Three-year Start-up Review for the Arctic Network

Fancy, Steve; Dedgeon, Greg; Wesser, Sara

A 3-year review meeting was held for the Arctic I&M Network (ARCN) on January 19 and 20, 2011. All presentations, documents, and other materials from the meeting are provided in the attached zip files. Periodic program reviews are an essential component of quality assurance for any long-term monitoring program. This 3-year “start-up review” of the Arctic I&M Network (ARCN) focused on the operational and administrative aspects of the Network's monitoring program and asked the basic question "Is the network set up to succeed?" The review was an opportunity for network and park staff to step back and evaluate their initial progress against the objectives and schedule set forth in the network’s monitoring plan, to develop a “road map” for completing and implementing the first set of protocols, and to make adjustments if needed. Three years is long enough for the network to appreciate the realities of implementing the program and to determine what level of monitoring is sustainable with current funding, but short enough to make adjustments and improvements before too much has been invested. The review was intended to help the network get off to a good start in developing a practical, sustainable monitoring program that provides parks with timely, relevant information. During the review meeting, the following key questions that were addressed: • Is the network on track to measure trends in the condition of selected park resources and to provide useful information to park managers, planners, and interpreters? • Are the roles and responsibilities of key groups and individuals such as the Board of Directors, Technical Committee, Network Coordinator, and Principal Investigators for each protocol adequately defined, and are good communication mechanisms in place? • Which protocols have been implemented, and do protocols still in development have a reasonable timetable for completion? • Is the network following good procedures for managing and analyzing monitoring results? Are the databases and data management systems working as designed? • Is the network generating preliminary reports, and are adequate procedures in place for effectively delivering monitoring results to park managers and planners? Are managers using the information? • Are there some current or anticipated problems that the network needs to address? • What should happen to make the program better over the next 5-10 years?

Three-year Start-up Review for the Arctic Network

Collections