve as many of the following parameters as
possible.

1.   An integrated approach to invasive plant management and cooperative
efforts with partners to protect native plant species and communities,
coupled with revised land management practices that eliminate the cause(s)
of degradation.
2.   A formally established and defined weed management area, which
includes surrounding landowners and coordinated approach to managing
invasive plant species.
3.   Public information/education or conservation oriented projects that
will lead to subsequent on-the-ground action.
4.   The participation of partners (e.g., state, local, tribal, and
non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals), particularly
those who can contribute non-federal dollars and non-federal professional
services and/or materials to assist with matching the NFWF grant.  Federal
funds passed through a non-federal entity do not qualify as matching funds.
5.   Interagency or public-private collaboration across land ownership.

Projects must be successfully completed within one year.  All environmental
clearances (NEPA, state, etc.) and permits must be in-hand or obtainable in
time to complete the project within a year of the grant award.  Although
projects may be funded up to 5 years, projects will only be funded on an
annual basis.  Subsequent annual funding will be based on project progress
and accomplishments.

                      Selection and Approval Process

Projects will be submitted to the NFWF.  Further guidance, including
details for proposals, will be distributed by late summer 2000.

                            Tentative schedule

   August 2000      Call for proposals issued.
   October 2000          Proposals due to NFWF.
   January 2001          Funding allocated and recipients notified.
   
===========================================================================
===========

Attachment 3

(Continuing Project Progress Report format)

    Project title
    Progress and Status, (Begin date to End Date)
    Name of Project Chief
    District
    Telephone Number and Email Address
    Name of Park contact
    Park
    Telephone Number and Email Address

I. Water-quality Management Issue

Described the relationship of Park water-quality management issue to the
technical information provided to
address the issue. Describe the project objective(s) and interim
objective(s).

II. Status

Describe progress, data and information collected or compiled, and meetings
or outreach activities

III. Reports

Describe current or planned reports or products.

IV. Problems

Described any administrative or technical problems encountered and proposed
solutions or initiated
actions.

IV. Plans for next year

    Purpose and scope
    Approach
    Reports
    Outreach

V. Personnel

Grade/Step Name %FTE

VI. Proposed total gross budget for FY 2001

    Labor
    Travel
    Equipment and Supplies
    Miscellaneous
    Laboratory

    TOTAL
===========================================================================
===============

ATTACHMENT 4:  Timeline for Submission, Review, and Selection of
Preliminary Proposals (i.e. "Project Statements"), Workplans, and Progress
Reports.


 [1/--due date set by NPS Park Superintendent & WRD District Chief
 2/--due date set by individual NPS Clusters and NPS Regions]

                                       Responsible     Item
Due Date  Item(s)                      Agency          Recipient

1/        Complete preliminary proposal
          ("project statement")        District &      District Chief
          & evaluation criteria        Park staff      Regional
          statement for each                             Hydrologist
          proposed project                             Superintendent

2/        Submit approved project      Superintendent  NPS Clusters &
          statement & evaluation                         Regions
          criteria statement

May 26,   Submit approved project      NPS Clusters &  NPS Regions &
2000      statement, evaluation         Region            HQ
          criteria statement,
         and continuing project
         progress report

Jun 23,   Complete preliminary         NPS HQ          NPS-USGS
2000      screening & initial                            Work Group
          prioritization of
          proposals and project
         reports

Jul 17,   Complete evaluation & final  NPS-USGS        NPS & USGS HQs
2000      prioritization of proposals   Work Group
          and progress reports

Jul 21,   Notify Districts & Parks of  NPS-USGS        District Chief
2000      proposals selected for         Work Group    Superintendent
          funding and feedback
          on progress reports

Sep 18,   Submit detailed, approved    District Chief  Regional
2000      work plan and revised        Research Branch  Hydrologist
          (as appropriate) progress     Chief          NPS-USGS
          report                                        Work Group

Oct 1,    Approve funding & proceed    NPS-USGS        District Chief
2000      with work                    Work Group      Superintendent


*********************************************
Janice Ward
Acting Chief, Office of Water Quality
US Geological Survey
Reston, VA
703-648-6871
jward@usgs.gov