Monitoring Planning & Design: The 3-Phase Approach

The recommended sequence of steps involved in designing an integrated monitoring program for a network is described in the Recommended Approach for Developing a Network Monitoring Program. These steps are incorporated into a 3-phase planning and design process that has been established for the monitoring program.  Phase 1 of the process involves defining goals and objectives; beginning the process of identifying, evaluating and synthesizing existing data; developing draft conceptual models; and completing other background work that must be done before the initial selection of vital signs.  Each network is required to document these tasks in a Phase 1 report, which is then peer reviewed and approved at the regional level before the network proceeds to the next phase.  (The Phase 1 report is a first draft of the chapters of the final monitoring plan that present the Introduction/Background and Conceptual Models).  Phase 2 of the planning and design effort involves prioritizing and selecting the vital signs that will be included in the network's initial integrated monitoring program.  Phase 3 entails the detailed design work needed to implement monitoring, such as developing specific monitoring objectives for each vital sign, developing sampling protocols and a statistical sampling design, developing a plan for data management and analysis, and determining the type and content of various products of the monitoring effort such as reports and websites.

During the development of the vision for park vital signs monitoring, it was clear that a "one size fits all" approach to monitoring design would not be effective in the NPS considering the tremendous variability among parks in ecological conditions, sizes, and management capabilities. A primary purpose of vital signs monitoring is to provide park managers with the data they need to understand and manage park resources, and the data most relevant to different types of park systems should be expected to be very different. Furthermore, partnerships with federal and state agencies and adjacent landowners are critical to effectively understand and manage the many resources and threats that extend beyond park boundaries, but these partnerships (and the appropriate ecological indicators and methodologies involved) differ for parks throughout the national park system.

The amount of funding available for vital signs monitoring allows most parks to monitor only a few indicators. The NPS has adopted a strategic approach to maximize the use and relevance of the monitoring data at the park level by allowing each network of parks to determine what they will monitor based on their most critical data needs and local partnership opportunities. Parks are encouraged to use or modify standard protocols and partner with existing programs wherever possible to allow comparability and synthesis of data, and the Servicewide monitoring program will coordinate the development of standardized protocols and approaches where appropriate, but decisions on what should be monitored and the most appropriate protocols to follow are made at the network level.

The list of ecological indicators monitored throughout the National Park System is expected to follow the "wedding cake design" adopted from the USDA Forest Service and shown below, in which the majority of indicators are selected to provide site-specific data need by park managers for making decisions and working with other agencies and individuals for the benefit of park resources. Nationwide, or at the level of the park network or ecosystem, there is also a set of indicators that are monitored in a standardized way to allow comparisons and synthesis of data across larger areas.


The complicated task of developing a network monitoring program requires an initial investment in planning and design to guarantee that monitoring meets the most critical information needs of each park and produces scientifically credible results that are clearly understood and accepted by scientists, policy makers, and the public, and that are readily accessible to managers and researchers.  These front-end investments also ensure that monitoring will build upon existing information and understanding of park ecosystems and make maximum use of leveraging and partnerships with other agencies and academia.

Each network of parks is required to design an integrated monitoring program that addresses the monitoring goals listed above and is tailored to the high-priority monitoring needs and partnership opportunities for the parks in that network.  Although there will be considerable variability among networks in the final design, the basic approach to designing a monitoring program should follow five basic steps, which are further discussed in the Recommended Approach for Developing a Network Monitoring Program :

• Define the purpose and scope of the monitoring program (establish goals and objectives);
• Compile and summarize existing data and understanding of park ecosystems;
• Develop conceptual models of relevant ecosystem components;
• Select indicators and specific monitoring objectives for each; and
• Determine the appropriate sampling design and sampling protocols.

Outline for a Monitoring Plan

Each network of parks that receives funding from the Natural Resource Program Center to develop a monitoring program is required to prepare a monitoring plan describing the monitoring program and the various tasks and decisions that contributed to the final selection of indicators to be monitored. The content of the network monitoring plans is described in the Outline for a Network Monitoring Plan. Authors of the monitoring plans should also use the Checklist for Monitoring Plans to help them prepare the monitoring plan.

Schedule: Network Due Dates for Phase 1, 2, 3

The due dates for each network to complete each phase of the monitoring planning and design work is presented in the following Schedule for Completing the 3-Phase Planning and Design Process.

Peer Review and Approval Process

The National Park Service is committed to promoting the conduct of high quality projects in national parks as part of the Inventory and Monitoring Program. An essential element of any science or research program is peer review. Peer review of proposals, study plans, monitoring plans, sampling protocols, publications, reports, and other products improves the quality of scientific research by incorporating the knowledge of other expert scientists and by ensuring that studies conducted can withstand the rigorous scrutiny of other scientists. The credibility of scientific research is enhanced by conveying to other scientists, policy-makers, managers, and the public the knowledge that the work conducted has met accepted standards of rigor and accountability. Effective peer review can help foster research that is fundamentally sound and that increases the broad acceptance of management decisions based on that science.

The National Park Service is in the process of developing Peer Review Guidelines that will apply Service-wide. In the meantime, given the importance of peer review in the development of monitoring programs, Draft peer review guidelines for the I&M Program have been developed.