Second Edition (illustrated

National Park Service ational Park Service 

Science in the 21st Century cience in the 21st Century

Recommendations Concerning Future Directions 

for Science and Scientifi c Resource Management 

in the National Parks

National Park System Advisory Board

NATIONAL PARKS SCIENCE COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE 

NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM ADVISORY BOARD MARCH 2004
The report which follows—National Park Service Science in the 

21st Century—a National Parks Science Committee Report to the 

National Park System Advisory Board, 2004, was adopted unanimously by the Board on August 12, 2003. The report has been 

revised and edited in accordance with the direction of the Board.

Members Participating

Douglas P. Wheeler, Chairman

Robert S. Chandler, Vice Chairman

Margaret L. Brown

Sylvia A. Earle

Jerry N. Hruby

Shirley Mahaley Malcom

Janet Snyder Matthews

Gary Paul Nabhan

Jay Parmer

Daniel L. Ritchie

Thomas B. Williams

Member Absent

Michael Kammen

In 2006–2009, the NPS Natural Resource Program Center, Offi ce of Education and Outreach, furnished photographs, captions, 

and a new layout for this illustrated second edition. John Francis, 

National Park System Advisory Board member since March 2004, 

endorsed this edition in December 2006; principal author and science committee member Sylvia A. Earle approved it in June 2008. 

This report can be downloaded at http://www.nature.nps.gov/

ScienceResearch/ScienceCommitteeReport2ndEdition.pdf.

First Edition—March 2004

Second Edition (illustrated)—January 2009 (D-1589A)

ON THE COVER

Whiskeytown National Recreation Area, California. A biological 

technician samples vegetation to assess the response of both native 

and nonnative vascular plants to a wildfi re in 2004.

National Park System Advisory Board
National Park Service 

Science in the 21st Century

A National Parks Science Committee Report to 

the National Park System Advisory Board

2004
CONTROLLING NONNATIVE SPECIES

Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North Carolina. 

A natural resource manager sprays insecticidal soap as part of a 

coordinated program of treatments to combat hemlock woolly adelgid 

(Adelges tsugae), a nonnative insect forest pest.
National Park Service 

Science in the 21st Century

A National Parks Science Committee Report to 

the National Park System Advisory Board

2004

Sylvia A. Earle

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY

Robert Chandler

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (RETIRED)

Larry Madin

WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTE

Shirley M. Malcom

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE

Gary Paul Nabhan

CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTS, NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY

Peter Raven

MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDENS

Edward O. Wilson

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Second Edition (illustrated
INDICATOR SPECIES

Congaree National Park, South Carolina. A biological science 

technician examines a specimen of the slime mold Arcyria cinerea. 

The diversity of slime molds in a given habitat may correspond 

to environmental stresses, thereby serving as a good indicator of 

ecological health.

For if one link in nature’s 

chain might be lost, another 

might be lost, until the whole 

of things might vanish by 

piecemeal.

—THOMAS JEFFERSON
CONTENTS

Foreword vii

Introduction 1

Natural Systems in the 21st Century 5

Evaluating the Natural Resource Challenge 9

Future Directions for National Park Service Science 15

Summary 25

Appendix: Natural Resource Challenge Components 27
America’s National Park System represents merica’s National Park System represents 

a profoundly egalitarian concept— profoundly egalitarian concept—

landscapes of incomparable beauty andscapes of incomparable beauty 

and grandeur that are to be nd grandeur that are to be 

shared and enjoyed by all hared and enjoyed by all 

people.

Delicate Arch seen through Frame Arch, Arches National Park, Utah.
v

FOREWORD

I

N MAY 2002, the Director of the National Park Service asked 

the National Park System Advisory Board to review the Service’

Natural Resource Challenge program and off er recommendations 

concerning future directions for science and scientifi c resource 

management in the national parks. The Advisory Board tasked its 

National Parks Science Committee with developing those recommendations.

The Science Committee considered the history of natural 

resource management in the National Park System and a wide 

range of issues relating to program operations; policies guiding the 

natural resource management function; and opportunities facing 

the National Park Service, an agency long revered by the American 

public, which is charged with pursuing the highest conservation 

and preservation purposes.

America’s National Park System represents a profoundly egalitarian concept—landscapes of incomparable beauty and grandeur 

that are to be shared and enjoyed by all people. From the very 

beginning, the national park idea marked a dramatic, historic step 

in nature preservation, with its mandate that the parks be retained 

“in their natural condition,” thereby extending the sharing beyond 

the human species to all native fl ora and fauna within the national 

parks.

The Science Committee believes that this broad, inclusive 

sharing of unique segments of the American landscape, with all 

of their native species, forms the vital core of the national park 

idea, endowing it with high idealism and purpose that have spread 

throughout the nation and around the world. The Committee 

views this high purpose as self-evident, and calls on the National 

Park Service to continue strengthening its dedication to these 

ideals as the most fundamental precepts of national park management.

This report is respectfully submitted to the National Park System Advisory Board by Sylvia A. Earle, with the acknowledgment of, and gratitud

to, members of the National Parks Science Committee; and also with 

thanks to the National Park Service for its invaluable assistance.
The National he National 

Park Service has ark Service has 

no choice: Mastering o choice: Mastering 

the science required to he science required to 

maintain ecological aintain ecological 

integrity is central to its ntegrity is central to its 

unimpairment nimpairment 

mandate. andate.

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY

Sequoia National Park, California. National parks have long been 

appreciated for their spectacular wonders and alluring qualities. 

Slower in coming has been broad recognition of the need for a 

sophisticated science program of the National Park Service to help 

managers preserve the ecological integrity of the parks.
INTRODUCTION

MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO, farsighted congressional leaders began setting aside landscapes on a truly grand scale by creating a system 

of national parks in the United States. They recognized that these majestic 

areas represent America’s natural heritage, in all of its grandeur, nobility, and 

complexity, and that they must be protected for the benefi t of the public. And 

they specifi cally mandated that the national parks be left “unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations.”

National parks are spiritual places—sacred, and inspirational. They are 

places with great restorative powers, of enormous benefi t in a stressful modern 

world. From the beginning, and continuing into the present, national parks 

have been theaters of education—classrooms for science and the humanities. 

In the parks, millions of Americans have expanded their knowledge of natural history through experiences that have served to foster better citizenship. 

Appreciation of the scenic beauty of the national parks has nurtured a greater 

understanding of the ecological complexity and biodiversity of the world.

Over the years, science has not fared well in the National Park Service. In 

an eff ort to reverse that trend, Service leadership recently created a program 

to double the science eff ort in the national parks—known as the Natural 

Resource Challenge. To date, the Challenge has greatly strengthened the Park 

Service’s scientifi c natural resource management capability, as well as its 

ability to take better advantage of public and private partnerships to further 

enhance ecological management. The Natural Resource Challenge represents 

more than just an increase in funding—it has actually created a historic shift in 

emphasis, moving national park management toward the heart of the Nationa

Park Service mission. The Service has long excelled in managing recreational 

tourism, but by virtue of its mandate, it has been cast in the leadership role in 

nature preservation. The mission to preserve the parks unimpaired includes 

the ecological integrity of park resources. However, national parks with 

decreased biological diversity and diminished natural systems can in no way 

be considered unimpaired. Thus, the National Park Service has no choice: 

Mastering the science required to maintain ecological integrity is central to its 

unimpairment mandate. And to accomplish this mastery, the Service must be 

given wide latitude in establishing and managing its own fully constituted science program.

Scientifi c knowledge serves as the foundation for preserving national parks

so science must be a fully integrated part of the National Park Service organi-
Every conceivable eff ort must be made to marshal the 

necessary resources to preserve the integrity of the parks and 

the life residing within them.

BIODIVERSITY PRESERVATION

Bison, Badlands National Park, South Dakota. Long successful in 

managing parks for public enjoyment, the National Park Service has 

an opportunity in the 21st century to realize its full potential for 

leadership in the preservation of biodiversity.
zational culture, as refl ected in the Service’s value system, its world view, and 

its daily management of the parks. To shoulder this responsibility, the Service 

must conduct scientifi cally informed management that insists on resource 

preservation as the highest of many worthy priorities. This priority must spring 

not merely from the concerns of specifi c individuals or divisions within the 

Service, but rather from an enduring institutionalized ethic that is refl ected in 

full-faith support by all environmental laws, in appropriate natural resource 

policies and practices, in budget and staffi ng allocations, and in the organizational structures of parks and central offi ces.

Due to the rapid depletion of natural resources and the diminishing diversity of life in North America during the 20th century, national parks are fast 

becoming the last remaining havens for once-widespread species and ecosystems. Every conceivable eff ort must be made to marshal the necessary resources to preserve the integrity of the parks and the life residing within them. 

In pursuing this goal, the National Park Service should seek to connect parks 

with adjacent protected lands and waters, creating networks of linked habitats to prevent the isolation of living systems. Further, the Park Service should 

provide far greater protection for freshwater and marine systems related to 

units of the National Park System. And it should invite public discussion about 

protecting other areas of signifi cant ecological concern that are currently underrepresented in the park system.

The Science Committee believes that each national park should serve as a 

center of enlightenment, and that the National Park Service should serve as th

world’s leader in stimulating, synthesizing, and utilizing place-based science. 

With its already-extensive involvement in natural resource preservation, the 

Service should work through public and private partnerships in a collaborative “virtual institute” for preservation. With these partners, the Park Service 

should play a catalytic role in creating an “electronic encyclopedia” of natural 

resource data and analyses gathered from the communities, states, and private 

sources of this nation, and from other countries worldwide, in a multilateral 

eff ort to track the ecological health of the planet.

The report that follows is based on the fundamental premise that public 

enjoyment and the protection of the natural integrity of the parks are far from 

being mutually exclusive; rather, they are mutually dependent. Experiencing 

the wonders inherent in the grand sweep of majestic landscapes, feeling the 

thrill of encounters with wild creatures, and gaining the knowledge of how 

we are connected to the natural world all inspire a sense of respect and caring. 

And, in turn, people who care will insist upon protecting the parks they love.
Natural resources atural resources 

are neither limitless re neither limitless 

nor infinitely 

resilient—not esilient—not 

trees, not water, rees, not water, 

not wild animals, ot wild animals, 

not even the ot even the 

nature of the air. ature of the air.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Federally listed as endangered, the nene or Hawaiian goose (Nesochen 

sandvicensis) is resident in Hawaii Volcanoes and Haleakala national 

parks. To protect the species park staffs control nonnative predators, 

monitor nesting, and research nutritional requirements of the species.
NATURAL SYSTEMS IN THE 21ST 

CENTURY

MORE WAS LEARNED ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE WORLD and its wonders in the 20th century than during all preceding history. Some 

who traveled by horse-and-buggy as children had children of their own who 

traveled to the moon. Never before had scientifi c and technological advances 

been as revolutionary, or as rapid. Three discoveries were especially signifi can

First was the insight that natural resources are neither limitless nor infi nitely 

resilient—not trees, not water, not wild animals, not even the nature of the air. 

Second was the realization that humankind is utterly dependent on the world’

natural systems for basic goods and services—and, ultimately, for life itself. 

Living systems of the land and sea generate oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide, 

yield energy, stabilize temperature, maintain global chemistry, and generally 

make Earth habitable for the likes of us. Third was the discovery that we can, 

through our actions, change the way the world functions—that we can alter 

climate, infl uence weather, upset natural water regimes, and eliminate thousands of species, and even entire natural systems—and that in so doing, we can 

jeopardize our own health, wealth, and survival.

In the early 1900s, the nation’s treasury of natural resources was full—brim

ming with clean lakes, free- fl owing rivers, and clear coastal waters. Ancient 

forests, wild deserts, and fertile prairies cloaked the land; and birds and other 

wildlife abounded even in urbanized areas. Today, much of America’s landscape is fragmented and fenced, blanketed with farms and cities, and laced 

with highways. Dams and levees subdue most rivers, and much wildlife now 

lives on islands of natural areas separated by great expanses of developed terrain. The surrounding ocean suff ers from pollution and the overexploitation o

fi sh and other wildlife.

Although the National Park System was not initially conceived as a safeguard against such troublesome changes to the natural world, this role 

emerged emphatically beginning late in the 20th century. The ethic that led a 

youthful, growing nation to establish Yellowstone National Park in 1872—two 

million acres on which no one could lawfully settle, or extract minerals, timbe

or eventually even wildlife—quickly spread to embrace other areas. It is now 

widely recognized that these natural areas are more than simply esthetically 

pleasing—that they protect vital watersheds, and harbor fundamental element

of biodiversity—the very fabric of life needed to maintain a healthy world.
6

In the late 20th century, the idea that ocean resources might benefi t from 

protective measures gave rise to legislation—fi rst in the United States and 

Australia—to authorize the establishment of marine parks. More than a thousand marine parks now exist worldwide in dozens of countries, although most 

provide only nominal protection for the wildlife within them. Worldwide, only 

about 0.001 percent of the ocean is accorded the same level of protection for 

its wildlife as that considered normal in U.S. national parks. While some species are protected, commercial and sport fi shing generally continues within 

“marine protected areas” at about the same level as outside of these areas. New 

technologies developed in the past 50 years for fi nding and catching fi sh and 

other ocean life have been so eff ective that 90 percent of the large fi sh—swordfi sh, tuna, marlin, skates, sharks, and others—have been globally eliminated, 

and entire marine ecosystems have been destroyed through the use of trawling, dredging, and other harmful processes. More than 50 percent of coastal 

mangroves are gone, and coral reefs have generally declined by 30 percent in 

the past 30 years.

In the United States, the 60 or so national parks that have some coastal 

jurisdiction are taking on increasing signifi cance in terms of their potential role 

in protecting and restoring exploited ocean life and damaged coastal ecosystems. With the declaration by President Ronald Reagan in 1983 of a 200-mile 

Exclusive Economic Zone extending seaward from the nation’s coastline, the 

area under U.S. jurisdiction increased by about 125 percent, with more territory underwater than above. Now, during the 21st century, there is a particular 

need for assessing the opportunities and responsibilities of the Park Service 

concerning this vast aquatic region of the country—to link onshore issues to 

the ocean, and visa versa; and to build an ocean ethic corresponding to the 

land ethic that has developed in our national parks and inspired the world with 

a sense of caring.
OCEAN RESOURCES

Foggy beach, Olympic National Park, Washington. The National 

Park Service is becoming an increasingly infl uential participant in the 

protection and restoration of marine park resources as it begins to 

assess the health of its coastal ecosystems and ocean life.

National parks ... are taking on increasing signifi cance 

in terms of their potential role in protecting and restoring 

exploited ocean life and damaged coastal ecosystems.
The Challenge represents a concerted eff ort by the Service to 

reconcile its budget priorities with its core mission to protect 

the integrity of the natural resources.

RESOURCE MONITORING

Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, Alaska. Aided by students from 

a nearby native village, staff of the national park and Southwest Alaska 

Network use a beach seine to sample resident lake fi sh. Resource 

monitoring is funded as part of the Natural Resource Challenge and is 

designed to track the condition of key park resources over time.
EVALUATING THE NATURAL 

RESOURCE CHALLENGE

Background

THE NATURAL RESOURCE CHALLENGE began in 1999 as a multiyear program created by Congress at the urgent request of the National 

Park Service to improve management and protection of natural resources in 

the National Park System. Prior to the Challenge, Park Service investments in 

natural resource management were insignifi cant compared to those in other 

key functional areas. Presently, the Challenge represents a concerted eff ort by 

the Service to reconcile its budget priorities with its core mission to protect the 

integrity of the natural resources. In addition to increasing the Park Service’s 

natural resource budget from about $100 million per year to $200 million per 

year, the Challenge includes a range of technical natural resource management 

strategies to not only provide improved science for parks, but also to establish 

the concept of “parks for science.” This concept relies heavily on partnerships that operate according to the principle that the long-term preservation 

of national parks will be dependent upon the eff orts of many partners—with 

academe, private enterprise, and the general public—to provide not only a 

clear science- based understanding of what the long-term protection of parks 

requires, but also an active dialogue regarding decisions that can be made locally to build a supportive regional context for parks.

In August 2001, with the Natural Resource Challenge underway, the Nation

al Park System Advisory Board issued a broadly comprehensive report, Rethinking the National Parks for the 21st Century, which focused on the overall 

purposes and prospects for the park system for the next 25 years. The thrust 

and recommendations of this report fully support the goals and core purposes 

of the Natural Resource Challenge. The Science Committee urges that the 

Advisory Board report and the present Science Committee report be used to 

guide the science, natural resource protection, and public enjoyment goals of 

the National Park System over the next quarter century.

Specifi c goals of the Natural Resource Challenge are:

1. To increase inventorying and monitoring capability aimed at assessing broa

categories of natural resources and the programs needed to protect them 

unimpaired for future generations.
10

2. To provide increased support to programs and projects designed to maintain and restore park natural resources, including action to recover endangered species and eliminate exotic species.

3. To improve awareness of parks as “natural laboratories” for use by scientists, especially for taxonomic and ecological research.

4. To ensure that park visitors, residents of communities adjacent to parks, 

and the general public are connected to the parks through up-to-date and 

hands-on science education about the results of research activities conducted within the parks.

5. To undertake outreach to partners in universities, federal and state agencies, local science education organizations, and other entities to gain their 

cooperation in successfully implementing the Natural Resource Challenge.

Evaluation

Our review found that the Natural Resource Challenge, fi rst funded in Fiscal Year 2000 and augmented by funding increments over the next three years, 

has now achieved more than 65 percent of its goal of doubling Service funding 

of natural resource preservation activities. To date, funding has been allocated 

to all components of the Challenge (see appendix), although it has been allocated in unequal amounts according to needs and priorities. The Challenge relies on internal competition to stimulate creativity; peer- reviewed work-plans 

to encourage effi ciency, eff ectiveness, and the application of best practices; and 

rigorous reporting, including an annual report to Congress, to ensure measurable accountability and public awareness.

The Natural Resource Challenge is based in the statutory mission of the 

National Park Service, and is targeted at reducing known shortcomings in past 

levels of National Park Service support for using science as a management tool. 

The Challenge’s emphasis on inventorying and monitoring directly responds 

to information gaps identifi ed in both the park-specifi c 1980 National Park 

Service “Threats Report,” and the broader, nationally focused 2002 Heinz 

Center Report, “The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems—Measuring the Lands, 

Waters and Living Resources of the United States.” The Challenge’s support 

of restoration programs addresses a large, known backlog of natural resource 

management needs that had not previously been receiving management action.

The Natural Resource Challenge’s emphasis on partnerships—whether 

for the hands-on management of exotic plants, collection of inventory and 
RESTORING PARK ECOSYSTEMS

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Wisconsin. Resource managers 

monitor the recovery of the Oak Island sandscape following 

restoration of 15 native plant species to the site.

The Challenge’s support of restoration programs addresses a large, 

known backlog of natural resource management needs that had not 

previously been receiving management action.
12

GLOWWORM (PHENGODES SP.), DOCUMENTED AS 

PART OF THE ALL TAXA BIODIVERSITY INVENTORY AT 

GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, NORTH 

CAROLINA AND TENNESSEE. APPROXIMATE LENGTH 

0.8 INCH (2 CM).

monitoring information, or translation of scientifi c fi ndings through cooperative science education programs at Research Learning Centers, maximizes the 

impact of each federal dollar. The Challenge relies upon incremental growth 

in funding, on competition to stimulate creativity and focus, on tracking of 

funds to ensure accountability, and on reporting of results—all of which work 

together to form a science-based strategy that is working to improve the condition and interpretation of park natural resources.

Through the Natural Resource Challenge, and in accordance with the National Park Service Strategic Plan, the Service has laudably undertaken to hold 

itself accountable to the American citizenry for the condition of the parks’ 

natural resources and for greater understanding and enjoyment of these resources. The sea change that has been initiated must be completed by consolidating and extending the benefi ts of the initial gains of the Challenge, based 

on a commitment to the Park Service’s Strategic Plan and the accountability 

built into the Challenge. (See appendix for a detailed summary of the Natural 

Resource Challenge.)

The Committee recommends that the impact and momentum of the Challenge be continued and expanded by engaging the National Park System Advisory Board Science Committee in ongoing peer review of the National Park 

Service’s progress in developing increasingly eff ective, science-based natural 

resource management programs. World-renowned scientists deeply interested 

in the proper care of the National Park System will be eager to promote the 

concepts embodied in the Natural Resource Challenge and advise on building 

institutional capacity.

The National Parks Science Committee commends the Park Service, the administration, and the Congress for steadfastly supporting the Natural Resource 

Challenge.
ENGAGING CITIZENS IN PARK STEWARDSHIP

Harvard biologist and National Parks Science Committee member 

Edward O. Wilson and students from Odyssey High School kick off 

a multiyear project designed to gain a thorough understanding of 

the biodiversity—particularly invertebrates—of Boston Harbor Islands 

National Recreation Area in Massachusetts.

World-renowned scientists deeply interested in the proper 

care of the National Park System will be eager to promote 

the concepts embodied in the Natural Resource Challenge....
Isolated protected areas—including large and small national 

parks—do not provide adequate habitat essential for the 

genetic and ecological survival of many species.

HYBRIDIZATION AND NATIVE SPECIES

One of many challenges for natural resource managers this century 

is the preservation of genetically pure native species. At Voyageurs 

National Park in Minnesota, for example, a nonnative cattail species 

has hybridized with a native one, threatening to disrupt many 

ecosystem services traditionally associated with freshwater wetlands.
1

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SCIENCE

THE AREAS PROTECTED IN THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM are critical to the preservation of diminishing local, national, and world biodiversity. The Science Committee emphasizes that the National Park Service 

must continue to embrace the conservation of biodiversity as a core purpose, 

as the Advisory Board’s 2001 report recommended. And it must continue to 

strengthen signifi cantly the biodiversity focus of park management, as well as 

gain the cooperation of other land managers at the landscape level, and furthe

improve science education for the American public.

The Science Committee off ers the following recommendations for implementing these overarching goals:

(A) National parks should be part of a national system of protected areas

all of which are connected to form a network of biological linkages 

throughout North America.

Preventing loss of species from national parks over time depends on 

functional ecological connectivity among habitats. Isolated protected areas—

including large and small national parks—do not provide adequate habitat 

essential for the genetic and ecological survival of many species. The Science 

Committee commends the National Park Service for its advocacy of a “seamless system of parks, historic places and open spaces”—a nationwide network 

of park lands and protected areas. In promoting this idea, the National Park 

Service lends its infl uence to an emerging collaboration of visionary partners—organizations seeking to create biological linkages across our country.

The National Park Service, working with state, local, and private entities, 

should:

1. Evaluate the broad range of North American terrestrial, freshwater, and 

marine ecosystems, and the extent to which the National Park System repre

sents each component of these ecosystems.

2. Examine how parks are parts of ecosystems, and how biological linkages 

will help achieve sustainable ecosystems and communities, including assess
PLACE-BASED EDUCATION

Olympic National Park, Washington. Park visitors expand their 

knowledge of tide pool ecology with the help of an interpretive park 

ranger. Educational opportunities strengthen the bonds between 

people and their national parks and raise awareness about biodiversity 

conservation.

Visitors who interact with nature in a park setting are 

unlikely to forget the experience.
1

ments of stresses on park resources from rapidly changing global, regional, 

and local landscapes.

3. Identify how greenways, trails, riverways, and other publicly designated 

recreation corridors can be utilized and/or enhanced to contribute to maintaining biological linkages.

4. Demonstrate the best management practices and cooperative adaptive man

agement models, and publicize case studies and successes.

5. Emphasize, throughout, how biological connectivity links people intellectu

ally, emotionally, and physically to their landscapes.

(B) The National Park Service should expand its involvement in the protection of freshwater and marine systems related to units of the Nationa

Park System.

Aquatic and marine plants and animals must be recognized as wildlife that 

has status equal to that of terrestrial wildlife. The National Park Service is 

responsible for ensuring that biodiversity is protected within park waters. In 

accordance with that responsibility, the Service should be a proactive player in 

a national dialogue to develop a strategy for marine resource protection and 

restoration that is based on the interconnection between terrestrial, freshwate

and marine systems, and that involves partnerships with other freshwater- and 

marine-system professionals.

In this regard, the National Park Service should:

1. Encourage the interagency development of national standards for how marine resources can be managed sustainably, including through the expansio

of the system of marine protected area designations and the implementatio

of ecologically sound practices regarding fi sh and other wildlife.

2. Recognize the interconnectedness of freshwater and marine resources, and 

give high priority to protecting the biodiversity of streams, ponds, rivers, 

lakes, and wetlands within units of the National Park System, and within the 

watersheds both upstream and downstream from those units.

3. Ensure that all national standards for sustainable marine resource management are met in parks.
18

(C) The National Park Service should serve as both educator and advocate, 

using scientifi c and traditional knowledge as the foundation for managing natural and cultural resources.

National parks are exceptional places in which to learn how to make our 

natural ecosystems more sustainable in their interactions with surrounding human communities. In particular, it is critical that we integrate empirical science 

with local ecological knowledge to safeguard natural and cultural landscapes in 

the national parks and national monuments. Visitors who interact with nature 

in a park setting are unlikely to forget the experience. As stewards of the parks, 

the National Park Service has a unique opportunity to improve the scientifi c 

literacy of the citizens of this nation and help foster a national stewardship 

ethic.

To respond to this opportunity, the National Park Service should:

1. Integrate the perspectives of cultural and natural scientists, in collaboration 

with traditional elders and leaders from surrounding ethnic communities, in 

the restoration or protection of natural and cultural landscapes.

2. Inform visitors and other park partners about the status and trends of park 

biodiversity, and encourage them to learn about, and take pride in, park 

biodiversity and the actions needed to preserve it for future generations.

3. Develop core messages and methodology for place-based education that 

connects the public to their roles in protecting local, regional, and global 

biodiversity, as well as their linkages in terrestrial, freshwater, and marine 

ecosystems.

4. Work with science teachers at all educational levels, both on site and off site. 

Bring science teachers into the parks to work as seasonal employees and 

thereby acquire new knowledge to present in their classrooms.

5. Ensure that National Park Service messages address and are available to all 

levels of educational interest, including the continuing education of diverse 

audiences and new citizens.

6. Improve the scientifi c knowledge of interpreters, including both National 

Park Service and non-Service personnel working in, or with, national parks.

7. Deliver educational information to the public by means of regular media 

exposure, including, for instance, the web, television, print, broadcast, journalism, interactive multimedia, and video games.
It is critical that we integrate empirical science with local 

ecological knowledge to safeguard natural and cultural 

landscapes in the national parks and national monuments.

HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT

Oak woodlands and prairies of Redwood National and State Parks, 

California, are managed as natural components of a cultural 

landscape. Prescribed burning approximates natural sources of ignitio

and cultural use of fi re, maintaining these park areas. Large tanoaks, 

tended and used as sources of acorns by ancestors of present-day 

Yurok, are protected from fi re.
20

8. Create links with individuals and institutions involved in science education, 

such as aquariums, zoos, and botanical gardens, and other science groups 

and foundations, in order to work with them to improve science education, 

taking advantage of contemporary educational techniques.

9. Determine ways to measure educational success, and use these fi ndings to 

initiate and expand successful strategies.

(D) Ensure institutional capacity.

To achieve its mission, the National Park Service must enhance its existing infrastructure. Through the Natural Resource Challenge, the Service is 

increasing its highly trained personnel, and the funding for needed programs; 

creating necessary laboratory space and residential space; and enhancing its 

capabilities for carrying on essential inventorying, monitoring, fi eld research, 

adaptive management, and science education. More needs to be done.

It is also critical that the National Park Service manage its own science program, including research funding and priority setting.

An adequate National Park Service science program must have three components: First, the Natural Resource Challenge provides the tools for basic 

data collection, retrieval, and storage. Second, the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) and academic researchers provide individual scientifi c studies of national park resources and issues, through the stimulus of the Natural Resource 

Challenge program “parks for science” emphasis. The third component making up a systems ecology program—one that provides the tools for long-term 

institutional memory—is currently missing. In regard to this missing component, in order to identify and eff ectively address scientifi c knowledge gaps in 

the parks, it is extremely important that the National Park Service establish 

and manage its own cadre of science synthesizers. This program needs to be 

supported by research funds that ensure scientifi c responsiveness to park 

management priorities, competition, fl exibility, and cost containment. The 

Park Service science capability should include what no partner can provide: an 

institutional memory that arises from career National Park Service scientists 

working in parks over many years. To achieve this capability, the Service must 

recruit systems ecologists and other science synthesizers. Over the long term, 

these personnel will develop a deep, cumulative, and usable corporate memory 

that will provide the breadth and depth of knowledge necessary to inform park 

management about preserving the integrity of the national parks in perpetuity.
The Park Service science capability should include what no 

partner can provide: an institutional memory that arises 

from career National Park Service scientists working in 

parks over many years.

INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY

The National Park Service needs to expand its staff of career scientists 

who have a deep and broad understanding of systems ecology. These 

science synthesizers are necessary to develop and pass on usable 

scientifi c knowledge, gathered through decades of park-based work, 

for the effective management of the national parks.

Career scientist Gary Davis (retired). Marine biologist, Channel Islands National Park 

1980–2007; National Park Service employee 1964–2007.
22

In regard to these components, the National Park Service should:

1. Establish a resident agency capacity to manage, conduct, and synthesize 

research, as well as to maximize connections with professional and partner 

organizations.

2. Provide national park managers with enough training in science to understand and fully commit to the role of science in resource management and 

park operations.

3. Ensure that National Park Service training includes opportunities for 

advanced, continuing education in scientifi c natural resource management 

and related fi elds, as a means of maintaining professionally up-to-date staff . 

Similarly, increase support for off ering in-park sabbaticals to researchers 

from academic and professional organizations.

4. Restructure career paths to allow resource professionals to stay in one location, gain on-site expertise, and develop local working relationships without 

losing opportunities for professional advancement.

5. Develop a data and information management system, so that each park has 

a system for making decisions; and also develop a collections management 

system to ensure preservation for, and access to, natural resource data specimens.

6. Engage Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU) scientists in developing and providing continuing education seminars focused on conservation 

science for NPS leadership; in regularly briefi ng park superintendents and 

resource managers on emerging natural and cultural resource issues; and in 

identifying the best science available to resolve these issues.

(E) Tell America’s story as one of diverse cultures interacting with and 

depending upon the natural world.

All parks should be interpreted in terms of both their natural and cultural 

values, including their values to all Americans. Park management should refl ect 

a dynamic understanding of the signifi cance of each landscape as a culturally 

formed mosaic of habitat, historically shaped by changing natural processes 

and human action.
2

The National Park Service should:

1. Determine the prehistoric and historic interactions between resident huma

cultures and the plants, animals, water, and land upon which they depended, and ensure that the signifi cance of these phenomena is closely considered before management actions are taken in any unit of the National Park 

System.

2. Understand how the cultural history of human interactions with the natura

resources upon which they depended has changed through time, especially 

with respect to impacts on biodiversity.

3. Where warranted and possible, apply scientifi c and scholarly study to 

learning how to restore landscapes associated with architectural features to 

refl ect the natural, cultivated, or agricultural historic scene that gives those 

features their contextual signifi cance.

4. Investigate whether the traditional harvesting of foods, medicines, and ceremonial biological items was sustainable over many human generations, and 

assess the potential today for parks to provide opportunities for small-scale 

uses of traditional activities to help local ethnic groups maintain their ethni

values and to interpret how such uses can be sustainable.

(F) Encourage the creation of an integrated national database on America’s natural heritage.

Park inventorying, monitoring, and applied research activities regularly 

generate scientifi c information about parks. This information not only directly 

benefi ts park managers and park visitors, but it also contributes signifi cantly to 

a better public understanding of the state of the nation’s environmental health

Currently, information about all of the natural heritage of our country is being 

assembled separately by a wide array of public and private agencies—but it is 

highly fragmented. There is a need to integrate this information through systems that ensure the data is accessible and inter-operable.

The National Park Service should:

1. Work with a “virtual consortium” of academe, professional societies, the 

private sector, and other federal, state, and local agencies, to develop and 

maintain an “Electronic Encyclopedia of America’s Natural History.”
24

SPREAD-WINGED DAMSELFLY (ABOVE, FAMILY 

LESTIDAE) AND ADULT MALE DOBSONFLY (RIGHT, 

CORYDALUS CORNUTUS, APPROXIMATE LENGTH 

3 INCHES [7.5 CM]), DOCUMENTED AS PART OF 

THE ALL TAXA BIODIVERSITY INVENTORY AT GREAT 

SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, NORTH 

CAROLINA AND TENNESSEE.

2. Continue large-scale all-species inventories like those currently underway at 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

3. Develop park inventorying and monitoring programs in ways that add information to the evolving database, refl ect the status of parks, and increase 

awareness in park visitors and the American public of the connections 

between parks and all natural resources and systems in the nation.

4. Strengthen support for the National Natural Landmarks Program, which 

facilitates voluntary private landowner participation in the preservation of 

scientifi cally valuable and unique sites in the United States. The National 

Park Service should request that the National Park System Advisory Board 

immediately resume its role in reviewing new nominations and recommending deletions and boundary changes when proposed.
2

SUMMARY

OVER THE NEARLY 90 YEARS SINCE ITS FOUNDING IN 1916, the National Park Service has been widely recognized for its success in providing an unparalleled level of visitor services and experiences to citizens of 

the United States and visitors from around the world. In contrast, Park Service 

development of the science capability necessary to fulfi ll its natural resource 

preservation mandate has been slow and erratic, at best. However, the Natural Resource Challenge, urgently promoted by the Service to a supportive 

Congress and Executive Offi ce, represents a historic change in the Service’s 

thinking about its natural resource responsibilities. The Challenge has brought 

remarkable progress in developing the necessary scientifi c capacity to inform 

national park decision making. The National Park Service must maintain—and 

build upon—this momentum.

In recent years, many people have expressed the opinion that national parks 

are “being loved to death”— that is, that public visitation has become so great as 

to damage park resources. The Science Committee does not believe this. While 

impacts upon resources from visitors do occur, they can be mitigated through 

better planning—and especially through the application of scientifi c information 

to planning and overall park management. The Committee believes it is essentia

to the preservation of the national park idea for the public to discover and visit 

the national parks, and it recognizes that public enjoyment and ecological preservation of the parks are not mutually exclusive. At the same time, it believes tha

it is critical that the National Park Service raise to a new level its commitment to 

the fundamental purpose of preserving the parks unimpaired for all time.

The Science Committee believes that, given the high public regard for the 

national parks and the National Park Service, there is great potential for the 

organization to play a signifi cant leadership role in the 21st century, thereby 

advancing the preservation of natural heritage in the United States—and 

perhaps throughout the world. But to assert the infl uence that it can, and to 

become the world leader that it must be, the Park Service must continue to develop a robust, professional scientifi c natural resource management program. 

The Committee fi nds that it is absolutely essential for scientifi c knowledge to 

form the foundation for any meaningful eff ort to preserve ecological resources 

in the National Park System. In pursuing this course, the Park Service will add 

immeasurably to America’s collective scientifi c knowledge; ensure that the 

parks serve ever more signifi cantly as national observatories for the long- term 

study of ecology and biodiversity; and further enhance the value and benefi ts 

of parks for the American people.
The Challenge has brought remarkable he Challenge has brought remarkable 

progress in developing the necessary rogress in developing the necessary 

scientifi cientific capacity to inform national c capacity to inform national 

park decision making. The National ark decision making. The National 

Park Service must maintain—and ark Service must maintain—and 

build upon—this momentum. uild upon—this momentum.

Appalachian National Scenic Trail, New Hampshire.
2

Science for Parks

APPENDIX

Contribution of Natural Resource 

Challenge Components to “Science 

for Parks” and “Parks for Science”

Increase Park Base Funds

Increases park budgets to expand their capabilities for applying 

scientifi c solutions to managing park natural resources.

Create Biological Resource Management Division

Restores an NPS capability for providing parks with technical 

management support in biology that augments park staff skills, 

by providing services of scientifi c specialties not found in parks. 

Specialties provided by this new, 12-person division include threat

ened and endangered species recovery; exotic species removal; 

integrated pest management; large wild animal live capture and 

tracking; veterinary services for wild animals; ecosystem restoration, including restoration of natural fi re regimes; and migratory 

bird conservation.

Increase Project Funding Available to Parks for Solving Specifi c 

Natural Resource Problems

Improves opportunities for parks to secure one-time, projectspecifi c funding to fi ll high-budget, non- recurring natural resourc

preservation needs.

Create Exotic-Plant Management Teams

Funds 16 teams of NPS and/or partner technical specialists to 

manage exotic plant infestations in parks, under the direction of 

the Biological Resource Management Division, and in consultation 

with superintendent committees. Each team is assigned a group of 

parks to support, and each team maintains the capability for fi nding exotic plants, and removing them, and restoring native vegetation to treated areas.

Increase Funding for Inventorying and Monitoring

Funds networks of parks in conducting GIS-based inventories 

of 12 categories of natural resources and long-term monitoring of 
28

Parks for Science

selected indicator natural resources. Develops park conceptual 

ecosystem models and inventorying and monitoring protocols to 

guide park activities. Assigns three or more scientists to each network to provide inventorying, monitoring, and data management 

specialists to guide the network program. Seventeen networks supporting 153 parks have been funded out of a total of 32 networks 

supporting approximately 270 parks.

Establish NPS Partnership in Cooperative Ecosystem Studies 

Units (CESUs)

The NPS actively participates in interagency eff orts to develop 

a 17-unit network of cooperative partnerships among federal and 

state agencies, universities, tribal governments, and non-governmental organizations, to jointly support and conduct scientifi c and 

scholarly research, technical assistance, and educational activities 

in physical, biological, social, and cultural resource sciences. Funds 

support one NPS position duty-stationed at the host university in 

each of 12 CESUs out of a planned total of 17 NPS positions for 

the 17 CESUs.

Continue Canon USA, Inc., Support to Parks

Continue the partnership with Canon USA, Inc., to fund the 

Canon National Parks Science Scholars for the Americas Program in support of doctoral research throughout the Western 

Hemisphere. Today’s Canon National Parks Science Scholars for 

the Americas Program is a collaboration among Canon U.S.A., 

Inc; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; 

and the National Park Service, which is structured to award eight 

dissertation research scholarships to Ph.D. students throughout 

the Americas for conducting research critical to conserving the national parks of the region. Research projects may be in the biological, physical, social, and cultural sciences, as well as in technology 

innovation in support of conservation science.

Create Research Learning Centers

Creates the capability for attracting researchers to work in park 

networks by providing for lodging, laboratory space, logistics support, and other needs. Creates the capability for helping visitors 

and residents of adjacent communities to learn what the researchers are fi nding out about park resources, by providing lecture 
2

rooms, teaching laboratory space, and direct access to researchers 

and research reports. NPS funds two positions for each learning 

center, one to provide science liaison, and the other to provide 

science education outreach. Partners provide funds and personnel 

to work alongside NPS personnel. NPS and/or partners provide, 

where necessary remodel, and equip existing facilities to serve the 

lodging, laboratory, and teaching needs of the centers. Thirteen 

learning centers have been funded and established, and another 19 

have been identifi ed as candidates for establishment.

Provide Research Permit and Reporting System

Invites researchers to work in parks by providing them with an 

Internet-based, automated mechanism to apply to parks for Scientifi c Research and Collecting Permits and to submit their required 

Investigator’s Annual Reports; shares the resulting scientifi c information by providing other researchers and the public with access 

to multi-year database of Investigator’s Annual Reports submitted 

in past years.

Establish Sabbatical-in-the-Parks Program

Creates an Internet-based capability for attracting university 

professors who are conducting sabbatical scholarly activities to 

work in, and match them with, parks that are interested in providing support as a means of enabling the specialists to work on topic

of benefi t to the parks. Develops a process enabling university 

professors and parks to enter into agreements related to how each 

will benefi t the other as part of the sabbatical in the parks partnership. More than 10 professors have submitted formal proposals for 

a partnership.

Facilitate Mellon Fellowships

A Mellon Foundation grant funds a partnership involving the 

Ecological Research Fellowship Program. This program provides 

1- to 3-year post-doctoral fellowships to support research in any 

area of ecology related to the plant dynamics of national parks. Th

program awarded fi ve fellowships in its fi rst 2 years of existence.
Century plant (Agave havardiana), Big Bend National Park, Texas.
Suggested Citation

National Parks Science Committee. 2009. National Park Service 

science in the 21st century. Second edition. Report D-1589A. 

National Park Service, Lakewood, Colorado, USA.

Illustrations/Credits

Cover NPS/Jennifer Gibson; ii (verso half title page) NPS; iv (verso title 

page) Copyright Martin Hutten; vi Copyright Jeff Selleck; viii NPS/

Jeff Selleck; 2 NPS; 4 Copyright Jeff Selleck; 7 NPS/Gary Davis; 8 NPS/

Alan J. Bennett; 11 NPS/Julie Van Stappen; 12 NPS/Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park (2); 13 NPS/Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation 

Area; 14 NPS/Joy Marburger; 16 NPS/Gary Davis; 19 NPS; 21 Courtesy 

of Dorothy Davis; 24 NPS/Great Smoky Mountains National Park (2) 26 Tim 

Cummings, courtesy of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy 30 Copyright 

Jeff Selleck; Back Cover (Kenai Fjords National Park, Alaska) NPS/

Gary Davis; Second edition layout and captions Jeff Selleck, Natural 

Resource Program Center, Offi ce of Education and Outreach.
c/o Offi ce of Policy

National Park Service

1849 C St., NW

RM 7252 

Washington, DC 20240

www.nature.nps.gov/ScienceResearch/

ScienceCommitteeReport2ndEdition.pdf

The National Park Service cares for special places saved by 

the American people so that all may experience our heritage.

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICATM

National Park System Advisory Board

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Parks Science Committee