Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to The Story of Joint Region Marianas INRMP
Similar to The Story of Joint Region Marianas INRMP (20)
More from BryanHall58
More from BryanHall58 (10)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The Story of Joint Region Marianas INRMP
- 1. The Story of the Joint Region Marianas Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 1
- 2. • Joint Region Marianas (JRM) established in 2009 • Majority of USAF lands transferred to DON • USAF retained management of mission-essential activities (runways, etc.) • DON provides support services to USAF Backdrop - JRM 2
- 3. • First JRM Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) developed in 2013 • Resource Partners (US Fish & Wildlife Service, Guam Department of Agriculture and CNMI Department of Land & Natural Resources) did not sign 2013 INRMP • Goals & Objectives not aligned with Resource Agency priorities • Projects insufficient to meet listed species requirements • Lack of coordination & collaboration • INRMP non-compliant, but used as guide for natural resources management JRM INRMP 3
- 4. • JRM lands across multiple islands and political entities (Guam and CNMI) • Multiple DoD services supported with differing mission requirements • High operational tempo • USMC Relocation to Guam EIS (ROD in 2010) • Supplemental EIS in 2016 • Mariana Islands Training & Testing EIS (ROD in 2015) • USAF Divert in CNMI (FONSI in 2016) • Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) EA (FONSI in 2017) • Proposed DoD Initiatives in Marianas (CJMT, MITT II, etc.) • High number of listed species to be managed • 24 listed in 2014 & 2015 JRM INRMP Complexities 4
- 5. • Off-installation development/habitat degradation placing burden on DoD lands for species conservation • Alignment of management priorities with Resource Partners • Heightened scrutiny from Resource Partners • Corals & green sea turtle critical habitat proposed rule making • Contracting issues • Staffing turnover • Lack of marine resources management • Format of Regional INRMP / lengthy development (since 2015) JRM INRMP Complexities 5
- 6. Actions to Address Challenges 6 • Collaborative development of Goals and Objectives (May 2016) • Rolling Chapter Reviews • Internal development of marine resources sections
- 7. Actions to Address Challenges 7 • “Tiger Team” meetings established • Oct 2017 • Dec 2017 • Jul 2018 • Increased participation from installation NR staff • Real-time editing with contractor • Alignment of NR management across multiple installations
- 8. Actions to Address Challenges 8 • Increased Coordination and Collaboration with Resource Partners • Outreach meetings in Guam and Saipan • Marine resources: Jul 2017 • Terrestrial resources: Mar 2018 • Increased coordination of Resource Partner recommendations
- 10. • NAVFAC Marianas • AAFB • NBG • MCAG • EV Core • NAVFAC HQ • NAVFAC Pacific Kudos 10
- 12. JRM INRMP Table of Contents Chapter 1 Overview Chapter 2 Military Mission and Overview of History and Land Use Chapter 3 Environmental Management Strategy and Mission Sustainability Chapter 4 Overview of Guam Chapter 5 NBG Main Base Chapter 6 NBG Naval Munitions Site Chapter 7 NCTS Barrigada, Barrigada Transmitter Site, Andersen South, Apra Heights, and NBG Tank Farms Chapter 8 NBG Telecommunications Site Chapter 9 Andersen AFB Chapter 10 Overview of CNMI Chapter 11 Tinian MLA Chapter 12 Farallon De Medinilla Chapter 13 INRMP Implementation
Editor's Notes
- FOC for Joint Region was in 2009. The MOA may have been 2011 but it was stood up before that. AF maintains administrative control of the airfield in talking points to address sensitivities there. From early draft INRMP “The USAF holdings on NSA Andersen were included under the Navy in 2009 as a result of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) actions. The USAF continues to manage the mission-essential activities on NSA Andersen including aircraft operations and runways.” Emphasize a lot of missions supported on a relatively small area which is illustrated in the photos
- Mention that there have been previous INRMPs in place which were combine for the first time in 2013 I don’t have a record of specifically why partners did not sign although I have heard reasons why…hopefully you all have the formal correspondence on file as it was after I left. I do have the NOAA letter, as someone asked for it after I got to HQ. Very basically - our goals and objectives were not coordinated or aligned with resource agency priorities and our projects insufficient to meet listed species needs, root cause – lack of coordination, collaboration, as well as different agency missions. It is probably sufficient to frame it this way Recommend revising this slide a bit for sub-bullets – 1) Identify partners 2) summarize reasons for agencies not signing 3) Non-compliant but JRM uses the 2013 INRMP to guide natural resources management 4) Clearly a more robust strategy was needed to improve coordination and collaboration
- I don’t believe it meets the definition of Operational, does it? Operational implies that we had a signed one in place previously and that there were no significant objections by resource partners and we are continuing to implement. So I would delete that bullet – see previous comment, recommend moving the non-compliant statement to previous slide. We are definitely operating off of it but it is just non-compliant. Recommend changing title to “Complexities” and some revision to bullets to hit the high points: Limited land area – multiple islands Multiple DoD services supported with differing mission requirements (Navy, Air Force, USMC, Army) High Operational Tempo (list initiatives sub-bullets) New missions to support National Defense Strategy and Political Agreements High number of listed species to address
- Recommend change to “Challenges” these challenges have occurred over many years, not just 2018. Again try to hit the high points (see ideas below) – what has made this INRMP development process challenging (and then follow with what JRM has done to address – want us to really focus on the successes) – this is the feedback from ODASNE. They suggested mentioning contracting issues in talking points but we probably don’t need those sub-bullets on the slide. This is slide is where I think we would emphasize that there is significant scrutiny by our partners and we are being held to a very high standard. Navy/Resource agencies not aligned on management priorities Off-installation development/habitat degradation places high burden on DoD lands for species conservation Format and structure of a regional document Lengthy development process (began 2015) INRMP heavily scrutinized by resource partners – standard is high Contracting issues – caused significant delays Critical Habitat proposed rule-making – corals/sea turtles Marine resource management lacking
- Recommend combining slides 10-13 into two. Actions to Address Challenges Collaborative development of Goals and Objectives (May 2016) Rolling Chapter Reviews Internal development of Marine Resources Sections “Tiger Team” reviews established 2017 – (sub-bullets) increased participation from NR staff, alignment of NR management across multiple installations, over-the-shoulder reviews with contractor and real-time editing
- See previous comment to combine this with previous slide
- This is really important so I’d leave as is