Draft 2006 NPS Management Policies

**Management Policies 2006**

INTRODUCTION

Terms and Concepts Used in Management Policies

Law, Policy, and Other Guidance

**1**THE FOUNDATION

1.1THE NATIONAL PARK IDEA

1.2THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

1.3CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION

1.3.1National Significance

1.3.2Suitability

1.3.3Feasibility

  l.3.4Direct Management

1.4PARK MANAGEMENT

1.4.1The Laws Generally Governing Park Management 

1.4.2Impairment and Derogation:  One Standard

1.4.3The NPS Obligations to Conserve and Provide for Enjoyment of Park Resources and Values

1.4.3.1Appropriate Use

1.4.3.2Unacceptable Impacts

1.4.3.3Park Purposes and Legislatively Authorized Uses

1.4.4The Prohibition on Impairment of Park Resources and Values 

1.4.5What Constitutes Impairment of Park Resources and Values  

1.5Cooperative Conservation beyond Park Boundaries 

1.6Environmental Leadership

1.7Management Excellence 

1.7.1       Managing Information

1.7.11     Information Sharing

1.7.1.2     Proprietary Information

1.7.13       Information Confidentiality 

1.7.2Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities 

1.7.3Public Information and Media Relations 

1.7.4Management Accountability

1.7.4.1Government Performance and Results Act  

1.7.4.2Financial Sustainability 

1.7.4.3Construction Projects

1.7.4.4 Facilities Management

1.7.4.5 Business like Concession Program 

1.7.4.6 Budget Performance and Accountability Programs

 1.7.5Human Capital 

 1.7.5.1Career Development, Training and Management

 1.7.5.2Succession Planning 

 1.7.5.3Workforce Planning 

 1.7.5.4Employee Health

 1.7.5.5Workforce Diversity

1.8CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

1.9PARTNERSHIPS 

1.10AN ENDURING MESSAGE 

**Management Policies 2006**

**Chapter 1: The Foundation**

Beginning with Yellowstone, the idea of a national park was an American invention of historic consequences. The areas that now comprise the national park system, and those that will be added in years to come, are overall cumulative expressions of a single national heritage. The National Park Service must manage park resources and values in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. 

**1.1   The National Park Idea**

The world’s first national park—Yellowstone—was created in 1872, at which time Congress set aside more than one million acres as “a public park or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” The legislation assigned control of the new park to the Secretary of the Interior, who would be responsible for issuing regulations to provide for the “preservation, from injury or spoliation, of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or wonders, within the park, and their retention in their natural condition.” Other park management functions were to include the development of visitor accommodations, the construction of roads and bridle trails, the removal of trespassers, and protection “against the wanton destruction of the fish and game found within the park” (16 United States Code 21-22). 

This American invention marked the beginning of a worldwide movement that has subsequently spread to more than 100 countries and 1,200 national parks and conservation preserves. However, when Yellowstone National Park was created, no concept or plan existed upon which to build a system of such parks. The concept now described as the national park system, which embraces, nationwide, a wide variety of natural and cultural resources, evolved slowly over the years—often through the consolidation of federal land management responsibilities. 

As interest grew in preserving the great scenic wonders of the West, efforts were also underway to protect the sites and structures associated with early Native American culture, particularly in the Southwest. The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorized the President “to declare by public proclamation [as national monuments] historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest” (16 USC 431). 

In 1916, Congress created the National Park Service in the Department of the Interior to “promote and regulate the use of the federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations,” and to “conserve” the resources and values in these areas “unimpaired” for the enjoyment of future generations (16 USC 1).  The words “conserve,” “preserve,” and “protect” are used frequently throughout these *Management Policies*.  They are words that, in some contexts, carry distinctly different meanings. However, in the context of *Management Policies*, it is not appropriate to create or imply highly prescribed distinctions between them. This is because there are many statutes applicable to the parks, and some of them use the term “conserve,” some use “preserve,” some use “protect,” and some even use a combination of these terms. It is clear from the legislative history of these statutes, and from case law, that each of these words reflects the high standard of care for park resources that Congress has required of the Service from its beginning. For this reason, these words are used interchangeably, except where their application is tied to a quotation or close paraphrase of a statute. The choice of any one of these words within these policies is not intended to, and should not be construed to, imply a greater or lesser restriction on opportunities for visitor enjoyment, or level of care for park resources and values.

**1.2   The National Park System**

The number and diversity of parks within the national park system grew as a result of a government reorganization in 1933, another following World War II, and yet another during the 1960s. Today there are more than 388 units in the national park system. These units are variously designated as national parks, monuments, preserves, lakeshores, seashores, wild and scenic rivers, trails, historic sites, military parks, battlefields, historical parks, recreation areas, memorials, and parkways. Regardless of the many names and official designations of the park units that make up the national park system, all represent some nationally significant aspect of our natural or cultural heritage. As the physical remnants of our past, and great scenic and natural places that continue to evolve as  repositories of outstanding recreational opportunities, classrooms of our heritage, and the legacy we leave to future generations, they warrant the highest standard of protection. 

**1.3   Criteria for Inclusion**

Congress has declared in the NPS General Authorities Act of 1970 that areas comprising the national park system are cumulative expressions of a single national heritage. Potential additions to the national park system should therefore contribute in their own special way to a system that fully represents the broad spectrum of natural and cultural resources that characterize our nation. The National Park Service is responsible for conducting professional studies of potential additions to the national park system when specifically authorized by an act of Congress, and for making recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, the President, and Congress. Several laws outline criteria for units of the national park system, and for additions to the national wild and scenic rivers system and the national trails system. To receive a favorable recommendation from the Service, a proposed addition to the national park system must (1) possess nationally significant natural or cultural resources, (2) be a suitable addition to the system, (3) be a feasible addition to the system, and (4) require direct NPS management instead of alternative protection by other public agencies or the private sector. These criteria are designed to ensure that the national park system includes only the most outstanding examples of the nation’s natural and cultural resources. These criteria also recognize that there are other management alternatives for preserving the nation’s outstanding resources. 

**1.3.1   National Significance**

NPS professionals, in consultation with subject-matter experts, scholars, and scientists, will determine whether a resource is nationally significant. An area will be considered nationally significant if it

· is an outstanding example of a particular type of resource, 

· possesses exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the natural or cultural themes of our nation’s heritage, 

· offers superlative opportunities for public enjoyment or for scientific study, and 

· retains a high degree of integrity as a true, accurate, and relatively unspoiled example of a resource.

National significance for cultural resources will be evaluated by applying the National Historic Landmarks criteria contained in 36 CFR *(Code of Federal Regulations)* Part 65. 

**1.3.2   Suitability**

An area is considered suitable for addition to the national park system if it represents a natural or cultural resource type that is not already adequately represented in the national park system, or is not comparably represented and conserved for public enjoyment by other federal agencies; tribal, state, or local governments; or the private sector. 

Adequacy of representation is determined on a case-by-case basis by comparing the potential addition to other comparably managed areas representing the same resource type, while considering differences or similarities in the character, quality, quantity, or combination of resource values. The comparative analysis also addresses rarity of the resources, interpretive and educational potential, and similar resources already conserved in the national park system or in other public or private ownership. The comparison results in a determination of whether the proposed new area would expand, enhance, or duplicate resource conservation or visitor use opportunities found in other comparably managed areas.

**1.3.3   Feasibility**

To be feasible as a new unit of the national park system, an area must (1) be of sufficient size and appropriate configuration to ensure sustainable resource conservation and visitor enjoyment; and (2) be capable of efficient administration by the Park Service at a reasonable cost.

In evaluating feasibility, the Service considers a variety of factors for a study area, such as

· size

· boundary configurations

· current and potential uses of the study area and surrounding lands

· landownership patterns

· willingness of landowners to sell their land or interests therein

· public enjoyment potential

· costs associated with acquisition, development, restoration, and operation

· access

· current and potential threats to the resources

· existing degradation of resources

· staffing requirements

· local planning and zoning

· the level of local and general public support

· the economic/ socioeconomic impacts of designation as a unit of the national park system

The feasibility evaluation also considers the ability of the National Park Service to undertake new management responsibilities in light of current and projected availability of funding and personnel and the priority of maintaining and conserving existing national park system units. 

An overall evaluation of feasibility will be made after taking into account all of the above factors. However, evaluations may sometimes identify concerns or conditions, rather than simply reach a yes or no conclusion. For example, some new areas may be feasible additions to the national park system only if landowners are willing to sell; or the boundary encompasses specific areas necessary for visitor access; or state or local governments will provide appropriate assurances that adjacent land uses will remain compatible with the study area’s resources and values. 

**1.3.4   Direct NPS Management**

There are many excellent examples of the successful management of important natural and cultural resources by other public agencies, private conservation organizations, and individuals. The National Park Service applauds these accomplishments and actively encourages the expansion of conservation activities by state, local, and private entities and by other federal agencies. Unless direct NPS management of a studied area is identified as the clearly superior alternative, the Service will recommend that one or more of these other entities assume a lead management role, and that the area not receive national park system status. 

Studies will evaluate an appropriate range of management alternatives and will identify which alternative or combination of alternatives would, in the professional judgment of the Director, be most effective and efficient in protecting significant resources and providing opportunities for appropriate public enjoyment. Alternatives for NPS management will not be developed for study areas that fail to meet any one of the four criteria for inclusion listed in section 1.3. 

In cases where a study area’s resources meet criteria for national significance but do not meet other criteria for inclusion in the national park system, the Service may instead recommend an alternative status, such as “affiliated area.” To be eligible for affiliated area status, the area’s resources must (1) meet the same section 1.3.1 standards for national significance that apply to units of the national park system; (2) require some special recognition or technical assistance beyond what is available through existing NPS programs; (3) be managed in accordance with the policies and standards that apply to units of the national park system; and (4) be assured of sustained resource protection, as documented in a formal agreement between the Park Service and the nonfederal management entity. Designation as a “heritage area” is another option that may be recommended. Heritage areas are distinctive landscapes that do not necessarily meet the same standards of national significance as national park areas, or may benefit from continued nonfederal ownership and management. Either of these two alternatives (and others, as well) would recognize an area’s importance to the nation without requiring or implying management by the National Park Service. 

**1.4   Park Management**

**1.4.1   The Laws Generally Governing Park Management**

The most important statutory directive for the National Park Service is provided by interrelated provisions of the NPS Organic Act of 1916 and the NPS General Authorities Act of 1970, including amendments to the latter law enacted in 1978. 

The key management-related provision of the Organic Act is as follows: 

[The National Park Service] shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified ... by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. (16 USC 1) 

Congress supplemented and clarified these provisions through enactment of the General Authorities Act in 1970, and again through enactment of a 1978 amendment to that law (the “Redwood amendment,” contained in a bill expanding Redwood National Park), which added the last two sentences in the following provision. The key part of that act, as amended, is as follows: 

Congress declares that the national park system, which began with establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, has since grown to include superlative natural, historic, and recreation areas in every major region of the United States, its territories and island possessions; that these areas, though distinct in character, are united through their inter-related purposes and resources into one national park system as cumulative expressions of a single national heritage; that, individually and collectively, these areas derive increased national dignity and recognition of their superlative environmental quality through their inclusion jointly with each other in one national park system preserved and managed for the benefit and inspiration of all the people of the United States; and that it is the purpose of this Act to include all such areas in the System and to clarify the authorities applicable to the system. Congress further reaffirms, declares, and directs that the promotion and regulation of the various areas of the National Park System, as defined in section 1c of this title, shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose established by section 1 of this title [the Organic Act provision quoted above], to the common benefit of all the people of the United States. The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress. (16 USC 1a-1) 

This section 1.4 of *Management Policies*represents the agency’s interpretation of these key statutory provisions. 

**1.4.2   “Impairment” and “Derogation”: One Standard**

Congress intended the language of the Redwood amendment to the General Authorities Act to reiterate the provisions of the Organic Act, not create a substantively different management standard. The House committee report described the Redwood amendment as a “declaration by Congress” that the promotion and regulation of the national park system is to be consistent with the Organic Act. The Senate committee report stated that under the Redwood amendment, “The Secretary has an absolute duty, which is not to be compromised, to fulfill the mandate of the 1916 Act to take whatever actions and seek whatever relief as will safeguard the units of the national park system.” So, although the Organic Act and the General Authorities Act, as amended by the Redwood amendment, use different wording (“unimpaired” and “derogation”) to describe what the National Park Service must avoid, they define a single standard for the management of the national park system—not two different standards. For simplicity, *Management Policies* uses “impairment” (or a variation thereof), not both statutory phrases, to refer to that single standard. 

**1.4.3   The NPS Obligations to Conserve and Provide for Enjoyment of Park Resources and Values**

The “fundamental purpose” of the national park system, established by the Organic Act and reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as amended, is “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Through this mandate, Congress established the overarching mission for national parks, which is to protect park resources and values to ensure that these resources and values are maintained in as good, or better, condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations. NPS managers must always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the greatest extent practicable, unacceptable impacts on park resources and values. However, the laws do give the Service the management discretion to allow impacts to park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, so long as the impact does not rise to the level of impairment or diminish visitor experience over time. 

As noted, the “enjoyment” of park resources and values is part of the fundamental purpose of all parks. The “enjoyment” that is contemplated by the statute is broad; it is the enjoyment of all the people of the United States, and so includes enjoyment both by people who visit parks and by those who appreciate them from afar. It also includes deriving benefit (including scientific knowledge) and inspiration from parks, as well as other uses. The Park Service recognizes that activities in which park visitors engage can cause impacts to park resources and values, and the Service must balance the sometimes competing obligations of conservation and enjoyment in managing the parks. The courts have recognized that the Service has broad discretion in determining how best to fulfill the Organic Act’s mandate. Because the enjoyment of park resources and values by present and future generations is dependent on their preservation, when there are concerns as to whether an activity or action will cause an impairment, the Service will protect the resources while taking appropriate steps, including scientific study and public involvement, to resolve the concerns.

**1.4.3.1   Appropriate Use**

In each case where a form of enjoyment or other use is under consideration, the responsible NPS manager must determine whether the use is “appropriate” in a particular park. Appropriate uses are those uses that, in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS manager, will not

· cause an unacceptable impact,

· be inconsistent with the park purposes or values,

· unreasonably interfere with park programs or activities,

· disrupt the operations of park concessions or contractors,

· create an unsafe or unhealthful environment for visitors or employees,

· result in significant conflict with other appropriate uses, or

· diminish opportunities for current or future generations to enjoy park resources or values.

Subject to the above criteria, appropriate uses may include

· uses that have occurred historically in a park and when the type and/or the level of impact has not increased significantly,

· uses that may represent new technology, or

· uses whose impacts can be successfully mitigated or eliminated through

· visitor education,

· temporal, spatial, or numerical limitations on the use,

· the application of best available technology, or

· the application of adaptive management techniques.

**1.4.3.2   Unacceptable Impacts**

In evaluating the appropriateness of an activity, standard NPS planning and decision-making procedures will be employed to engage the public and to utilize the best scientific information available. These procedures will also be used to determine whether there would be an unacceptable impact. An unacceptable impact is an impact that would

· be inconsistent with the park’s purposes or values,

· degrade resource conditions so as to preclude future generations from enjoying the resource in as good, or better, condition,

· create an unsafe or unhealthful environment for other visitors or employees, or

· unreasonably interfere with

· existing appropriate park uses,

· NPS interpretive, visitor service, administrative, or other activities,

· NPS concessioner or contractor operations or services, or

· the attainment of a park’s desired conditions, as identified through the park’s planning process.

**1.4.3.3   Park Purposes and Legislatively Authorized Uses**

Park purposes are found in the general laws pertaining to the national park system, as well as the enabling legislation or proclamation establishing each unit. In addition to park purposes, in many cases, the enabling legislation or proclamation for a park may also identify uses that are either mandated or authorized. 

In the administration of mandated uses, park managers must allow the use; however, they do have the authority to and must manage and regulate the use to minimize impacts on park resources, values, and visitor enjoyment. In the administration of authorized uses, park managers have the discretionary authority to allow and manage the use, provided that the use will not cause impairment or unacceptable impacts. In considering whether to allow the use, park managers must respect and be responsive to the desire, as reflected in the enabling legislation or proclamation, that the use or uses continue.   

*(See Major Elements of NPS Park Planning and Decision-making 2.2; General 8.1)*****

**1.4.4   The Prohibition on Impairment of Park Resources and Values**

Although Congress has given the Service the management discretion to allow impacts from activities within parks, that discretion is limited by the statutory requirement (generally enforceable by the federal courts) that the Park Service must leave park resources and values unimpaired, unless a particular law directly and specifically provides otherwise. This, the cornerstone of the Organic Act, establishes the primary responsibility of the National Park Service. It ensures that park resources and values will continue to exist in a condition that will allow the American people to have present and future opportunities for enjoyment of them. 

The impairment of park resources and values may not be allowed by the Service unless directly and specifically provided for by legislation or by the proclamation establishing the park. The relevant legislation or proclamation must provide explicitly (not by implication or inference) for the activity, in terms that keep the Service from having the authority to manage the activity so as to avoid the impairment. 

**1.4.5   What Constitutes Impairment of Park Resources and Values**

The impairment that is prohibited by the Organic Act and the General Authorities Act is a significant impact that, in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS manager, would harm the integrity of park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values. The responsible NPS manager must have followed a process including civic engagement as well as the  use of the best available scientific, scholarly, and technical information, and be able to clearly articulate the reasoning applied in reaching a finding of impairment or non-impairment. Whether an impact meets this definition depends on the particular resources and values that would be affected; the severity, duration, and timing of the impact; the direct and indirect effects of the impact; and the cumulative effects of the impact in question and other impacts. 

An impact to any park resource or value may, but does not necessarily, constitute an impairment. An impact would be more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it affects a resource or value whose conservation is 

· necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park, or

· key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or 

· identified in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents as being of special significance. 

An impact would be less likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it is an unavoidable result, which cannot reasonably be further mitigated, of an action necessary to preserve or restore the integrity of park resources or values. 

An impact that may lead to impairment may result from NPS administrative activities; activities undertaken by concessioners, contractors, and others operating in the park; or visitor activities.

**1.4.6   What Constitutes Park Resources and Values**

The “park resources” that are subject to the no impairment standard include the following: 

· The park’s scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife, and the processes and conditions that sustain them, including, to the extent present in the park: the ecological, biological, and physical processes that created the park and continue to act upon it; scenic features; natural visibility, both in daytime and at night; natural landscapes; natural soundscapes and smells; water and air resources; soils; geological resources; paleontological resources; archeological resources; cultural landscapes; ethnographic resources; historic and prehistoric sites, structures, and objects; museum collections; and native plants and animals.

The “park values” that are subject to the no impairment standard include

· appropriate opportunities to experience enjoyment of the above resources, to the extent that can be done without impairing the same, 

· the park’s role in contributing to the national dignity, the high public value and integrity, and the superlative environmental quality of the national park system, and the benefit and inspiration provided to the American people by the national park system, and 

· any additional attributes encompassed by the specific values and purposes for which it was established. 

*(See introduction to chapter 4)*

**1.4.7   Decision-making Requirements to Avoid Impairments**

Before approving a proposed action that could lead to an impairment of park resources and values, an NPS decision-maker must consider the impacts of the proposed action and determine, in writing, that the activity will not lead to an impairment of park resources and values. If there would be an impairment, the action may not be approved. 

In making a determination of whether there would be an impairment, a National Park Service decision-maker must use his or her professional judgment. The decision maker must consider any environmental assessments or environmental impact statements required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); relevant scientific studies, and other sources of information; and public comments. 

When an NPS decision maker becomes aware that an ongoing activity might have led or might be leading to an impairment of park resources or values, he or she must investigate and determine if there is, or will be, impairment. Whenever reasonable and practicable, such an investigation and determination will be made as part of an appropriate park planning process undertaken for other purposes. If it is determined that there is, or will be, such an impairment, the decision maker  must take appropriate action, to the extent possible within the Service’s authorities and available resources, to mitigate the impacts so as to eliminate the impairment, or reduce impacts as needed to eliminate the impairment. The action must eliminate the impairment as soon as reasonably possible, taking into consideration the nature, duration, magnitude, and other characteristics of the impacts to park resources and values, as well as the requirements of NEPA, the Administrative Procedure Act, and other applicable laws. 

*(See Levels of Park Planning 2.3; Evaluating Environmental Impacts 4.1.3; Planning 5.2; General 8.1; Visitor Use 8.2; General 9.1. Also see Director’s Order #12: Conservation Planning and Environmental Impact Analysis)*

**1.5   Cooperative Conservation Beyond Park Boundaries**

Cooperation beyond park boundaries has become increasingly necessary as the National Park Service strives to fulfill its mandate to conserve the natural and cultural resources of parks unimpaired for future generations. Ecological processes cross park boundaries, and park boundaries may not incorporate all of the natural resources, cultural sites, and scenic vistas that relate to park resources or the quality of the visitor experience. Therefore, activities proposed for adjacent lands may significantly affect park programs, resources, and values. Conversely, Park Service activities may have impacts outside park boundaries. Recognizing that parks are integral parts of larger regional environments, the Service will work cooperatively with others to (1) anticipate, avoid, and resolve potential conflicts; (2) protect park resources and values; (3) provide for visitor enjoyment; and (4) address mutual interests in the quality of life of community residents, including matters such as compatible economic development and resource and environmental protection. Such local and regional cooperation may involve other federal agencies; tribal, state, and local governments; neighboring landowners; nonprofit and private sector organizations; and all other concerned parties.

The Service will use all available authorities to conserve park resources and values and protect them from impairment. Superintendents will monitor land use proposals and changes to adjacent lands, and their potential impacts on park resources and values. It is appropriate for superintendents to engage constructively with the broader community in the same way that any good neighbor would. Superintendents will encourage compatible adjacent land uses, and seek to mitigate potential adverse impacts on park resources and values by actively participating in the planning and regulatory processes of other federal agencies and tribal, state, and local governments having jurisdiction over property directly affecting, or directly affected by, the park. When engaged in these activities, superintendents should fully apply the principles of civic engagement to promote better understanding and communication by documenting the park’s concerns and sharing them with all who are interested, and by listening to the concerns of those who are affected by the park’s actions. 

*(See Civic Engagement 1.11; Cooperative Planning 2.3.1.9; Addressing Threats from External Sources 3.4; Air Quality 4.7.1; Soundscape Management 4.9.  Also see Director’s Order #75A)*

**1.6   Environmental Leadership**

Given the scope of its responsibility for the resources and values entrusted to its care, the Service has an obligation, as well as a unique opportunity, to demonstrate leadership in environmental stewardship. The Park Service must lead by example not only for visitors, other governmental agencies, the private sector, and the public at large, but also for a worldwide audience.

Environmental leadership will be demonstrated in all aspects of NPS activities, including policy development; park planning; all aspects of park operations; land protection; natural and cultural resource management; wilderness management; interpretation and education; facilities design, construction, and management; and commercial visitor services. In demonstrating environmental leadership, the Service will fully comply with the letter and the spirit of NEPA, and continually assess the impact its operations have on natural and cultural resources so that it may identify areas for improvement. The Service will institutionalize an assessment process, through a Servicewide environmental auditing program, that will evaluate a broad array of NPS activities for meeting the highest standards of environmental protection and compliance. The program will also screen for opportunities to implement sustainable practices, and tangibly demonstrate the highest levels of environmental ethic. 

*(See Facility Planning and Design 9.1.1)*

**1.7   Management Excellence**

Successful and sustained realization of the Service’s mission requires attentive employment of the most effective and efficient business principles and practices available. Individually, and in isolation from one another, these business concepts might appear to some to have little to do with the work of conserving America’s heritage resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of present and future generations.  However, unless park managers can demonstrate their responsibility to and accountability for concepts ranging from competent management of information technology and finances, to the successful management and development of human resources, their opportunities to conserve resources and provide opportunities for public enjoyment will be severely limited.

**1.7.1   Managing Information**

NPS information resources exist in a variety of different media, including paper records, electronic documents, maps, databases, photographs, and video and audio media. The use of information management and technology tools increases the understanding and management of the nation’s natural and cultural resources, facilities and utilities, and accountability responsibilities.

Today’s information technology environment is based on the convergence of many technologies, requiring a more comprehensive management and governance structure than necessary previously. Information technology (IT) assets must be cost-effective and relevant to the Service’s mission. Consistent policies, procedures, and processes throughout the Service will improve interoperability (the ability of information systems to work with each other) and reduce redundant systems and uses of technology.

The Park Service will use industry “best practices” when and where appropriate and will consistently manage its IT assets using federal IT statutes, principles, standards, and guidance, such as the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, the federal architecture framework, the IT investment model, and National Institute of Standards and Technology guidance on information and technology security.

The Park Service will participate as a part of the larger federal, state, and public information community through data-sharing, developing system interfaces, using common technologies and practices, and seeking cost-saving possibilities through partnerships with other organizations.

The Service will use a wide variety of proven tools and technologies that will enhance the following:

· development or acquisition of information systems using a system lifecycle development approach that meet the needs of NPS management and the public 

· information captured and maintained in a secure, yet accessible manner that is easily integrated with other NPS data stores storage

· information management that is required by NPS policy and by legal and professional standards

· management of electronic, textual, and audiovisual information resources, including still images, for continuous accessibility by NPS staff and the public

· presentation of information through the World Wide Web (Web) in a professional, consistent, and comprehensive manner that meets the needs of our employees and the public and demonstrates the Service’s commitment to a citizen-centered environment

· the broad development of spatial information through the technology of geographic information systems

· educational opportunities for a diverse range of people and public sectors, including the international community

*(Also see Director’s Order #11A: Information Technology Management, DO 11C:  Web Publishing, and DO 19: Records Management)*

**1.7.1.1   Information Sharing**

The Service is committed to the widest possible sharing and availability of knowledge, and to fostering discussion about the national park system, America’s natural and cultural heritage found in national parks, and the national experiences and values they represent. The Service will comply fully with its information security responsibilities under the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (44 USC 3544) and determine the sensitivity of stored information. Information not found to be confidential will be made available in the “public domain” to anyone who is interested. The only exceptions to information sharing are where disclosure could jeopardize specific park resources or donor agreements, or where disclosure would violate legal or confidentiality requirements.

*(Also see Director’s Orders #66: FOIA and Protected Resource Information and #75A: Civic Engagement and Public Involvement))*

**1.7.1.2   Proprietary Information**

When producing or acquiring new works (such as images, graphic designs, logos, writing, or Web sites) through acquisition by donation, contracting, partnerships, or other means, the Park Service will acquire the appropriate copyrights and any necessary releases, such as model or interview releases, whenever there is a current or anticipated need for unrestricted access to those works. The Service will respect the rights of owners of copyrights to control how their works are used, and will comply with “fair use” standards when information or works are not licensed for dissemination.

*(Also see Director’s Order #67: Copyrights and Trademarks)*

**1.7.1.3   Information Confidentiality**

Although it is the general policy of the Park Service to share information widely, the Service also realizes that providing information about the location of park resources may sometimes place those resources at risk of harm, theft, or destruction. This can occur, for example, with regard to caves, archeological sites, and rare plant and animal species. Some types of personnel, financial, and law enforcement matters are other examples of information that may be inappropriate for release to the public. Therefore, information will be withheld when the Service foresees that disclosure would be harmful to an interest protected by an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Information will also be withheld when the Park Service has entered into a written agreement (e.g., deed of gift, interview release, or similar written contract) to withhold data for a fixed period of time at the time of acquisition of the information. Such information will not be provided unless required by the Freedom of Information Act or other applicable law, a subpoena, a court order, or a federal audit.

NPS managers will use these exemptions sparingly, and only to the extent allowed by law. In general, if information is withheld from one requesting party, it must be withheld from anyone else who requests it, and if information is provided to one requesting party, it must be provided to anyone else who requests it. Procedures contained in Director’s Order #66: FOIA and Protected Resource Information will be followed to document any decisions to release information or to withhold information from the public.

*(See Natural Resources Information 4.1.3; Studies and Collections 4.2; Caves 4.8.2.2; Research 5.1; Confidentiality 5.2.3; Interpretation and Education Services Beyond Park Boundaries 7.5.2. Also see Director’s Orders #5: Paper and Electronic Communications, #19: Records Management, #84: NPS Library Programs, and #70: Internet and Intranet Publishing. Also see Reference Manual 53, Chapter 5)*

**1.7.2   Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities**

All practicable efforts will be made to make NPS facilities, programs, services, employment, and meaningful work opportunities accessible and usable by all people, including those with disabilities. This policy reflects the commitment to provide access to the widest cross section of the public, and to ensure compliance with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. Specific guidance for implementing these laws is found in the Secretary of the Interior’s regulations regarding enforcement of nondiscrimination of the basis of disability in Department of the Interior programs (43 CFR Part 17, Subpart E).

A primary principle of accessibility is that, to the highest degree practicable, people with disabilities should be able to participate in the same programs, activities, and employment opportunities available to everyone else. In choosing among methods of providing accessibility, higher priority will be given to those methods that offer programs and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate. Special, separate, or alternative facilities, programs, or services will be provided only when existing ones cannot reasonably be made accessible. The determination of what is practicable will be made only after careful consultation with persons with disabilities, or their representatives. Any decision that would result in “less than equal opportunity” is subject to the filing of an official disability rights complaint under the Departmental regulations cited above.

**1.7.3   Public Information and Media Relations**

The Service will provide timely and accurate information to the public and news media in accordance with applicable laws, Departmental policy, and Director’s Orders. Park managers should identify appropriate opportunities to inform and educate the public about park resources and values and ways to enjoy the same. Every effort should be made to provide early notification of changes in park management practices, and to conduct active civic engagement pursuant to Directors Order #75A. Park managers should keep the public informed of ongoing events in parks, especially as they may affect visitors and gateway communities. In some instances, certain information about individuals or events may need to be withheld for privacy, security, or other reasons, consistent with the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act.

**1.7.4   Management Accountability**

Management accountability is the expectation that managers are responsible for the quality and timeliness of program performance, increasing productivity, controlling costs, and mitigating the adverse aspects of agency operations, and for assuring that programs are managed with integrity and in compliance with applicable law.

The National Park Service will comply with OMB (Office of Management and Budget) Circular A-123 and the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (31 USC 3512(d)), which require that all federal agencies and individual managers take systematic and proactive measures to (1) develop and implement appropriate, cost-effective management controls for results-oriented management, (2) assess the adequacy of management controls in federal programs and operations, (3) identify needed improvements, (4) take corresponding corrective action, and (5) report annually on management controls.

The concept of management accountability will be applied to all strategies, plans, guidance, and procedures that govern programs and operations throughout the Service, including those at the park level, the program center level, and the Servicewide level. The Service will, through its organization, policies, and procedures, implement systems of controls to reasonably ensure that 

· programs achieve their intended results, 

· resources are used consistent with the NPS mission,

· programs and resources are managed to prevent waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement,

· laws and regulations are followed, and 

· reliable and timely information is obtained, maintained, reported, and used for decision making.

**1.7.4.1   Government Performance and Results Act**

As the business system for the National Park Service, performance management will be used to set goals and track accomplishments. Servicewide strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports will be prepared, distributed, used, and analyzed for management accountability. These requirements are based on the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). Park superintendents and other NPS managers will implement a performance management system that focuses on achieving, through daily operations, the desired conditions or results identified in the plans. More details on performance management responsibilities at the national, regional, and park level are found in section 2.3.3, *Strategic Planning*. 

**1.7.4.2   Financial Sustainability**

The Park Service will strive to be an effective and efficient steward of appropriated and nonappropriated funds and services. These include revenues from recreation and other fees, as well as financial and in-kind support from cooperating associations, friends’ groups, other partnership entities, and volunteers. The Service will attempt to meet management goals consistently through strategic planning that anticipates budget requirements, changing conditions, and reasonably foreseeable trends and events.

The Service will continually implement best management practices to achieve financial sustainability, including

· analyzing and revising work processes to achieve greater efficiency,

· making full use of information technology,

· anticipating and addressing funding availability through credible business practices,

· ensuring that the out-year budget implications of decision making are carefully considered in planning and other processes,

· ensuring that both short- and long-term costs of facility development and operation are factored into the project formulation and selection process,

· utilizing value-based decision-making processes such as value analysis, capital asset planning, benefit-cost analysis, life-cycle cost estimating, risk analysis, and total cost of ownership analysis,

· linking performance management elements to achieving and maintaining financial sustainability.

The Service will continually seek improvement and innovation in the following subsections. 

**1.7.4.3   Construction Projects**

The Service will continue to build necessary and appropriately sized new facilities to meet its mission when no other alternatives are available. However, the Service recognizes that, in the past, some building projects have too often involved facilities that may have exceeded minimum functional requirements. In many instances, the development of these facilities has affected the park’s operational budget. Additionally, in some partnership projects, there have been expectations that presume an unacceptably large federal contribution—not only for the project’s construction, but also for the cost of maintaining the new facility. Therefore, the Park Service will implement a comprehensive project review process to ensure that projects are essential to the mission, achievable, and sustainable. As elements of this process, the Park Service will deploy Servicewide training, a project tracking system, and an accountability system that will be incorporated into the performance plans of regional directors and superintendents.

The Park Service will proceed with projects only after the responsible manager has determined that

· the proposed projects address NPS priorities and are consistent with park general management plans,

· partners have the capability to raise promised funding, 

· any expected capital contributions from the Park Service have been prioritized in the five-year capital plan, and 

· ongoing operation and maintenance costs are known and can be sustained over time. 

These policies will apply both to projects that are built solely with appropriated funds, and those that are built solely or partially with funds donated to the Service. In addition, where donated funds are used, the Park Service will follow the requirements of Director’s Order #21 and will include in all agreements with partners language that specifically prohibits the solicitation of funding from Congress outside of the budget process.

**1.7.4.4   Facilities Management**

The Service will strive to reduce the backlog of deferred facility and infrastructure maintenance and construction, including park roads and other assets. The comprehensive asset management strategy will be used to prioritize asset investments, including preventive maintenance, as well as major rehabilitation and replacement of facilities when appropriate. The comprehensive asset management strategy will include a complete inventory, baseline facility condition information, and a recurring program of comprehensive condition assessments. The Service will use these management tools to establish performance goals for NPS facilities.

**1.7.4.5   Business-like Concession Program**

The Service will seek to provide a better return to the federal government from concession franchise fees, as well as by requiring, as a condition of concession contracts, the improved maintenance of facilities. When appropriate, the Park Service will seek outside reviews and recommendations for improving the concession program. 

**1.7.4.6****Budget Performance and Accountability Programs**

The Park Service will continue to pursue and employ the most useful and effective tools for improving budget performance and accountability. The Service will also continue to improve the budget formulation process, particularly related to park specifics, by making it more transparent. The goal of these efforts will be to ensure that

· funds are spent in support of a park’s purpose, 

· funds are spent in an efficient manner, 

· a park’s request for funding is credible, and 

· there are adequate funds and staff to conserve and protect the resources for which parks are responsible, and provide for the enjoyment of the same.  

**1.7.5   Human Capital**

The Service will pursue a human capital program that is comprehensive and competency based, and encompasses the entire workforce, including employees, volunteers, contractors, concession employees, students, and partners. 

**1.7.5.1   Career Development, Training and Management**

Employee development helps organizations achieve greater success. The goals of the Park Service’s employee development activities are to help employees strengthen their skills, knowledge, and experience, as well as to promote broader employee engagement in the NPS mission. Employee development planning and strategies will be directly linked to core competencies and ensure the highest return on investment for the organization. Employees will also have opportunities to broaden their experiences and to progress in their careers through continuing education and training. In accordance with section 102 of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (16 USC 5912), the Park Service will implement a comprehensive training program for employees in all professional careers in the workforce to ensure that the workforce has available the best, up-to-date knowledge, skills, and abilities with which to manage, interpret, and protect the resources of the national park system.

**1.7.5.2   Succession Planning**

The Park Service recognizes that essential institutional knowledge erodes as seasoned, mature employees retire without replacements ready to take their place. To maintain institutional memory, the Service will develop a cadre of employees who have historical and current service experiences, have implemented proven practices, and have the ability to address issues as they arise. The Service will develop the capacity to supply future leadership through a strategic and conscious effort to purposefully develop a diverse workforce with the potential to take on leadership positions. This process will include a collaborative effort among all possible interests (including pre-employment/educational institutions) to prepare employees to meet the needs for leadership talent over time. The Service will cultivate talent for the short term and the long term to ensure the availability of a sufficient number of people who reflect the diversity of America. In accordance with section 103 of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (16 USC 5913), the Service will implement a management training and development plan whereby career, professional NPS employees from any appropriate academic field may obtain sufficient training, experience, and advancement opportunity to enable those qualified to move into park management positions, including the position of park superintendent. Similar efforts will be made for central office positions.

**1.7.5.3   Workforce Planning**

The Service will implement a process to

· evaluate the workforce, 

· identify the competencies needed by the workforce in each of the career fields,

· evaluate present and future trends, 

· develop strategies to address competency gaps,

· benchmark best practices, and 

· develop a plan that will allow us to meet mission and strategic goals.

In concert with employee development and succession planning, workforce planning will ensure that all elements of the workforce are provided the orientation and training necessary to support the NPS mission.

**1.7.5.4   Employee Safety and Health**

The safety and health of our employees, contractors, volunteers, and the public is one of the Service’s core values. In making decisions on matters concerning employee safety and health, NPS managers must exercise good judgment and discretion, and, above all, keep in mind that the safeguarding of human life must not be compromised. The Service will strive to ensure that all employees understand how to do their jobs safely, and that they have the necessary clothing, materials, and equipment to perform their duties with minimal personal risk.  

*(See Human Health and Safety 8.2.5)*

**1.7.5.5   Workforce Diversity**

The Park Service will continue to seek ways to achieve its workforce diversity goals and to recognize workforce diversity as a sound business practice. Success in achieving workforce diversity will also enhance the Service’s ability to more successfully connect with park visitors who represent America’s diverse population. Continuing efforts will be made to increase public awareness of employment opportunities and to develop partnerships with diverse populations and organizations for the purpose of improving workforce diversity.

**1.8   Civic Engagement**

The Service will embrace civic engagement as a fundamental discipline and practice. Civic engagement is a continuous, dynamic conversation with the public on many levels to reinforce the commitment of both the Service and the public to the preservation of heritage resources, both cultural and natural, and strengthens public understanding of the full meaning and contemporary relevance of these resources.The Service’s commitment to civic engagement is founded on the central principle that preservation of the nation’s heritage resources relies on continued collaborative relationships between the Service and American society. These relationships will encompass significant and meaningful public involvement in NPS operations, programming, planning, and decision making. Our civic engagement practices will acknowledge that these relationships must extend to all communities that comprise America, including to those people who have felt little or no connection with the nation’s heritage resources or parks, or who have felt excluded from enjoying the parks. At its heart, civic engagement is about inclusiveness and being respectful of the views of those who take their valuable time to participate in the Service’s public processes and who raise issues or voice their concerns. By doing this, the Park Service will strengthen public understanding of the full meaning and contemporary relevance of park resources and values, and the Service will gain a better understanding of the needs and concerns of the public and its leaders.

Civic engagement will be viewed as a commitment to building and sustaining relationships with neighbors and other communities of interest. The first principle is that we will welcome people to enjoy their parks in appropriate, sustainable ways. This practice will promote civic responsibility by building long-term, collaborative relationships with a broad range of communities, which in turn will foster a widespread investment in stewardship of the nation’s resources. Park and program managers will work in partnership with state, local, and tribal governments and all interested parties to jointly sponsor, develop, and promote public involvement activities to improve mutual understanding, decisions, and work products.

*(Also see Director’s Order #75A: Civic Engagement and Public Involvement)*

**1.9   Partnerships**

The Service recognizes the benefits of consultation, cooperation, and communication in the service of conservation, as well as the significant role partners play in achieving conservation goals and funding conservation initiatives on behalf of the national park system. The Service has had many successful partnerships with individuals; organizations; tribal, state, and local governments; and other federal agencies that have helped fulfill the NPS mission. Through these partnerships, the Service has received valuable assistance in the form of educational programs, visitor services, living history demonstrations, search-and-rescue operations, fundraising campaigns, habitat restoration, scientific research, ecosystem management, and a host of other activities. These partnerships, both formal and informal, have produced countless benefits for the Service and for the national park system.

Benefits often extend into the future, because many people who participate as partners connect more strongly with the parks and commit themselves to long-term stewardship. The Service will continue to welcome and actively seek partnership activities with individuals, organizations, and others who share the Service’s commitment to protecting park resources and values and providing for their enjoyment. The Service will embrace partnership opportunities that will help accomplish the NPS mission, provided that personnel and funding requirements do not make it impractical for the Service to participate, and provided that the partnership activity would not (1) violate legal or ethical standards, (2) otherwise reflect adversely on the NPS mission and image, or (3) imply or indicate an unwillingness by the Service to perform an inherently governmental function. 

In the spirit of partnership, the Service will also seek opportunities for cooperative management agreements with state or local agencies that will allow for more effective and efficient management of the parks, as authorized by section 802 of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (16 USC 1a- 2(l)). 

Park superintendents occasionally receive partnership proposals from groups or organizations who wish to offer advice on park management issues. The Park Service encourages conservation through consultation, cooperation, and communication, and through other forms of public involvement, including “consensus-based management” as described in Part 516 of the *Department of the Interior Manual*. Whenever groups are created, controlled, or managed for the purpose of providing advice or recommendations to the Service, the Service will first consult with the Office of the Solicitor to determine whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act requires the chartering of an advisory committee. Consultation with the Office of the Solicitor will not be necessary when the Service meets with individuals, existing groups, or existing organizations simply to exchange views and information, or to solicit individual advice on proposed NPS actions. The Park Service will give appropriate consideration to consensus advice presented to it when those recommendations have been developed independent of the Park Service.

*(See Public Involvement 2.3.1.6; Partnerships 4.1.4; Studies and Collections 4.2; Independent Research 5.1.2; Agreements 5.2.2; Interpretive and Educational Partnerships 7.6; Volunteers in Parks 7.6.1; Cooperating Associations 7.6.2; Enforcement Authority 8.3.4; Commercial Visitor Services Chapter 10; also see Director’s Orders #7: Volunteers in Parks; #20: Agreements, #21: Donations and Fundraising; #27: Challenge Cost- Share Program; #32: Cooperating Associations; NPS Guide to the Federal Advisory Committee Act)*

**1.10   An Enduring Message**

The need for management policies in the National Park Service was first articulated by Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane in a letter to the first Director of the National Park Service, Stephen T. Mather, on May 13, 1918. 

Secretary Lane stated that administrative policy should adhere to three broad principles based on the 1916 Organic Act: 

First, that the national parks must be maintained in absolutely unimpaired form for the use of future generations as well as those of our own time; second, that they are set apart for the use, observation, health, and pleasure of the people; and third, that the national interest must dictate all decisions affecting public or private enterprise in the parks. 

Today’s national parks have become important to our nation in more ways than Secretary Lane could possibly have imagined. Parks are a true reflection of our nation’s collective history, heritage, and ideals. To remain relevant now and into the future, parks must be welcoming to our citizenry so that they may understand and appreciate these special places set aside for their enjoyment. As America’s story continues to evolve, new park units will be added in the future, and they will carry equally compelling reasons for their inclusion in the national park system*.*

Secretary Lane’s guiding principles remain fundamentally valid, and serve as a useful reminder of the need for a sustained commitment to park resource protection and public enjoyment. The Service’s commitment to protecting the national parks and ensuring public enjoyment for present and future generations is embodied in this 2006 edition of *Management Policies*. 

� The terms “National Park Service,” “Park Service,” “Service,” and “NPS” are used interchangeably in this document.

PAGE  

3