B. General Instructions for Servicewide Funding

 

RMP Eligibility Requirement

 

To be eligible for NRPP, Geologic Division and Water Resource Division funding, a park must have a current resource management plan (RMP) in place. This means that each park submitting a proposal must have a plan approved after January 1, 1994, or that a new one must be completed by December 31, 1998. Exceptions to the RMP requirement will be granted for new parks, which will have six years from establishment to complete an RMP. In proposals involving several parks or clusters or regions, each project must be reflected in the appropriate park(s) resource management plan.

 

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, can submit more projects or projects of a higher estimated cost than regions with relatively smaller workloads.

 

There is no limit on the number of Forest Pest Management proposals that may be submitted by each region.

 

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

 

 

Documentation: All proposals for Servicewide natural resource funding are to be submitted in the form of Project Statements included in the relevant park Resources Management Plan, in the format prescribed in the December 1994 RMP instructions. The statement may be revised, if needed or desired; the RMP should be amended to include the revised statement. Project statements shall not exceed the 12-page length that is the maximum provided in the RMP software. (The 12-page maximum should be obtained using standard 10 or 12-pt-sized fonts; if compressed printing is used, proposals will be returned.) At the option of the submitter, 2 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 does not suggest that length necessarily contributes to quality in a proposal.

 

Evaluation Criteria: A set of criteria to be used for NRPP, Geologic Resources, and Water Resources funding is included in section IC. Also included is a separate form to respond to each criterion. However, the response to each criterion is limited to 200 words. Responses exceeding this limit will be penalized. The responses to these criteria must be submitted as an attachment to the project statement. This procedure has been developed based on recommendations of project reviewers to facilitate fair and objective comparisons among competing projects. However, project statements must still stand on their technical merit.

 

FY 99 Natural Resources Project Funding Schedule:

 

May 29, 1998: Project proposals in the four funding categories submitted. (NRPP/Resource Management and Research, Geologic Resources, and Water Resources)

 

June 15-19, 1998: Independent panels convene to evaluate the submitted projects and develop a list of priority projects.

 

July 6, 1998: Regions are notified of the projects expected to be funded in FY 99.

 

October 1, 1998: Detailed study plans submitted for projects expected to be funded in FY 99. Progress reports submitted for continuing projects.

 

Nov. 13, 1998: Detailed study plans revised as appropriate and approved. WASO Budget Office requested to transfer project funds to the respective regions for new and continuing projects. (November 13 is a target date, contingent on approval of financial plans.)

 

 

 

C. Ranking Criteria

 

This criterion is to be included with proposals for the following programs: NRPP/Research and Resource Management, Geologic, and Water Resources Divisions. Response to each criterion is limited to no more than 200 words per criterion. Responses that exceed this limit will be penalized.

 

1. Significance of the Resource or Issue to the Park: How important is the resource or issue to the park involved, relative to its other resources and issues? Weighting factor = 2X.

 

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, say, basic resources such as air and water that are fundamental to all parks), high priority in park RMP (this is not sufficient in itself), on federal or state lists as endangered or threatened, required by statute, etc. To earn 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 = 3X

 

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 = 2X

 

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 = 3X

 

 

 

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, which, when implemented, will meaningfully resolve a management issue? Weighting factor = 3X

 

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 = 1X

 

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 = 2X

 

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. Weighting factor = 1X

 

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)

 

 

 

E. Evaluation Criteria Form

 

Responses to each criterion is limited to no more than 200 words per criterion. Responses that exceed this limit will be penalized.

 

1. Significance of the Resource or Issue to the Park: How important is the resource or issue to the park involved, relative to its other resources and issues? Weighting Factor= 2X

 

 

 

2. Severity of Resource Threat, Problem, or Need(s): Weighting Factor= 3X

 

 

 

 

3. Problem definition and information base: How well is the problem defined? Weighting Factor= 2X

 

 

 

4. Feasibility: Weighting Factor= 3X

 

 

 

5. Problem resolution: Will the proposed use of funds contribute directly to decisions or actions, which, when implemented, will meaningfully resolve a management issue? Weighting Factor= 3X

 

 

 

6. Transferability: How widely will the project protocols or results be useful? Weighting Factor= 1X

 

 

 

7. Cost effectiveness: Given problem statement and proposed methodology, are cost estimates realistic and commensurate with the results to be produced? Weighting Factor= 2X

 

 

 

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. Weighting Factor= 1X