Detailed Information on the
National Park Service - Natural Resource Stewardship Assessment

Determine a process and schedule for an independent evaluation of the program itself.

Gradually increase funding for the Natural Resource Challenge.

Integrate existing performance measures into the Department of Interior's overall strategic plan.

Refine efficiency measures and use them to identify best practices, such as the most cost-effective ways to treat lands disturbed with exotic plants.

Report on the first group of parks that have identified vital signs to show how each park can use these measures to provide an overview on the health of its ecosystem.

Measure: Acres of disturbed park lands prepared for natural restoration per year.

Explanation:Number of acres that have been prepared for natural restoration each year, out of 235,000 acres of disturbed park land identified in 2003.

Measure: Percent of parks that have identified their vital signs for natural resource monitoring

Explanation:270 national parks with significant natural resources are required to identify the vital signs they will use to monitor the condition of park ecosystems. (Targets based on networks funded at FY04 levels.)

Measure: Percent of parks containing ecosystems in good or fair condition.

Explanation:Vital signs are used to measure the percent of park lands containing ecosystems (watersheds, landscapes, or marine resources) that are in good or fair condition.

Measure: Percent of completed data sets of natural resource inventories.

Explanation:In 1999, NPS identified 2,767 data sets that are needed to inventory the natural resources in parks.

Measure: Average cost of treating an acre of park land disturbed with exotic plants.

Explanation:Average cost per acre fluctuates, depending on the types of plants treated in a given year. Costs range from $70/acre for herbaceous trees in Florida to $950/acre for tamarisk.

Measure: Percent of disturbed parklands acres that are being restored

Explanation:

Measure: Percent of streams and rivers managed by NPS that stated and Federal water quality

Explanation:replaced measure #5 as of 2005.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Purpose is to protect natural resources in national parks "unimpaired for . . . future generations." These resources are the main reason national parks were created.

Evidence: NPS Organic Act of 1916.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Need is to establish a science-based framework for measuring the condition of park resources and taking steps where possible to restore park ecosystems to an unimpaired condition.

Evidence: National Research Council's Science in the National Parks (1992, 1993). GAO 1997 report (T-RCED-97-76). Richard Sellars' Preserving Nature in the National Parks (1997). NPS Action Plan for Preserving Natural Resources (1999).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: No other program has responsibility for protecting natural resources in national parks. Increasing or decreasing funding for these programs has a direct impact on the condition of park natural resources or NPS ability to monitor those conditions. Program balances NPS knowledge of park resources with non-NPS scientific and subject-matter expertise.

Evidence: National Research Council's Science in the National Parks (1992, 1993). GAO 1997 report (T-RCED-97-76). Richard Sellars' Preserving Nature in the National Parks (1997). NPS Action Plan for Preserving Natural Resources (1999). Interagency Agreement with USGS to provide Park Oriented Biological Support (POBS). Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Units Network Annual Report 2002 (10/02). Funding for the Natural Resource Challenge Fiscal Year 2002 (Draft 5/03).

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Program design is free of major flaws. It is designed to balance NPS knowledge of park resources with non-NPS scientific and subject-matter expertise. The Natural Resource Challenge was initiated to improve natural resource preservation through research support and management to establish condition baselines, monitor changes, detect unnatural influences, and develop and implement appropriate management actions and programs. The Challenge has made NPS natural resource stewardship more effective and efficient overall.

Evidence: NPS Action Plan for Preserving Natural Resources (1999). FY 2002 Annual Report Inventory and Monitoring Program (1/03). Funding for the Natural Resource Challenge FY 2002 (Draft 2003). FY 2000 House Interior Appropriations report language.

Is the program effectively targeted, so program resources reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Program is generally designed well, using a broad-based, multi-disciplinary approach, with a wide range of NPS and non-NPS researchers, resource professionals and park managers. The Challenge has allowed the natural resource program to address deficiencies in baseline natural resource inventories and monitoring, and to pursue innovative approaches to national park needs (e.g., Exotic Plant Management Teams, Vital Signs Monitoring Networks).

Evidence: FY 2002 Annual Report Inventory and Monitoring Program (2003). Biological Resource Management Division Annual Report FY 2002 (Draft 2003). Exotic Plant Management Team Annual Report - FY 2002 (Draft 2003). Water Resource Division FY 2002 Annual Report (Draft 2003), FY 2002 Geologic Resource Division Annual Report (Draft 2003). Air Quality in the National Parks, Second edition (2002). NPS FY 2004 Budget Request (pp. ONPS-9 - ONPS-17).

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: NPS has had various output measures to track natural resource stewardship. Until the Natural Resource Challenge, however, it lacked a framework for measuring the desired outcome of natural resources protected unimpaired for future generations. The Challenge is now building off of NPS's first set of performance measures to establish baseline inventories, implement effective monitoring strategies, and make initial improvements to national park natural resource conditions. It will eventually identify vital signs that better measure the outcomes of natural resource stewardship.

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-08 (draft 2003). NPS strategic goals (with actuals and targets) for natural resources FYs 1999-2005 (2003). FY 2002 Annual Report Inventory and Monitoring Program (2003). Vital Signs Monitoring Network - Status and Timeline (Draft 2003). Exotic Plant Management Team Annual Report - FY 2002 (Draft 2003). Biological Resource Management Division Annual Report FY 2002 (Draft 2003). Water Resource Division FY 2002 Annual Report (Draft 2003), FY 2002 Geologic Resource Division Annual Report (Draft 05/03). Air Quality Actions Implementing NRC Funding (2003). Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Units Network Annual Report 2002 (2002).

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Same as 2.1

Evidence: Same as 2.1

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term measures?

Explanation: The Natural Resource Challenge has established ambitious annual baselines and timeframes to complete natural resource inventories and implement complex monitoring strategies. Annual milestones are laid out for acquiring specific inventory data sets, restoring disturbed lands, controlling exotic species, improving populations of T&E species, monitoring air and water quality, improving the condition of fragile geologic resources, and identifying vital signs to measure overall ecosystem health.

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-08 (draft 2003). NPS strategic goals (with actuals and targets) for natural resources FYs 1999-2005 (2003). FY 2002 Annual Report Inventory and Monitoring Program (2003). Vital Signs Monitoring Network - Status and Timeline (Draft 2003). Exotic Plant Management Team Annual Report - FY 2002 (Draft 2003). Biological Resource Management Division Annual Report FY 2002 (Draft 2003). Water Resource Division FY 2002 Annual Report (Draft 2003), FY 2002 Geologic Resource Division Annual Report (Draft 05/03). Air Quality Actions Implementing NRC Funding (2003). Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Units Network Annual Report 2002 (2002).

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures?

Explanation: Same as 2.3

Evidence: Same as 2.3

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: NPS has many partners within the Natural Resource Challenge that have shown commitment toward long-term resource stewardship goals. NPS uses a network of Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESUs) to partner with USGS, EPA, and other bureaus, as well as state, local, and non-profit entities. All have been committed to using national parks as reference points for broader environmental measures.

Evidence: See MOUs with USGS, EPA, USFS, BLM, BOR, NRCS, USFWS, DOD, DOE, NASA, universities and researchers, particularly through the Learning Centers and CESUs. Partners and contractors must agree to certain performance standards before agreements are executed. See Funding for the Natural Resource Challenge FY 2002 (Draft 2003), and Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Units Annual Report 2002 (2002).

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The National Research Council (NRC) reports in 1992 and 1993, and Richard Sellars' pivotal book, Preserving Nature and the National Parks (1997), identified long-standing shortcomings in NPS natural resource stewardship. These provided an impetus to begin the Natural Resource Challenge as an attempt to address the need for better outcome measures and science-based resource stewardship. Although NPS conducts narrow, area-specific reviews, there has not been a recent independent evalution of either the Natural Resource Challenge or NPS natural resource stewardship overall. NPS should pursue more systematic and integrated reviews that use expertise tailored to the disciplines being evaluated. The NPS Advisory Board has begun a review of the Challenge, but DOI is encouraged to initiate or support a more independent review by the IG, NRC, or other appropriate body.

Evidence: NRC's Science in the National Parks (1992, 1993). GAO 1997 report (T-RCED-97-76). Richard Sellars' Preserving Nature in the National Parks (1997). National Academy of Sciences' Ecological Dynamics on Yellowstone's Northern Range (2003). NPS Advisory Board Report on the Natural Resource Challenge (draft report in progress). See also NPS Peer Review Guidelines (Draft 2003) and NPS natural resource program evaluation strategy (Draft 2003).

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: For natural resource programs, NPS can link specific budget requests to various output performance targets. During the FY 2004 budget process, NPS was able to show changes in various output targets in response to changes in estimated funding. NPS still has more work to do to report all the costs needed to achieve specifc outcome performance targets.

Evidence: NPS 2004 Budget Request (pp. ONPS-29 - ONPS-31). FY 2002 Annual Report Inventory and Monitoring Program (1/03). Funding for the Natural Resource Challenge FY 2002 (Draft 2003).

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The entire Natural Resource Challenge is, in effect, a long-term plan to address the most significant deficiencies in strategic planning for natural resource stewardship -- that is, the need for comprehensive outcome measures to track ecosystem health in national parks. The Challenge lays out a series of logical steps to address long-term deficiencies in understanding, monitoring, and managing natural resources in national parks. Each successive NPS strategic plan has contained better measures for natural resource stewardship. The next NPS operational plan and DOI strategic plan will integrate pre-Challenge output goals with the outcome measures under development.

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-08 (draft 2003). NPS strategic goals (with actuals and targets) for natural resources FYs 1999-2005 (2003). FY 2002 Annual Report Inventory and Monitoring Program (2003). Vital Signs Monitoring Network - Status and Timeline (Draft 2003). Exotic Plant Management Team Annual Report - FY 2002 (Draft 2003). NPS Action Plan for Preserving Natural Resources (1999). Funding the Natural Resource Challenge FY 2002 (Draft 2003). NRC's Science in the National Parks (1992, 1993). Richard Sellars' Preserving Nature in the National Parks (1997).

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The program regularly tracks progress in completing inventory data sets and monitoring plans, individual resource management projects, threatened and endangered species status, disturbed land restoration, invasive species control efforts, and a large number of individual projects in parks. In addition, each network, subprogram, or individual project must document its performance annually.

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-08 (draft 2003). NPS strategic goals (with actuals and targets) for natural resources FYs 1999-2005 (2003). FY 2002 Annual Report Inventory and Monitoring Program (2003). Vital Signs Monitoring Network - Status and Timeline (Draft 2003). Exotic Plant Management Team Annual Report - FY 2002 (Draft 2003). Funding the Natural Resource Challenge FY 2002 (Draft 2003).

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Park managers are held accountable for performance through a number of means. Before funds are released, they must identify planned cost, schedule and performance results in Detailed Implementation Plans (DIPs). Each program has quality control standards for an initial phase of an activity (such as establishing monitoring networks) that a manager must meet before funding is released for subsequent stages. Performance is monitored throughout the year, both through the Performance Management Database System (PMDS) and annual reports. Program field staff are also accountable for performance specified in annual work plans. Individual projects are not funded until a DIP is approved and performance must be relatively consistent with the DIP schedule. For non-NPS program partners (e.g., other bureaus, contractors or cooperators), accountability is based on performance costs, schedules and results specified in contract or agreement instruments executed with the partner.

Evidence: See examples of project-specific Detailed Implementation Plans (DIPs). See also examples of contracts and interagency agreements. Other evidence includes Inventory and Monitoring product specifications and a CESU master agreement. See also NPS guidance requiring an annual accomplishment report before funding is released for multi-year projects. This program has been willing to reprogram funds to other high-priority needs if an activity or project is not likely to achieve the intended results or unreasonably deviates from approved schedules. For example, soil maps to be done in partnership with USDA's NRCS have fallen behind schedule, so NPS is exploring alternatives, including contracting out this activity.

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: One-year funds have been obligated annually. In addition, the program has required annual accomplishment reports to provide confidence that funds are expended for their intended purposes.

Evidence: See examples of annual accomplishment reports, including the FY 2002 Annual Report Inventory and Monitoring Program (2003), the Biological Resource Management Division Annual Report FY 2002 (Draft 2003), and the Water Resource Division FY 2002 Annual Report (Draft 2003).

Does the program have procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, approporaite incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: NPS contracts out much of the research and data collection to universities, other bureaus, and private organizations. Inventories (e.g., bird species) for multiple parks are routinely consolidated into a single contract or agreement. NPS uses CESUs, with low fixed overhead rates, to secure university-based scientific expertise. NPS will also deploy in FY 2004 a new IT system, the Resource Activity Management System (RAMS), that is designed to capture park natural resource management actions, regardless of funding source, and compare planned and actual cost information to improve understanding of costs per unit and competitive-sourcing efficiencies.

Evidence: See information on CESUs, which negotiate in advance overhead rates of 15%, compared to regular university rates of 25-65%. CESUs also allow NPS to obtain low-cost technical support through student interns and Student Conservation Association resource assistants. The Alien Plant Control and Monitoring (APCAM) IT database captures information on costs to treat exotic plants by the Exotic Plant Management Teams (EPMTs).

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The program is designed to collaborate and coordinate with other programs with professional expertise and institutional knowledge in natural resources. The program optimizes available non-NPS scientific and subject-matter expertise in other Federal, state, local and private entities through interagency partnerships, CESU networks with academic institutions, and cooperative agreements with non-profit institutions. Although NPS has sole responsibility for monitoring and managing natural resources in national parks, it must coordinate with others in the development of scientific protocols, the mapping of vegetation, and overall research on natural resource conditions.

Evidence: See the NPS Action Plan for Preserving Natural Resources (1999) for a description of the coordination with a wide range of external programs. These include the USGS and universities, which have the lead in designing protocols and conducting biological research, and the CESUs, which provide new opportunities for obtaining scientific expertise across departmental, bureau and academic institutional lines. See also: Interagency Agreement with USGS to provide Park Oriented Biological Support (POBS); MOAs and other agreements with other bureaus/departments; and CESU Network Annual Report 2002 (10/02). The program also collaborates with other NPS programs through a series of Technical Advisory Groups, including the Contaminants TAG (CTAG), Fire TAG (FTAG), Monitoring TAG (MTAG), and Restoration TAG (RTAG).

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program is free of material internal control weaknesses. NPS overall still has financial management weaknesses, but they do not have a direct relation to the program. In fact, the program is developing capabilities (e.g., RAMS) to compensate for NPS-wide weaknesses.

Evidence: See DOI's FY02 Annual Report on Performance and Accountability. See also information on the pilot park deployment in FY 2004 of a new NPS information system, RAMS, designed to capture park natural resource management actions, regardless of funding source, and compare planned and actual cost information to improve understanding of costs per unit and competitive-sourcing efficiencies.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The Natural Resource Challenge is, in effect, a comprehensive collection of steps aimed at addressing a long-term deficiency in understanding and tracking natural resource conditions in parks.

Evidence: NPS Action Plan for Preserving Natural Resources (1999). Funding the Natural Resource Challenge Fiscal Year 2002 (Draft 5/03). FY 2002 Annual Report Inventory and Monitoring Program (1/03).

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome performance goals?

Explanation: NPS has demonstrated good progress in establishing and achieving long-term output goals and tracking results. This includes both the pre-Challenge goals (such as acres of disturbed land restored) and the Challenge goals (such as number of data sets completed). A full yes, however, would require that DOI finalize its Strategic Plan and NPS establish long-term outcome goals that use vital signs to measure park lands with ecosystems in good or fair condition. Suitable performance goals are under development for the next 5-year period, but await completion of the DOI Strategic Plan.

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-08 (draft 2003). NPS strategic goals (with actuals and targets) for natural resources FYs 1999-2005 (2003). FY 2002 Annual Report Inventory and Monitoring Program (2003). Vital Signs Monitoring Network - Status and Timeline (Draft 2003).

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: NPS has consistently demonstrated good progress in achieving its annual goals. The Natural Resource Challenge established ambitious goal baselines and targets for natural resource inventories, and the development and implementation of often complex monitoring strategies for national park natural resources. Performance against those goals, much of it continued funding-increase dependent, has been consistent and easily interpreted.

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-08 (draft 2003). NPS strategic goals (with actuals and targets) for natural resources FYs 1999-2005 (2003). FY 2002 Annual Report Inventory and Monitoring Program (2003). Vital Signs Monitoring Network - Status and Timeline (Draft 2003).

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program performance goals each year?

Explanation: NPS has done a good job finding creative solutions (e.g., CESUs, integrating monitoring program designs, and military engineering resources) to procure efficient research and resource management services from academia, other bureaus (i.e., USGS), and other partners. The NPS is also pursuing non-traditional solutions such as a Native Plant Corps under development with an NGO partner that will further increase its exotic plant control capabilities. It continues to improve tracking of costs per unit for activities, such as exotic plant treatment by EPMTs. It still needs to do more to track costs per unit for other activities, but planned improvements and the anticipated RAMS IT system should help in this regard.

Evidence: See CESU agreements and brief on Native Plant Corps. See also information on USGS/NPS water quality partnership and RAMS pilot. NPS estimates that EPMT costs averaged $451 per acre in 2002. EPMT tamarisk cut stump control costs were significantly lower than other agencies ($394 vs. $3,000 per acre), even with the added environmental requirements of operating within national parks. For urban parks, EPMT costs were cheaper than contractors ($298 vs. $2,000 per acre). EPMT effectiveness is shown by the interest of other organizations in adopting this practice. Other efficiency improvements include cost-sharing I&M data preparation, integrating design and planning of monitoring programs (i.e., vital signs and water quality), coordinating work with partners (e.g., aerial photography and LIDAR data), partnering with National Guard and Army Reserve military engineering resources for restoration work in parks, and consolidating natural resource inventories for multiple parks into a single contract or agreement.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., that have similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The program does not yet have sufficient benchmarks to compare its overall effectiveness to other programs, but it can make anecdotal comparisons. For exmple, the adoption by other agencies of EPMTs indicate a favorable comparison. Similar NPS practices that have spread include the use of herbicides and management activities in wilderness areas, the techniques required to treat specific exotic plant species/populations, and performance strategies. Nevertheless, it is difficult to make useful comparisons between natural resource agencies that have different primary missions, objectives and requirements (e.g., preserve natural ecosystems vs. manage natural resources to optimize commodity production). Yet, there are too many similarities to warrant a "Not applicable" rating, so the question was retained, but the weighting reduced.

Evidence: NPS may be able to demonstrate its program compares favorably to others, once it has outcome measures firmly in place. In the meantime, it must compare outputs, which differ between natural resource agencies with different missions and goals. Anecdotal examples that NPS resource stewardship compares favorably include: the interest of FWS and others in adopting EPMTs; vegetation mapping costs that are comparable to other Federal, state, and local agencies; recognition by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) before an international consortium of NPS's progress in wildland weed management; reduced purchase costs for I&M inventories. See EPMT handbook on nps.gov; John Randell, TNC, Weeds Across the Border (2002); Inventory and Monitoring Program data; FY02 Funding the Natural Resource Challenge Report (2003). NPS is currently developing a natural resource program evaluation strategy that should future comparison results.

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The National Research Council (NRC) reports in 1992 and 1993, and Richard Sellars' pivotal book, Preserving Nature and the National Parks (1997), identified long-standing shortcomings in NPS natural resource stewardship. These provided an impetus to begin the Natural Resource Challenge as an attempt to address the need for better outcome measures and science-based resource stewardship. Although NPS conducts narrow, area-specific reviews, there has not been a recent independent evalution of either the Natural Resource Challenge or NPS resource stewardship overall. The NPS Advisory Board has begun a review of the Challenge, but DOI is encouraged to initiate or support a more independent review by the IG, NRC, or other appropriate body.

Evidence: NRC's Science in the National Parks (1992, 1993). GAO 1997 report (T-RCED-97-76). Richard Sellars' Preserving Nature in the National Parks (1997). National Academy of Sciences' Ecological Dynamics on Yellowstone's Northern Range (2003). NPS Advisory Board Report on the Natural Resource Challenge (draft report in progress). See also NPS Peer Review Guidelines (Draft 2003) and NPS natural resource program evaluation strategy (Draft 2003).