xedit qw00.03.html
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