Transcript Vital Signs Monitoring

Vital Signs Monitoring:
What is It?
Where are We?
and Where are we Going?
Steve Fancy
5th I&M “Meeting of the Networks”
San Diego, CA February 2006
National Park Service
Natural Resource Challenge
Revitalize and expand the natural resource program
within the park service and improve park management
through greater reliance on scientific knowledge
NATIONAL PARKS OMNIBUS MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1998
Title II – Section 204. Inventory and Monitoring Program
“The Secretary shall undertake a program of
inventory and monitoring of National Park System
resources to establish baseline information and to
provide information on the long-term trends in the
condition of National Park System resources…”
“The Secretary shall … assure the full and proper
utilization of the results of scientific studies for
park management decisions.”
I&M Program Goals
Establish natural resource inventory and
monitoring as a standard practice throughout
the National Park system that transcends
traditional program, activity, and funding
boundaries.
Inventory the natural resources ...
Monitor park ecosystems ...
Integrate natural resource inventory and
monitoring information into NPS planning,
management, and decision making.
Share NPS accomplishments and information
with other natural resource organizations and
form partnerships for attaining common goals
and objectives.
Overall Purpose of Vital Signs Monitoring:
Determine status and trends in the condition of
selected park resources
The intent of vital signs monitoring is to track a subset of
physical, chemical, and biological elements and processes of
park ecosystems that are selected to represent the overall
health or condition of park resources, known or hypothesized
effects of stressors, or elements with important human values.
Issues and Tasks involved in Managing the
Natural Resources of a Park
“Know, Protect, Restore, Connect”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inventory, Monitoring, Research studies
Invasive species (e.g., weeds, insect pests,
diseases)
Threatened & endangered species
Restoration
Planning – GMPs,Resource Stewardship Plans
Compliance – NEPA, Permits
Performance management – GPRA goals
Interpretation – connect with visitors
Maintenance (trails, mowing, vegetation control)
Law enforcement & visitor safety
Partnerships with other agencies
Acquire funding to make things happen
Deal with politics & people dynamics – local,
WASO, DOI, OMB
Park Management Informed by Scientific Information –
Integration with other Park Operations
Understand,
protect,
restore park
resources
• View monitoring as an
information system
• Integrate natural resource
information with other
park operations
• Make information more
useful and available for
managers at local level
• Make data available to
others for research,
education; modeling,
more sophistical analyses
>33% of resources dedicated to data
management, analysis, reporting
(Adapted from National Water Quality Monitoring Council)
3 Key Aspects of Vital Signs Monitoring:
• Long-term, ecological monitoring perspective
• Integration and coordination among parks,
programs and agencies
• Emphasis on Information Management
Vital Signs for Tonto National Monument
Level 1 Category
Air and Climate
Geology and Soils
Water
Biological Integrity
Human Use
Landscapes
Vital Sign:
Frequency
Atmospheric Deposition (NADP)
Monthly
Visibility and particulate matter (IMPROVE)
Monthly
Climate (9 parameters)
Daily
Stream Channel Morphology
Every 5 years
Biological Soil Crusts
Every 5 years
Soil Aggregate Stability
Every 5 years
Soil Compaction
Every 5 years
Soil Cover
Annually
Groundwater Depth
Annually
Core Water Quality Parameters
Annually
Nutrient Loading (N & P)
Annually
Invasive/Exotic Plants – Early Detection
Biennially
Invasive/Exotic Plants – Status and Trends
Every 5 Years
Plant Phenology
Annually
Vegetation Lifeform Abundance
Annually
Landbirds
Annually
Vegetation Structure and Composition
Every 5 years
Visitor Use
Monthly
Visitor Use Impacts
Every 5 years
Landscape Dynamics (Land Use & Cover)
Every 10 years
Reporting the Results of I&M Efforts
Making Data, Information Available for Decision-Makers,
Scientists, Educators, and various Constituency Groups
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Annual Administrative Report and Work Plan
Annual Reports for specific Protocols or Projects
Inventory Project Reports
Analysis and Synthesis reports – trends
Program and Protocol Review reports
Scientific journal articles and book chapters
Symposia, workshops and conferences
Websites – Intranet and Internet
Annual briefings and “executive summaries” for park
managers
• National Report - Condition of NR in National Parks
Executive Briefs
Grizzly Bears
Yellowstone Cutthroat
Geothermal
Fire
Wolves
Bison
Elk
Lake Trout
Yellowstone Volcano
Climate
Land Use
Whitebark Pine
Amphibians
Invasive Plants
Land Birds
Trumpeter Swans
Greater Yellowstone
Monitoring
Executive Briefs
Yellowstone Cutthroat
Geothermal
Fire
Wolves
Bison
Elk
Lake Trout
Yellowstone Volcano
Climate
Land Use
Whitebark Pine
print version
Whitebark Pine
Importance
Whitebark pine is considered a “keystone” species
in the subalpine ecosystem. D Its best known role
in these ecosystems is as a high-energy food source
for a variety of wildlife species, including grizzly
bears. Dramatic declines of whitebark have been
reported throughout its range
dueGto two major
factors: 1) an introduced fungus, white pine blister
rust; and 2) heavy mortality from endemic mountain
pine beetle.
Status
• Thirty six of the 51 (71%) transects had some
indication of blister rust. G
• Although blister rust was widespread, the infection
severity was relatively low.
• The estimate proportion of trees infected with
blister rust within the GYE to be 0.189 ± 0.05 SE,
and most infected trees had ≤2 cankers. D G
Source
Last Update
12/04/2005
Click for D
more detail.
or
G
for graphic.
0.40
Proportion of Trees Infected
Grizzly Bears
Greater Yellowstone
Monitoring
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
01
02
03
04
05
Year
Amphibians
Invasive Plants
Land Birds
Trumpeter Swans
Discussion
Our preliminary results indicate that the occurrence of white pine blister rust is
widespread throughout the GYE, although in most cases, severity is at relatively low
levels.
Additional Resources
Contact(s)
Reports
Learning Center
Links
Whitebark Pine Issues
White pine blister rust
Executive Briefs
Greater Yellowstone
Monitoring
White pine blister rust, an exotic fungus first introduced
to North America in
Yellowstone Cutthroat
Geothermal
Fire
Wolves
Bison
Elk
Lake Trout
Yellowstone Volcano
Climate
Land Use
Whitebark Pine
Whitebark Pine
Proportion of Trees Infected
Grizzly Bears
Vancouver, British Columbia in 1910, enters the stomata of the whitebark pine
needles and then erupts into cankers on the branches, leading to the cessation of
cone production and the eventual death
of the tree in some cases (Tomback et al.
Source
print version
2001). White pine blister rust also requires Ribes species as an alternate host
(Tomback et al. 2001). Depending on the level of infection, a tree with white pine
blister rust can live for several years; however, saplings that are infected generally
Importance
Last
Update by blister rust also weakens the
die within three years (Koteen 2002).
Infection
12/04/2005
tree and tends to lead to death by an
accumulation of factors, including mountain
Whitebark pine is considered a “keystone” species
pine beetle, other pathogens, root diseases and
unfavorable climatic conditions
Click for D
in the subalpine ecosystem. D Its best known role
(Koteen 2002).
more detail.
in these ecosystems is as a high-energy food source
or
for a variety of wildlife species, including grizzly
G
Mountain Pine Beetle
for graphic.
bears. Dramatic declines of whitebark have been
reported throughout its range
dueGto two major
The mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) is a native insect that has
factors: 1) an introduced fungus, white pine blister
coevolved with pine forests in the western U.S. (Logan and Powell 2001). Host
rust; and 2) heavy mortality from endemic mountain
0.40
tree species of mountain pine beetle include: ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine,
pine beetle.
0.35
western white pine and whitebark pine (Kipfmueller
and Swetnam 2002). In some
0.30 pine beetle plays a significant role in its
species, such as lodgepole pine, mountain
Status
continuation on the landscape through providing
periodic disturbances that kill
0.25
trees and create vast tracks of dead needles
that
serve as fine fuels for fire ignition
0.20
• Thirty six of the 51 (71%)
and spread
transects
(Logan
had
andsome
Powell 2001). 0.15
indication of blister rust. G
0.10
• Although blister rust was widespread, the infection
0.05
severity was relatively low.
0.00
• The estimate proportion of trees infected with
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 01 02 03 04
blister rust within the GYE to be 0.189 ± 0.05 SE,
Year
and most infected trees had ≤2 cankers. D G
Amphibians
Invasive Plants
Land Birds
Trumpeter Swans
05
Close Window
Discussion
Our preliminary results indicate that the occurrence of white pine blister rust is
widespread throughout the GYE, although in most cases, severity is at relatively low
levels.
Additional Resources
Contact(s)
Reports
Learning Center
Links
Executive Briefs
Yellowstone Cutthroat
Geothermal
Fire
Wolves
Bison
Elk
Lake Trout
Yellowstone Volcano
Climate
Land Use
Whitebark Pine
print version
Whitebark Pine
Importance
Whitebark pine is considered a “keystone” species
in the subalpine ecosystem. D Its best known role
in these ecosystems is as a high-energy food source
for a variety of wildlife species, including grizzly
bears. Dramatic declines of whitebark have been
reported throughout its range
dueGto two major
factors: 1) an introduced fungus, white pine blister
rust; and 2) heavy mortality from endemic mountain
pine beetle.
Status
• Thirty six of the 51 (71%) transects had some
indication of blister rust. G
• Although blister rust was widespread, the infection
severity was relatively low.
• The estimate proportion of trees infected with
blister rust within the GYE to be 0.189 ± 0.05 SE,
and most infected trees had ≤2 cankers. D G
Source
Last Update
12/04/2005
Click for D
more detail.
or
G
for graphic.
0.40
Proportion of Trees Infected
Grizzly Bears
Greater Yellowstone
Monitoring
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
01
02
03
04
05
Year
Amphibians
Invasive Plants
Land Birds
Trumpeter Swans
Discussion
Our preliminary results indicate that the occurrence of white pine blister rust is
widespread throughout the GYE, although in most cases, severity is at relatively low
levels.
Additional Resources
Contact(s)
Reports
Learning Center
Links
Yellowstone Cutthroat
Geothermal
Fire
Wolves
Bison
Elk
Lake Trout
Yellowstone Volcano
Climate
Land Use
Whitebark Pine
print version
Whitebark Pine
Importance
Greater Yellowstone
http://climchange.cr.usgs.gov/data/atlas/little/pinualbi.pdf
Monitoring
1.0
Distribution
0.8
Source
Whitebark Pine
Pinus albicaulis
0.6
Whitebark pine is considered a “keystone” species0.4
in the subalpine ecosystem. D Its best known role
in these ecosystems is as a high-energy food source0.2
for a variety of wildlife species, including grizzly
bears. Dramatic declines of whitebark have been
reported throughout its range
dueGto two major0.0
1
factors: 1) an introduced fungus, white pine blister
rust; and 2) heavy mortality from endemic mountain
pine beetle.
Last Update
12/04/2005
Click for D
more detail.
or
G
for graphic.
Uninfected Transects
3 5 7 9 111315171921232527293133353739414345474951
Transect
0.40
Proportion of Trees Infected
Grizzly Bears
Proportion of Trees Infected
Executive Briefs
0.35
Figure 2. The
0.30 proportion of whitebark pine trees
infected on0.25
each of the 51 transects sampled
Status
during 20040.20arranged in rank order from most
• Thirty six of the 51 (71%) transects had some
infected to 0.15
least infected.
indication of blister rust. G
• Although blister rust was widespread, the infection
severity was relatively low.
• The estimate proportion of trees infected with
blister rust within the GYE to be 0.189 ± 0.05 SE,
and most infected trees had ≤2 cankers. D G
0.10
0.05
0.00
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
01
02
03
04
05
Year
Close Window
Amphibians
Invasive Plants
Land Birds
Trumpeter Swans
Discussion
Our preliminary results indicate that the occurrence of white pine blister rust is
widespread throughout the GYE, although in most cases, severity is at relatively low
levels.
Additional Resources
Contact(s)
Reports
Learning Center
Links
Executive Briefs
Yellowstone Cutthroat
Geothermal
Fire
Wolves
Bison
Elk
Lake Trout
Yellowstone Volcano
Climate
Land Use
Whitebark Pine
print version
Whitebark Pine
Importance
Whitebark pine is considered a “keystone” species
in the subalpine ecosystem. D Its best known role
in these ecosystems is as a high-energy food source
for a variety of wildlife species, including grizzly
bears. Dramatic declines of whitebark have been
reported throughout its range
dueGto two major
factors: 1) an introduced fungus, white pine blister
rust; and 2) heavy mortality from endemic mountain
pine beetle.
Status
• Thirty six of the 51 (71%) transects had some
indication of blister rust. G
• Although blister rust was widespread, the infection
severity was relatively low.
• The estimate proportion of trees infected with
blister rust within the GYE to be 0.189 ± 0.05 SE,
and most infected trees had ≤2 cankers. D G
Source
Last Update
12/04/2005
Click for D
more detail.
or
G
for graphic.
0.40
Proportion of Trees Infected
Grizzly Bears
Greater Yellowstone
Monitoring
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
01
02
03
04
05
Year
Amphibians
Invasive Plants
Land Birds
Trumpeter Swans
Discussion
Our preliminary results indicate that the occurrence of white pine blister rust is
widespread throughout the GYE, although in most cases, severity is at relatively low
levels.
Additional Resources
Contact(s)
Reports
Learning Center
Links
Vital Signs Monitoring: What is it?
• Strategic, national program to allow 270+ parks to determine status
and long-term trends of selected natural resources, starting now
• Primary audience: park managers, but results will also be used for park
planning, interpretation, and performance management
• Parks share permanent professional staff and funding to focus on longterm monitoring of condition of selected resources; emphasizes
integration among components (synthesis, modeling) and programs
(air, water, interpretation, fire program, T&E, invasive species, learning
centers)
• Flexibility allows parks to “maximize the use and relevance of the data”
for managing parks and to gain efficiencies through partnerships
• Emphasis on making information more available and usable;
integration with other park operations; building institutional knowledge
Where are we?
•
•
•
•
•
Productivity/Success of I&M Networks has exceeded expectations
Peer Reviews & comments from other agencies – “State of the Art”
Influencing science and conservation well beyond NPS
Monitoring guidance and protocols: 30,000 users per month
Strong support and participation by superintendents, NLC
Progress Report, February 2006
Vital Signs Monitoring
• 222 Parks (82% of 270) have identified vital signs
• 104 Parks (first 12 networks) have completed monitoring plans
and have implemented natural resource monitoring
• Remaining networks on schedule to meet or exceed
performance targets
• “32 Networks approach” for achieving greater efficiency by
sharing funding, personnel and expertise has worked well,
particularly for small and medium-sized parks
The Road has not been Easy, but …
The First Years are the Worst Years
• Network coordinators have spent much of their time as
partnership negotiators and contract administrators,
rather than scientists
• High scrutiny/burden placed on I&M by OMB; primary
means to measure performance of all natural resource
stewardship. “We’ve given you all this new money, what
do you have to show for it?”
• Considerable work needed to determine “what do we
already know” and correct deficiencies of the past.
• Goes against agency culture
Parks as competitors
Parks as collaborators.
It takes time to develop partnerships and trust.
Where are we Going
with Vital Signs Monitoring?
“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”
Typical project workflow
at park and network level
(from NCCN data
management plan; most
other networks have
adopted same approach)
Inventory data sets
GIS projects
Monitoring results
Research data
Studies funded by park base, NRPP
Fire Program
Data Warehouse
“The Hopper”
Search Tools for Finding Things
in the Hopper:
NatureBib
NPSpecies
NR-GIS Search Tool
NPS Focus
Routine analysis
and reporting by
networks and
cooperators
Condition Assessments:
Occasional analyses, synthesis by
parks, with funding & expertise
assistance from WCA & I&M
Executive Briefs
Yellowstone Cutthroat
Geothermal
Fire
Wolves
Bison
Elk
Lake Trout
Yellowstone Volcano
Climate
Land Use
Whitebark Pine
print version
Whitebark Pine
Importance
Whitebark pine is considered a “keystone” species
in the subalpine ecosystem. D Its best known role
in these ecosystems is as a high-energy food source
for a variety of wildlife species, including grizzly
bears. Dramatic declines of whitebark have been
reported throughout its range
dueGto two major
factors: 1) an introduced fungus, white pine blister
rust; and 2) heavy mortality from endemic mountain
pine beetle.
Status
• Thirty six of the 51 (71%) transects had some
indication of blister rust. G
• Although blister rust was widespread, the infection
severity was relatively low.
• The estimate proportion of trees infected with
blister rust within the GYE to be 0.189 ± 0.05 SE,
and most infected trees had ≤2 cankers. D G
Source
Last Update
12/04/2005
Click for D
more detail.
or
G
for graphic.
0.40
Proportion of Trees Infected
Grizzly Bears
Greater Yellowstone
Monitoring
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
01
02
03
04
05
Year
Amphibians
Invasive Plants
Land Birds
Trumpeter Swans
Discussion
Our preliminary results indicate that the occurrence of white pine blister rust is
widespread throughout the GYE, although in most cases, severity is at relatively low
levels.
Additional Resources
Contact(s)
Reports
Learning Center
Links
Goals of Vital Signs Monitoring
• Determine status and trends in selected indicators of the condition
of park ecosystems to allow managers to make better-informed
decisions and to work more effectively with other agencies and
individuals for the benefit of park resources.
• Provide early warning of abnormal conditions of selected resources
to help develop effective mitigation measures and reduce costs of
management.
• Provide data to better understand the dynamic nature and condition
of park ecosystems and to provide reference points for comparisons
with other, altered environments.
• Provide data to meet certain legal and Congressional mandates
related to natural resource protection and visitor enjoyment.
• Provide a means of measuring progress towards performance
goals. (You can’t have performance management without monitoring)
•
•
•
•
Air Quality
Water Quantity
Water Quality
Land Health




Wetland
Riparian
Upland
Marine and Coastal
• Sustainable Biological Communities




Species of Management Concern
T&E Species
Invasive Plant Species
Invasive Animals
Effective
communication
Public Environment
Simple, clear
public message
Highly
Aggragated
Indices
Indicators, Indices
and Information
Science Environment
Sound
Science
Policy makers,
Non-Scientists
Processed Data/Statistics
Raw Data
“Improve park management through
greater reliance on scientific data”
Use Assessment
by experts to
translate scientific
findings for policy
and decisionmaking
Scientists,
Field-level
Practitioners
NPS Advisory Board Report:
“A sophisticated knowledge of resources and their
condition is essential. The Service must gain this
knowledge through extensive collaboration with other
agencies and academia, and its findings must be
communicated to the public. For it is the broader public
that will decide the fate of these resources.”
Source: Rethinking the National Parks for the 21st Century. A
Report of the National Park System Advisory Board, July 2001
“The National Park Service has no choice: Mastering
the science required to maintain ecological integrity
is central to its unimpairment mandate”.
- National Park Service Advisory Board
“Land health: Wetlands - Percent of wetland acres
achieving desired conditions where condition is
known and as specified in management plans
consistent with applicable substantive and procedural
requirements of State and Federal water law.”
Potential Desired Future Condition?
Physical habitat characteristics, such as substrate composition, bank
stability, water temperature, and water chemistry, support and sustain all
life stages of a variety of aquatic and semi-aquatic species, including
desired periphyton, macro-invertebrate, amphibian, and fish communities.
Natural patterns of water recharge and discharge provide ground water
levels and flows that sustain desired aquatic and semi-aquatic species.
Plant communities are healthy and self-perpetuating, with a diverse mix of
desired species and age classes. These communities are resistant and
resilient to rapid change from large disturbances such as floods and are
capable of maintaining themselves during dry periods. Exotic vegetative
species and noxious weeds are rare or absent.
2006 Annual I & M Meetings, San Diego
Multiple parks might adopt the same “desired condition”
statements, but interpret them differently (flexibility).
Each park might have different vital signs and measures for
measuring progress towards meeting the desired conditions
Park A: water chemistry + macroinvertebrates
Park B: physical habitat + water chemistry + water quantity
+ fish
For the same vital signs and measures, Park A might set a different
threshold than Park B, as far as determining when something
meets the desired condition. Pristine parks may set a higher
standard than urban parks. Thresholds may change as more is
learned.
2006 Annual I & M Meetings, San Diego
Monitoring the Condition of Park Resources:
Park Management, Performance Management,
and the Art of Science Communication
5-10 years from now:
• I&M Networks routinely collect, analyze, and report data for
selected natural resources, including partnerships with other
programs and agencies
– e.g., peer-reviewed technical reports, publications
– Coordinate annual briefings for managers, interpreters…
• Parks report to Land Health Goals based on comparisons of
“best available” scientific data to desired conditions via resource
assessments; parks assisted by I&M networks and Watershed
Condition Assessment program
• Selected data presented in Network and National ‘State of the
Parks Reports’ to tell the American public and Congress about
the status and trends of natural resources in the parks.
Our Mission:
Conserve the parks
Provide for their enjoyment
Leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations
Natural Resource Challenge:
The Beginning
Stimulated in late 1997 by
Richard Sellars’ book
publication & deliberations
of Director with his
Leadership Council …
The NPS began a lengthy
internal “conversation”
about our future.
“Never underestimate the power of a few committed
people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only
thing that ever has.” – Margaret Mead
PRESS ON: Nothing in this world can take the
place of PERSISTENCE
• Talent will not…
– Nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with
talent
• Genius will not…
– Unrewarded genius is almost a proverb
• Education alone will not…
– The world is full of educated derelicts
PERSISTENCE & DETERMINATION ARE OMNIPOTENT