1. How the National Park Service, “the most decentralized agency in the U.S. government”, Successfully Designed and Implemented a Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring Program in >270 Parks Key I&M Lessons Learned

2. Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring Steve Fancy – National I&M Program Leader Margaret Beer – National I&M Data Manager Lisa Thomas – Program Manager, Southern Colorado Plateau I&M Network Bruce Bingham – Regional I&M Program Manager, Intermountain Region Mike Debacker – Program Manager, Heartland I&M Network 32 I&M Networks Key Lessons Learned to Date

3. How the National Park Service, “the most decentralized agency in the U.S. government”, Successfully Designed and Implemented a Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring Program in >270 Parks Key I&M Lessons Learned

4. In the Year 1 B.C… (Before Challenge) = 1999 1/3 of the NR parks had zero natural resource professionals. Almost all projects/studies were short-term. Staff mostly deals with “crisis of the day”. Management decisions mostly based on best professional judgement by park managers; scientific data and products difficult to find and use. Emphasis on data collection, with little analysis and reporting of results. No TimeNo Money No Clue

5. Revitalize and expand the natural resource program within the park service and improve park management through greater reliance on scientific information National Park Service Natural Resource Challenge

6. 2,360 (85%) of the 12 basic inventory datasets have been delivered All 270 I&M Parks (100%) have now identified their vital signs 264 Parks (98%) have approved, peer-reviewed monitoring plans and have implemented natural resource monitoring; 100% by Sept. 2009.

7. NPS is recognized internationally as a leader in inventory & monitoring “State of the Art” - Influencing science & conservation well beyond NPS Strong support and participation by superintendents, NLC Productivity/Success of I&M Networks has exceeded expectations

8. “The Service will also strive to ensure that park resources and values are passed on to future generations in a condition that is as good as, or better than, the conditions that exist today.” – NPS Management Policies Condition-based Management Need to know the status & trend in condition for key resources in each park Use information about resource condition for management decision-making, planning, interpretation, & other management activities

9. 1.Establish natural resource inventory and monitoring as a standard practice throughout the National Park system that transcends traditional program, activity, and funding boundaries. 2.Inventory the natural resources... 3.Monitor park ecosystems... 4.Integrate natural resource inventory and monitoring information into NPS planning, management, and decision making. 5.Share NPS accomplishments and information with other natural resource organizations and form partnerships for attaining common goals and objectives. I&M Program Goals

10. Economics 101 Funding level (after 15 years of trying) would allow each park on average to hire one professional position to do all monitoring, data management, analysis, and reporting. Funding for smaller parks wouldn’t even support a GS-5. Without integration and cost-sharing, parks could only monitor a few things; too few to adequately track condition of resources; Park buy-in and cost-leveraging through partnerships are critical; must be relevant to park managers and flexible to allow integration and partnerships; Establish 32 “I&M networks” that share funding and staffing among parks to gain efficiencies and consistency. Conclusions/Strategy:

11. I&M Network Concept The 32 park networks are large enough for efficiencies through sharing staff & funding Networks are small and local enough to respond to park-level issues and data needs and allow for local cost-leveraging opportunities

12. The I&M Program Park Management Informed by Scientific Information Routinely collect, manage, analyze, and report data on the condition or “health” of parks based on a modest set of natural resources. Provide some local scientific expertise to all 270+ parks through the use of shared positions. Promote integration and cost-sharing across programs and disciplines through a flexible but coordinated approach. Make data and information more available and useful by promoting good data management/analysis/reporting practices. Strategic, long-term program designed to: Primary Audience: Park Managers and Planners at the local, park level

13. Using shared staff and funding to facilitate core inventories and do long-term monitoring of a modest set of vital signs: 1.Determine status and trends in the condition of a few key natural resources for each park, and 2. Effectively deliver information to park managers, planners, interpreters, scientists, and other key audiences. Core Duties of I&M Network Staff:

14. 3-Year Start-up Reviews Start-up review for each network held 3 years after monitoring plan accepted and implemented. Bring park managers and scientists together to discuss their initial progress. Asks the basic question, “Is the network set up to succeed?” 3 years is long enough to appreciate realities of implementing the monitoring, but short enough to make adjustments if needed before too much is invested. 14 Networks ( n = 131 parks) reviewed so far

15. 3-Year Start-up Reviews 2-3 day review meeting typically 20-40 people: park superintendents, NR chiefs, network staff, collaborators, interpreters, regional staff Online survey sent out prior to review meeting to get feedback on how the network is doing. Comments are anonymous.

16. Is the network off to a good start? Are you confident that the network will deliver relevant, useful data and information that will help us understand and manage the natural resources of parks in our network"? Percent of Responses Network Mean = 89% Survey taken prior to Review Meeting:

17. “Good data management, analysis, and reporting procedures seem to be in place, and I am confident that the network will deliver relevant, useful information to key audiences in a format they can use” Percent of Responses Network Mean = 82%

18. Overall Evaluation Network approach is working Park superintendents & resource chiefs very supportive Common comment: “Good progress on inventories; my park is already using the products; but still too early for monitoring results” (wait and see) The few negative comments from park managers were mostly “not enough money for my park” (e.g., prototype parks vs. others) Additional partnerships and cost-leveraging have resulted from some of the reviews Good support for strong accountability measures Recent comment from a park superintendent: “Ten years ago when this idea was in it's infancy I was somewhat skeptical of a WASO stovepiped NR program. Now that I am seeing the results and products I can tell you that the systematic approach, rigor and sideboards required by WASO are paying huge dividends for the parks and the NPS.”

19. Factors key to the success of the I&M networks: 1.Flexible, but well-coordinated approach to leverage funding and staffing with other programs and agencies. 2.Large, up-front investment in planning and design, with explicit link to park management and planning. 3.Early establishment of minimum standards for program design, protocols, peer review, data management. 4.Strong accountability: to the parks through Board of Directors and Technical Committee, and to Congress and the taxpayers through network, regional, and national program managers.

20. Factors key to the success of the I&M networks: I&M is not a stand-alone program. The network strategy allows parks to include and augment long-term monitoring that was already being done by parks, other NPS programs, and other agencies; Parks were able to identify their highest priorities for monitoring (as opposed to a top-down, “one size fits all” approach), which allowed them to take advantage of local partnership opportunities; Funding and staffing are closely intertwined between parks and networks for most networks; Parks enlisted subject-matter experts from more than 150 universities, plus USGS and other agencies to design a scientifically credible monitoring program based on the best available information. Lots of sharing and learning among networks 1.Flexible, but well-coordinated approach to leverage funding and staffing with other programs and agencies.

21. Began by asking park managers and planners what they needed and how best to deliver the information to them; Superintendents and park NR Chiefs are engaged through the network’s Board of Directors and Technical Committee; I&M data and expertise are a key data source for Natural Resource Condition Assessments, Resource Stewardship Strategies, and reporting to performance goals. 2.Large, up-front investment in planning and design, with explicit link to park management and planning. Factors key to the success of the I&M networks:

22. The Burning Question Who will use the monitoring results and what will they do with them? Who are the intended audiences and what is the most effective way to get the information to them?

23. STRESSORS: Identify Key Agents of Change STRESSORS: Identify Key Agents of Change FOCAL RESOURCES: Identify Key Resources of Interest FOCAL RESOURCES: Identify Key Resources of Interest SYSTEM HEALTH: Identify Key Properties & Processes SYSTEM HEALTH: Identify Key Properties & Processes Predict Stress/Response Relationships Scoping Conceptual Modeling Integration Predict Linkages among Components and Processes List Potential Vital Signs Establish Priorities Select Vital Signs

24. Steps for Designing Long-term Monitoring Programs for 32 Ecoregional I&M Networks Clearly Define Goals and Objectives Compile and Summarize Existing Information Develop Conceptual Models Prioritize and Select Indicators Develop an Overall Sampling Design Develop Monitoring Protocols Establish Data Management, Analysis, and Reporting Procedures

25. Factors key to the success of the I&M networks: 3.Early establishment of minimum standards for program design, protocols, peer review, data management. Guidance and “best practices” examples developed and distributed among networks. Lots of sharing and learning from each other. Continual improvement of guidance and examples. Goals and Objectives guidance and examples Monitoring plan guidance and checklist Oakley et al. (1993) protocol standards Peer review policy – appropriate level of review for products Data management planning guidance and examples; 1/3 rule NRR and NRTR report series – updated guidance and process

26. Ecosystems… just the sound of it, gives me the willies. “Who is going to make sure that the protocols used and analyses completed are scientifically sound, and that the monitoring is practical for on the ground use and interpretation?”

27. What is a Monitoring Protocol and Why do we Need Them? “Monitoring protocols are detailed study plans that explain how data are to be collected, managed, analyzed, and reported, and are a key component of quality assurance for natural resource monitoring programs” (Oakley et al. 2003) Designing a long-term monitoring program is like getting a tattoo: you need to really think about what you want, because making major changes later will be messy and painful.

28. Why are Protocols Especially Important for Long-term Monitoring? Long-term monitoring; Different people will be doing the monitoring; changeover in personnel is expected. Experts that design the protocol and plans for analysis will retire or go away. Necessary to share/compare approach and results among different agencies and among sites. We need to be certain that changes detected by monitoring actually are occurring in nature and not simply a result of measurements being taken by different people or in slightly different ways

29. Factors key to the success of the I&M networks: 4.Strong accountability: to the parks through Board of Directors and Technical Committee, and to Congress and the taxpayers through network, regional, and national program managers. Annual Administrative Report and Work Plan – parks were able to see how their (shared) staff and $$ were being used. Important for building trust and demonstrating accountability. Board of Directors Network Technical Committee Strong leadership and close coordination among regional and national program managers

30. The vital signs monitoring networks are designing a system for scientific data collection, analysis, and reporting that is unprecedented in the history of the National Park Service” “The vital signs monitoring networks are designing a system for scientific data collection, analysis, and reporting that is unprecedented in the history of the National Park Service”