USGS National Park Monitoring Project

Request for Proposals
USGS National Park Monitoring Project
Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program

Theme: Integrated Analysis, Modeling, and Synthesis of NPS Inventory and Monitoring Data to inform Condition-based Management

Proposals Due : One page preproposals are due June 30, 2008, and full proposals are due August 31, 2008 for FY09; we anticipate another solicitation in 2009 for projects starting in FY10.

Funds Available : We expect that about $400K may be available for new research tasks in FY09.

The National Park Service has organized more than 270 parks with significant natural resources into 32 Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Networks ( http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/networks.cfm ) that share funding and a core professional staff to monitor the status and long-term trends of selected natural resources ( http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor ). All 32 networks have now prioritized and selected a set of “vital signs” for each park that will be used to track the condition of selected natural resources. Vital signs are selected physical, chemical, and biological elements and processes of park ecosystems that represent the overall health or condition of the park, known or hypothesized effects of stressors, or elements that have important human values. While no individual vital sign is common to all 270 parks, most vital signs apply across multiple parks and networks. Other vital signs differ across networks, but are site-specific modifications of general vital signs such as vegetation composition, aquatic invertebrates, or population status of important species.

These proposals are to fund the USGS component of collaborative research in support of NPS I&M needs to analyze and synthesize biotic and abiotic data generated by vital signs monitoring and natural resource inventories to provide useful information, models, and tools to park managers for addressing resource management issues. Proposals must be jointly submitted by one or more USGS scientists and by representatives from one or more NPS I&M networks. Pass-through funding is not allowed, but cooperators from other organizations are acceptable, if USGS does not have the required expertise. In order to help USGS scientists without established links to NPS I&M networks, a list of priority topics and datasets identified by network staff, along with their contact information will be posted at http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/USGS_FY2009_RFP/index.cfm. USGS scientists who would like help in identifying an NPS collaborator should contact Tom Philippi at Tom_Philippi@nps.gov or (970) 225-3586. NPS scientists seeking a USGS collaborator should contact Paul Geissler at Paul_Geissler@usgs.gov, (970) 226-9482.

Integrated Analysis, Modeling, and Synthesis of NPS Inventory and Monitoring Data to inform Condition-based Management

NPS I&M Networks have completed an extensive planning effort to design monitoring plans and develop protocols for measuring selected sets of vital signs. These monitoring plans are now being implemented. The NPS is also completing 12 core natural resource inventories for more than 270 parks, and many of these inventory data sets are now available ( http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/inventory/ ). The next major phase of development is to analyze and synthesize biotic and abiotic data generated by vital signs monitoring and natural resource inventories to provide useful information, models, and tools to park managers for addressing resource management issues. The I&M networks are developing tools for reporting individual vital signs as both simple summaries for inclusion in annual status reports, and less frequent but more detailed trend reports interpreting multi-year changes in vital signs. Beyond those reports of status and trends of individual vital signs, there is a need for syntheses or integration of several vital signs and inventory data sets into information relevant to planners, managers, and the general public. These broader, more complex syntheses are the target for this RFP, with the dual goals of producing syntheses and models relevant to management, planning, or interpretation based on extant data from some parks, and of producing toolkits and otherwise enhancing the capabilities of the NPS I&M. We expect to fund a wide range of projects under this theme including:
• tools for integrated reporting of clusters of related vital signs (e.g., water chemistry, stream invertebrates, and fish) and inventories,
• development or refinement of methods required for syntheses,
• predictive models transforming vital signs data into management projections or scenarios
• broader syntheses across multiple abiotic and biotic vital signs or integrated assessments, and
• science behind "compelling stories" that place the vital signs and parks in the context of the surrounding region or ecosystem.

While the primary focus is on vital signs monitoring data, other relevant park data may be utilized, especially to put vital signs data into context. This request for proposals is for analyses of extant data only, and will not fund new fieldwork for data collection. Many parks have the set of 12 core inventories completed, and some parks have decades of historical data that predate the establishment of the I&M program.

Proposed work should be synthetic (broadly defined), and should meet the dual goals of this theme. First, the synthesis should distill inventory & monitoring data into information useful to planning, management, or interpretation for individual parks or group of parks. Second, the work should strengthen the capabilities of the I&M networks to perform other, related analyses in the future. In order to meet these dual goals, the NPS side of the collaborations should be at the I&M network level, not the individual park.

• Co-reporting : Data from some vital signs may be more informative in the context of other vital signs. Fish, amphibians, aquatic invertebrates, and water chemistry vital signs are likely to be more informative when reported as an integrated package. Such integration might naturally build upon the conceptual models of park ecosystems developed by the I&M networks as part of the vital signs development process.

• Modeling in support of management objectives: Soil, vegetation, and other inventory data might be integrated to model habitat requirements or identify locations most at risk of invasive species, or potential habitat of sensitive species. More generally, spatial and non-spatial modeling may be required to extract management information in cases where vital signs are neither management objectives (outcomes or performance measures) nor directly manipulable. Again, the conceptual models from the vital signs development process may provide guidance.

• Providing the scientific foundation for "compelling stories" to inform park managers, visitors, and the general public: The goal is to produce the scientific foundation for “compelling stories” that might be developed by park interpreters and others to inform park visitors and the general public. An example would be a scientific report that presents status and trend information on various resources that might be related to climate change, such as a report on mountain-to-ocean data sets including melting glaciers, changes in the condition of streams and rivers (e.g., water quantity and quality), and changes in aquatic macroinvertebrate and fish populations. The subsequent development of education, outreach, and interpretation materials does not need to be included as part of the proposal.

These examples are only those we thought of while developing this theme. We encourage other ideas generated by the individual networks.

• One or more publishable papers or reports describing the synthesis, reporting the results, and interpreting them for park managers, planners, or interpreters. These reports should be directed at the USGS or NPS technical report series. While subsequent publication in peer-reviewed journals is encouraged, the information must become available to NPS in the timeframe of the final project report (December following the last fiscal year of funding).

• A guidance document presenting the rationale for the synthesis, the reasons for the decisions made during the development of the synthesis, and the methods uses for each step of the synthesis. This document should include enough detail for another group of scientists to reproduce your synthesis, but also for them to modify it for their slightly different situation, or at least to build upon the lessons learned during your work. This guidance document should also be aimed at the NPS technical report series.

• Computer code used in the computational steps in the synthesis is to be well documented, easily accessible, and user friendly (R, SAS, Excel template, ARC/GIS+Python, etc., as appropriate) so that it might be modified and reused by others to conduct similar syntheses, including the production of publication quality graphics in the final report.

• An in-person presentation of the results and implications of the synthesis to park resource staff and I&M network scientists is required. The presentation and one repeat presentation must also be delivered by conference call and live web demonstration to staff in other networks. We will provide technical support for the presentations.

• A presentation and one repeat presentation using conference calls and live web demonstrations for I&M staff and others who may produce syntheses in the future, presenting guidance on how the synthesis was performed, including lessons learned is required. We will provide technical support for the presentations.

Proposals : Although not required, preproposals are strongly encouraged. Preproposals will be reviewed by the USGS coordinator, with advice from the NPS coordinator and regional I&M coordinators. Applicants will be advised as to whether or not the proposed work fits within the intent of this RFP and if further preparation of a full proposal would be advisable. In case of similar preproposals, both groups will be notified and given the option to join forces on a broader combined proposal. Suggestions for focusing and strengthening the proposal also will be provided. Acceptance of a preproposal does not imply that the proposal will be funded. Proposals will be jointly reviewed by USGS and NPS scientists using the criteria below and will be reviewed and ranked by the NPS I&M regional coordinators.

Submit electronic copies of preproposals by June 30 and proposals by August 31, 2008 in Microsoft Word (.DOC), Rich Text (.RTF) or Portable Document Format (.PDF) to Paul Geissler (Paul_Geissler@usgs.gov, 970-226-9482). Preproposals should fit on a single page with 12 point font and include: USGS and NPS principal investigators and their contact information, a tentative cost estimate, a concise description of the proposed work and its benefits. Proposals should use the format below. Proposals should describe the proposed work in sufficient detail such that reviewers can adequately evaluate their scientific merit and likelihood of success. Proposals should describe the value to park planners, managers, or interpreters of the synthesis or model. A tentative list of potential data sources should be included. Any questions and clarifications will be posted on the website http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/brd/NationalParkMonitoringProject.cfm .

Annual progress reports and proposals for the next year are due in August. If continued funding is not requested, a final report is due in December following the end of the last fiscal year of funding. Continued funding is dependent on availability of funds and on demonstrated progress.

Evaluation Criteria:
• Is the proposal scientifically and technically sound and practical?
The proposed methods should be based on sound science and be appropriate for the question addressed. Appropriate references should be provided. Any uncertainties or limitations of the methods should be discussed, and the most practical and scientifically sound approach selected.
• Are the objectives appropriate, clearly stated and achievable?
The research objectives should clearly relate to the objectives of the RFP. The methods should be appropriate for the objectives, and proposed work should be sufficient to realistically achieve the objectives.
• Will the research make a significant contribution to managing ecological resources in National Parks and other areas?
• Will the research build the capabilities of the I&M networks to produce other related syntheses or models? Will the methods and procedures be applicable and suitable for use elsewhere?
• Is the work likely to advance scientific understanding and/or promote technological advances?
• Is there a commitment to information sharing and dissemination, for example, through peer-reviewed technical reports, publications, oral presentations, and web-sites?
• If the proposal is for continuing work, does the progress report demonstrate acceptable progress?
• Is the funding sufficient to meet the objectives?
• Is this a truly collaborative effort with funding and/or in-kind support from both USGS and NPS?
• Overall evaluation and priority of the proposed research.

Proposal Format:
Use the following format for reports and proposals. Separate large proposals into subtasks of $50K to $75K, which will be reviewed separately. New work and substantial modifications will receive a through review, while continuing work will be checked to verify that acceptable progress is being made. For continuing or competed tasks or subtasks, please include references to any products produced, a description of any problems encountered and progress made. I will let you know if I need more specifics on continuing subtasks. For new work, be sure to include sufficient detail to allow reviewers to assess the importance, scientific validity and feasibility of your proposal and if it will duplicate other work (about 5 pages for each subtask). In the past, there has not been sufficient detail for the reviewers to fully evaluate proposals and more specifics are strongly suggested.

2. USGS principal contact . Name, affiliation, phone number, and e-mail address.

4. Overview . Discuss issues involved, and place the project in the context of existing knowledge, related ongoing activities, problems to be addressed, and value to the park and scientific value of anticipated results.

Subtasks. Please separate larger tasks into subtasks of about $50K to $75K, as appropriate. For each subtask provide a separate section with items 6 and 7. Tasks under $100K would only have a single subtask. Subtasks will be reviewed and approved separately. They provide a way of funding a partial proposal, if the full proposal cannot be funded.

6.1 Accomplishments. Describe what has been achieved and why it is important. Note any significant problems or delays, and describe plans for completing an unfinished work.

6.4 Budget. Report expenditures and note if funds are being carried forward to complete the work. Identify major categories such as salaries, equipment, travel, etc.

7.1 Need. Explain the objectives. Clearly state the significance and priority of the issue to the park or the NPS.

7.2 Procedures/methods . Explain the procedures and methods to be followed in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of merit and likely project success by peer reviewers.

7.4 Technology/information transfer . Describe intended users of project results or products, how these products will be made available, and how they likely will be used

7.6 Budget . Identify major categories such as salaries, equipment, travel, etc. Identify USGS and NPS funding and in-kind contribution. Also provide a consolidated table showing all funding requests including overhead for all subtasks.

Paul Geissler, Coordinator, USGS National Park Monitoring Project Paul_Geissler@usgs.gov 970-226-9482

Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
URL: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/NationalParkMonitoringProject.cfm
Page Contact Information: Paul_Geissler@usgs.gov