# Presentation: 084330

## Strategic Planning, Resource Stewardship Plans, Desired Future Conditions and Performance Management

**Annual Meeting of the Networks**
**February 2005**
**Austin, Texas**

## Organizational Framework

**NETWORK**

**Organizational Framework**

- National Goals

- Board of Directors

- Technical Steering Committee

**Productivity**

- Park Priorities

- Existing Monitoring

- Cooperators

- Mandates

**Accountability**

**Quality**

## Who’s Watching Us

**American People**

**US Government**
**(Congress – GAO)**

**Executive Branch**
**(OMB)**

**DOI**

**NPS**

**Who’s Watching Us**

## Performance Management  

- 1993 Government Performance Results Act
- 1997 First NPS Strategic Plan
- 1998 NPS Omnibus Management Act
- 2000 Second NPS Strategic Plan (Vital Signs 	“Identified” goal)
- 2002 OMB President’s Management Agenda
- 2004 First DOI Strategic Plan
- 2005 Third NPS Strategic Plan (vital signs “implemented” goal)

## management system for all federal agencies
mandates agency strategic planning and annual reporting of results achieved
requires accountability to Congress and the American People
Explains mission
Shows results achieved for $$ appropriated

- mandates agency strategic planning and annual reporting of results achieved
- requires accountability to Congress and the American People
- Explains mission
- Shows results achieved for $$ appropriated

**Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 Requirements**

## Annual Performance Plans 

**	****GPRA requires each agency to prepare an ****Annual Performance Plan (APP)**** that:**
- Sets program goals to define level of performance
- Expresses goals in objective, quantifiable, and measurable form
- Describes operational processes, skills and technology, human capital, information, and other resources required to meet the goals

## APPs must also:
Establish performance indicators to measure or assess the relevant outputs and service levels of each program activity when a straightforward goal with outcome cannot be developed
Establish a basis for comparing actual results with projected performance 
Describe means of verifying and validating data

- Establish performance indicators to measure or assess the relevant outputs and service levels of each program activity when a straightforward goal with outcome cannot be developed
- Establish a basis for comparing actual results with projected performance
- Describe means of verifying and validating data

**Annual Performance Plans ****(cont.)**

## 	GPRA requires each agency to prepare an Annual Performance Report  (APR) that:

Demonstrates and evaluates actual performance achieved compared with the projected performance that was planned

Reviews the success or failure of achieving that year’s goals 

- Demonstrates and evaluates actual performance achieved compared with the projected performance that was planned
- Reviews the success or failure of achieving that year’s goals

**Annual Performance Reports**

## Annual Performance Reports (Cont)

**When a goal has not been met:**
- Explain why it was not met
- Plans to achieve the goal in the future
- For impractical or infeasible goals, why that is the case and what is recommended

## 1997 First NPS Strategic Plan

**MISSION GOALS:****	**
- All inclusive, not quantifiable
- resources in good condition
- satisfied, happy visitors
**LONG TERM GOALS:**
- -representative and measurable
**	****Natural Resource Measures:**
- example  Water quality “condition” based on  number of beach closures

## National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 “Thomas Bill” Requirements 

**Each unit of National Park System** shall prepare and publicize a **5-yr Strategic Plan and an Annual Performance Plan** (APP), reflecting the NPS policies, goals, and outcomes from the Servicewide strategic plan.
- As part of the APP, the **budget for the current fiscal year for that park unit shall be made available to the public.**  It must show all funding allocations from ONPS and all funds retained from fees collected (including but not limited to special use permits, concession franchise fees, and recreation use and entrance fees) for at least these categories:
- resource preservation (including resource management)
- visitor services (including maintenance, interpretation, law enforcement, and search and rescue)
- administration

**Notes:**
This act is sometimes called the “Thomas Bill” after its main sponsor, or the NPS Vision 20/20 Act.  It is apparently unique within the federal government to have the requirements of the GPRA law applied down to the individual installation level (the park level in our parlance).

## Park Planning/Strategic Planning Relationship 

**General Management Plan** (GMP):  describes long-range management prescriptions (resource conditions, visitor experiences, and appropriate types of management action)

**Resource Stewardship Plan:**
-   Provide quantifiable, measurable objectives needed to
-    develop management strategies and measure success
-    of management actions
-   Develop park’s science strategy to achieve & maintain
-    desired future resource conditions

**Five-year Strategic Plan**
-   Developed for performance management purposes (GPRA)
-   Designed to incrementally put into effect broadly-defined
-     strategies from Resource Stewardship Plan

**Detailed Implementation Plans:**
-  (e.g. Fire Management Plan, River Management Plan, Cultural Landscape Management Plant, etc.)

- 10-20 years

- 10-20 years

## 2000 Second NPS Strategic Plan

- Reflects growing understanding of measurable results
- Baselines improved, goals refined, more data
-  followed Congressional support for the Natural Resource Challenge; raised earlier perf targets for exotics removal and disturbed lands restoration
- Water quality goal measured “swimmable beaches” in 1997 now measures all impaired waters although baselines missing
- Vital signs “Identified” goal added
- Protocols for data collection need to be designed and documented
- Definitions of “good condition” of resource types need to be clarified

## 2000 Second NPS Strategic Plan

** ****Executive Summary includes vital signs**
- “Vital signs collectively show ecosystem health”
- “Identifying vital signs of ecosystems and well being of other special concern resources allows tracking the status and trends of NPS natural resources”
- “NPS can define “healthy” conditions, identify treatments propose mitigation”

## OMB 2002 President’s Management Agenda

- The chapter on Budget and Performance Integration calls for:
- Greater focus on performance and performance-based budgets with budget and performance integration
- Greater efficiency and accountability by reinforcing high performing programs and reforming or terminating non-performing ones
- Improved and single oversight process with integrated information about costs and performance
- Improved management with integrated budgeting, performance, and accounting information systems that provide timely feedback

## 2004 First DOI Strategic Plan

**Requires all agencies in DOI to tier off DOI goals (still in flux) to:**
- Improve Health of Watersheds, Landscapes and Marine Resources
- Sustain Biological Communities
- Protect Cultural and Heritage Resources

## The FY05-08 NPS Goal Set

- Tiering off DOI’s goal set has resulted in a tripling of the NPS goal set
- Most of the new reporting will be done by WASO
- There are 48 Park Goals for FY05-08 compared to 41 for FY01-05
- WASO has 86 additional goals they report to

**Notes:**
The DOI goal set is still in a state of some flux.  The important point is to recognize that demands for data reporting from the parks to WASO have increased significantly, and that new demands may arise with little notice.  Though it may not seem like responding to these data demands is appropriate when the “real” task of managing the parks is hurting, it is critical that all of us accept that we are one National Park Service and that we must effectively demonstrate our proper stewardship of the nationally significant resources entrusted to our care.

## Disturbed Lands
Invasive Exotic Plants 
Federally listed T&E Species 
Species of Management Concern
Invasive Non-native Animals
Air Quality 
Water Quality – Stream & Rivers
Water Quality – Lakes, Reservoirs, Estuarine & Marine Areas
Water Quantity 
Paleontological Sites 
Cultural Landscapes 
Wilderness Character 
Land Health (wetland, riparian, upland, marine & coastal areas, mined areas) 

- Invasive Exotic Plants
- Federally listed T&E Species
- Species of Management Concern
- Invasive Non-native Animals
- Air Quality
- Water Quality – Stream & Rivers
- Water Quality – Lakes, Reservoirs, Estuarine & Marine Areas
- Water Quantity
- Paleontological Sites
- Cultural Landscapes
- Wilderness Character
- Land Health (wetland, riparian, upland, marine & coastal areas, mined areas)

- Natural Resource Data Sets
- Archeological Sites Inventory
- Cultural Landscapes Inventory
- Historic Structures Information
- Museum Objects Catalogued
- Ethnographic Resources Information
- Historical Research
- Vital Signs Identified
- Vital Signs Monitored
- Special Management Areas
- National Historic & Scenic Trails
- Wilderness Plans

_**Mission Goal Ib**_
***The National Park Service contributes to knowledge about natural and cultural resources and associated values; management decisions about resources and visitors are based on adequate scholarly and scientific information.***

_**Mission Goal Ia**_
***Natural and cultural resources and associated values are protected, restored and maintained in good condition and managed within their broader ecosystem and cultural context.***

## Mission Goal Ia:    Natural and cultural resources and associated values are protected, restored and maintained in good condition and managed within their broader ecosystem and cultural context.

| Disturbed Lands | By September 30, 2008, 5% (21,850 acres) of targeted parklands, disturbed by development or agriculture, as of 2003 (437,150 acres), are restored. |
| --- | --- |
| Invasive Exotic Plants | By September 30, 2008, 9.6% (250,000 acres) of park lands have had invasive (non-native) plant invasions effectively controlled (2003 baseline of 2.6 million acres). |
| Federally Listed T&E Species | By September 30, 2008, 41% (430 of 1,042) of federally listed species that occur or have occurred in parks are making progress towards recovery. |
| Species of Management Concern | By September 30, 2008, 70% (5,431 of 7,759) populations of native plant and animal Species of Management Concern, are managed to self-sustaining levels, in cooperation with affected States and others, as defined in approved management documents. |
| Air Quality  | By September 30, 2008, Air quality in 70% of reporting park areas has remained stable or improved. |
| Water Quality -- Streams & Rivers | By September 30, 2008,99.3% (136,438 of 137,400 miles) of streams and rivers managed by the National Park Service will meet State and Federal water quality standards as defined by the Clean Water Act. |
| Water Quantity  | Completed X work products and Y management outcomes (actions, decisions, and agreements) that protect or restore water quantity conditions in NPS managed or influenced surface and ground-water systems. |
| Paleontological Sites | By September 30, 2008, 45% of documented paleontological localities (2,317 of 5,149) in parks have been assessed for condition and 50% of the assessed paleontological localities are in good condition (1,158 of 2,317).  |
| Wilderness Character | By September 30, 2008, X% (TBD acres) of the 43,602,713 acres (as of June 2004) of designated wilderness meet wilderness character objectives. |

## Understanding Goals and Technical Guidance - Example 

**Exotic Plant Species Management Goal Ia1B**
- Activities may include inventory and mapping, pulling, spraying, maintaining equipment, release of bio-control agents, record keeping, etc.
- $$$ and FTE for all activities related to exotic vegetation management should be planned and reported
- The exotic plant species goal only allows canopy acres of exotic vegetation controlled and gross acres treated to be planned and reported as results.  You do not report acres inventoried, or anything else

## Mission Goal Ia:    Natural and cultural resources and associated values are protected, restored and maintained in good condition and managed within their broader ecosystem and cultural context.

| Land Health  -- Wetland  | By September 30, 2008,TBD % (TBD acres) of TBD wetland acres achieve desired conditions where conditions are known and where desired conditions are specified in management plans consistent with applicable substantive and procedural requirements of State and Federal water law. |
| --- | --- |
| Land Health  -- Riparian | By September 30, 2008, TBD % (TBD miles) of TBD stream/riparian miles achieve desired conditions where conditions are known and where desired conditions are specified in management plans consistent with applicable substantive and procedural requirements of State and Federal water law. |
| Land Health  -- Upland | By September 30, 2008, TBD % (TBD acres) of TBD upland acres achieving desired conditions where condition is known and as specified in management plans consistent with applicable substantive and procedural requirements of State and Federal water law. |
| Land Health  -- Marine and Coastal Areas | By September 30, 2008, TBD % (TBD acres) of TBD acres of marine and estuarine lands for which conditions are known and desired conditions are specified in approved management plans will achieve desired condition. |
| Land Health  -- Mined Areas | By September 30, 2008, 5% (1,500 acres) of targeted parklands, identified as of 2003 (30,000 acres), are reclaimed or mitigated from the effects of degradation from past mining. |

## Slide 22

## FY05 Performance Management

- Greater relevance to parks since SES Performance Standards now include Strategic Plan Goals with cascading effects on Regional Directors’ management teams and superintendents
- No stand-alone plans or reports, since ALL can now be produced in PMDS (Performance Management Data System)
- Graphics in PMDS will allow park managers to use the data effectively and see problems or successes unfolding thru the year
- Annual Work Plan Workscreens added as integral first step of PMDS data entry

## FY05 Performance Management

- Almost all the new goals are reported from WASO
- AFS3 Crosswalk will automate planning of $$$ and FTE against goals, and the reporting of $$$ and FTE actuals in real time for use by park managers through the year and for year end reporting
- Quarterly reporting for some park goals to allow managerial response before it is too late to respond at end of year

## Slide 25

## Increasing scrutiny by Congress 

Dramatic increases in accountability 
mission-related results vs funding provided
Linking budget programs 

President’s State of the Union Address   mentions cuts to agencies that are not showing results

- Dramatic increases in accountability
- mission-related results vs funding provided
- Linking budget programs
- President’s State of the Union Address   mentions cuts to agencies that are not showing results

## .

- Johnson

- Nixon

- Ford

- Carter

- Reagan

- Bush

- Clinton

- Bush

**Notes:**
Note that the FY05 projected deficit has fluctuated a bit, but is still more than $400 billion in October, 2004.

## “program success will be measured not by getting new money, but by no decreases in budgets”

- From OMB
- “Inherent appeal of programs will not be enough; Congressional support not enough either- must demonstrate real results – those who can’t will come out on the shorter end”

## Performance Management

**Performance Management**

**NATURAL RESOURCE CONDITION ASSESSMENT**

**“****thresholds”, “desired future conditions”, “good condition”**

**“****State of the Parks” Report**

**Individual Performance**
**Plan**

**Strategic Plans**

**AFS III**

**Annual Plan**
**Annual Report**
**PMDS**

**GMP**

## 	There is an expectation of condition assessment:    “Vital Signs are key elements, processes or features...that can be measured or estimated and that indicate condition of an ecosystem” 

**	****There is an expectation of condition assessment:    ****“Vital Signs are key elements, processes or features...that can be measured or estimated and that indicate condition of an ecosystem”**** **

**IRREVERSIBLY DESTROYED**

**UNAFFECTED BY MODERN CIVILIZATION**

**DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION**

**CURRENT CONDITION**

## Valley Forge NMP

## Example of Vertical Invasion

- ● **Norway Maple**
- ● **Glossy Buckthorn**
- ● **Common Buckthorn**
- ● **Asian Bittersweet**
- ● **Bush Honeysuckle**
- ● **Garlic Mustard**

## Activity Based Cost 

- Activities

- Cost Drivers

- Performance Measures

- Resources

- Resource Drivers

- Activity Drivers

- Cost Objects (outputs)

- Operational or Process View (ABM)

- Strategic or Cost Assignment View (ABC)

- CAM-I Cross

**Notes:**
When we merge the two views (Operational/Process view – horizontal axis, and Strategic/Cost Assignment view – vertical axis) we can see how a single, common set of activities lets us express these two similar, but differing functions -- Activity Based Management and Activity Based Costing.

## “The translation of scientific data into policy-relevant information that is suitable for supporting decision making and action at the watershed level.”		

***	******	******	******	******	******[Watershed Academy, U.S. EPA]***

- “A process for analyzing a watershed’s current condition and the likely causes of these conditions.”***	***
***	******	******	******	******[The California Watershed Assessment Manual]***

- _A Watershed Assessment is:_

- _[http://](http://cwam.ucdavis.edu/)__[cwam.ucdavis.edu](http://cwam.ucdavis.edu/)_

**Watershed  Condition Assessment Program (WCAP)**
**Jeff Albright**

## Funded through the Natural Resource Challenge ($3.1M increase to WRD base)

WRD will provide technical WCA guidance:
Tailored to park-specific info needs & resource management questions
Conducted over a range of geographic scales (localized sites  stream reaches  watersheds  landscapes)
Executed at varying levels of scope, complexity, cost, and time commitment

WRD will assist NPS field units to:
Describe “Desired Conditions” for natural resources
Identify and prioritize their resource restoration needs
	What are the Desired Conditions?  Are we there yet?
What resource conditions need improvement to get there?

- Funded through the Natural Resource Challenge *($3.1M increase to WRD base)*
- WRD will provide technical WCA guidance:
- Tailored to park-specific info needs & resource management questions
- Conducted over a range of geographic scales *(localized sites **** stream reaches **** watersheds **** landscapes)*
- Executed at varying levels of scope, complexity, cost, and time commitment
- WRD will assist NPS field units to:
- Describe “Desired Conditions” for natural resources
- Identify and prioritize their resource restoration needs
***	****What are the Desired Conditions?  Are we there yet?*
*What resource conditions need improvement to get there?*

**Watershed  Condition Assessment Program (WCAP)**
**Jeff Albright**

## NPS resource planning approach, Draft DO # 2-1 “Resource Stewardship Planning”, which is based on “Desired Conditions” 

- Support planning & performance reporting under the new DOI-GPRA “Land Health” goals *(NPS Goals Ia1C - Ia1F* for Wetlands, Riparian, Upland, and Marine/Coastal Areas*)*
- Coordination with Vital Signs Monitoring Program** ***(Adaptive Management = Monitoring + Assessment)*

**Watershed  Condition Assessment Program (WCAP)**
**Jeff Albright**

## WQ Designated Use & Impairment Database (WQDUI)

- Strategic Plans:

- Guidance:

**WQ Designated Use & Impairment Database (WQDUI)**
**(John Christiansen)**

## Clean Water Act (CWA) State designated uses

- CWA 303(d) quality impaired waters and causes
- Special designations recognizing waters of exceptional quality as defined in State water quality standards
- Hydrographic statistics based on the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

**WQ Designated Use **
**& Impairment Database (WQDUI) **

## 137,400 miles of rivers & streams 

**137,400 miles of rivers & streams **

**1,550 miles of CWA 303(d) impaired rivers & streams**

**Water Resources of the****National Park System**

**Notes:**
A 1994 report by the General Accounting Office (National Park Service: Activities Outside Park Borders Have Caused Damage to Resources and Will Likely Cause More (Letter Report, 01/03/94, GAO/RCED-94-59)) identified impairment of water quality as the largest single category of threats to resources in national parks. The sources of impairment are both inside parks (LUST at YOSE, historic mining operations at WRST, recreational activities, WWTP) and outside of parks.  As highlighted in the GAO report, the vast majority of water quality impairments originate from activities outside the parks.  Parks are not necessarily pristine places.

## 110 Parks Contain CWA 303(d) 

**110 Parks Contain CWA 303(d) **
**Impaired Waters**

**Notes:**
A 1994 report by the General Accounting Office (National Park Service: Activities Outside Park Borders Have Caused Damage to Resources and Will Likely Cause More (Letter Report, 01/03/94, GAO/RCED-94-59)) identified impairment of water quality as the largest single category of threats to resources in national parks. The sources of impairment are both inside parks (LUST at YOSE, historic mining operations at WRST, recreational activities, WWTP) and outside of parks.  As highlighted in the GAO report, the vast majority of water quality impairments originate from activities outside the parks.  Parks are not necessarily pristine places.  110 National Park units contain CWA 303(d) listed impaired waterbodies.

The National Park System comprises 384 areas covering more than 83.3 million acres in every state (except Delaware), the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 
The largest area is Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Alaska. At 13,200,000 acres it is 16.3 percent of the entire system. The smallest unit in the system is Thaddeus Kosciuszko National Memorial, Pennsylvania, at 0.02 of an acre. 

## Slide 41

## DEWA

- Location of impaired surface water bodies on 303d list.

## Impaired surface water bodies on 303d list within GARI watershed. 

**Impaired surface water bodies on 303d list within GARI watershed. **

## Impaired surface water bodies on 303d list within GARI park boundary. 

**Impaired surface water bodies on 303d list within GARI park boundary. **

## Slide 45

## 5,024,000 acres of lakes, reservoirs, estuaries and marine areas 

**5,024,000 acres of lakes, reservoirs, estuaries and marine areas **

**742,260 acres of CWA 303(d) impaired lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, and marine areas**** **

**Water Resources of the****National Park System**

**Notes:**
A 1994 report by the General Accounting Office (National Park Service: Activities Outside Park Borders Have Caused Damage to Resources and Will Likely Cause More (Letter Report, 01/03/94, GAO/RCED-94-59)) identified impairment of water quality as the largest single category of threats to resources in national parks. The sources of impairment are both inside parks (LUST at YOSE, historic mining operations at WRST, recreational activities, WWTP) and outside of parks.  As highlighted in the GAO report, the vast majority of water quality impairments originate from activities outside the parks.  Parks are not necessarily pristine places.

## Hydrographic statistics will change as more high-resolution NHD is completed

- Impairment data will change as states update CWA 303(d) lists
- Inconsistent State water quality standards, monitoring practices, assessment methods, and waterbody definitions

- Sequoia-Kings Canyon NP

**WQ Designated Use **
**& Impairment Database (WQDUI) **

## Vital Signs Performance Management:  

- -performance reported as Yes or No
- Ib3a Vital Signs identified=Phase 2 Report
- -Ib3b Vital Signs implemented-Phase 3 Report
-   first 12 networks “YES” by 2005, then
**What’s Next?**

## Vital Signs Performance Management

- Update from Abby on near future directions
- Presentation by Lisa Thomas