Given that the deadline for initial INRMP preparation was in 2001, each installation has undertaken numerous annual reviews, a handful of updates, and perhaps a few revisions. The collective experience of many DoD natural resource managers as well as supporting staff, cooperators, contractors and DoD and military service specialists represents a vast source of knowledge with respect to INRMP development, implementation and evaluation. Some metrics for preparing and implementing INRMPs, first developed in 2002, are given in the 10 October 2005 Memorandum โImplementation of Sikes Act Improvement Act: Updated Guidance, issued by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense.โ
The metrics are formal measures of merit for the conservation program. Progress towards meeting the measures of merit is reported in the annual Environmental Quality Report to Congress. Although those metrics can be useful for broad planning and budgeting purposes, unfortunately the emphasis of the metrics is not on ecosystem management or INRMP effectiveness, but rather on whether appropriate groups were consulted on the INRMPs, on the level of coordination with the review agencies, and on the budgeting and funding of INRMP projects.
One of the early efforts to improve the quality of INRMPs and how they are effectively implemented consisted of a two-day meeting in 2005, focusing on the INRMP structure and content and attended by representatives from the military services and DoD. The working group later developed recommendations to address shortcomings in the first round of INRMPS by applying their experience over the previous four years (USACE 2009). One of the outcomes was a revision of INRMP metrics developed by the Navy/Marines for the following topics:
(1) INRMP Implementation
(2) T&E Species and Critical Habitat
(3) Public Use & Outdoor Recreation
(4) Ecosystem Integrity
(5) Partnership Effectiveness (External stakeholders)
(6) Team Adequacy (Internal Stakeholders)
(7) INRMP Impact on the Installation Mission
DoD Instruction 4715.03, updated in 2013, included new and updated policy, natural resources conservation metrics, and procedures for DoD Components and installations for developing, implementing, and evaluating effective natural resources management programs.
From a high-level perspective, much emphasis is often placed on broad indicators such as the measures of merit described above. This is a form of implementation monitoring that is important and may infer the capability and resources to carry out the INRMP, but it will not enable managers to understand the effectiveness of individual projects or actions relative to individual resources or more holistic goals related to ecological communities and larger ecosystems.
There are other, directed and more specific, types of monitoring when it comes to INRMP effectiveness: 1. monitoring progress towards ecosystem management goals and objectives related to specific resources (i.e., condition and trends in resources compared to desired conditions); and 2. compliance monitoring related to specific metrics and thresholds specified in regulatory documents or laws (e.g., ESA compliance documents, Clean Water Act standards, no net loss of wetlands, etc.). In the absence of adequate management targets/objectives, effective monitoring is not possible or is done haphazardly. Effectiveness monitoring related to specific projects and activities continues to be one of the weakest aspects of INRMP development and implementation. See Chapter 2 for more on monitoring.
Next Page: Key concepts and themes for a strong INRMP
Author
David S. Jones, RA IV, Ecologist/Project Manager
Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands
Warner College of Natural Resources
Colorado State University
Monitoring INRMP implementation and effectiveness
Monitoring INRMP implementation and effectiveness