1. Helping a Network Be Relevant to Parks Bill Johnson Southeast Alaska Network April 2014

2. What the I&M survey told us  Use of I&M information: Many respondents were concerned that parks seldom apply I&M data for resource management, or that the I&M focus is too narrow to meet management needs.  Integration with parks: All I&M staff understand that parks are the number one client for I&M work. They all see the need to communicate far more effectively with parks.  Networks feel external to parks: Network operations are distinct from park operations; a gulf can exist between the two, which is increased because of overall poor communication.  Communication: The need for more, better, and consistent communication … among networks and with parks, was expressed in almost every response.

5. We give to parks  Scientific information to assist in formulating management policies The basic inventories Selected vital sign data and information  Trend information may not be available until many, many years pass

6. Parks give to us  Access to the field  Manpower  Permits / Compliance processing  Logistics support  Housing  Vessels and vehicles  Shared gear  GIS products  Their own historical research data  Cost sharing  Intra-agency support

7. Let’s have some immediate gratification  We tweaked our Weather and Climate program to provide information of immediate operational value to: Rangers Visitors Researchers  This enhances park safety considerably and management appreciates that very much

8. Latest weather observations

9. Coming soon to a wilderness trailhead near you

10.  Total cost for tweak: about 32 staff hours start to finish  Perceived park benefit: priceless Cost / benefits?