USACERL SR CRC-95/01

19

Cultural resources often lagged behind natural resources in inventory completion
with staffing and funding cited as the predominant factors. Although completed
surveys of cultural resources were rare, cursory installation surveys serving to
identify priority sites were common. Once a site was prioritized it was invento-
ried. All installation programs were involved in updating their resource surveys.
This is an ongoing process that again depends on the availability of staff and
finances.

All survey respondents indicated that completed inventories with periodic updates
would allow them to manage installation resources properly and avoid problems
of noncompliance. Comprehensive inventories would make it possible to shift the
emphasis of the resources management program from one that is reactive to one
that is proactive. In the words of one staff member, “it is very difficult to manage
resources and avoid [compliance] violations when you don't know what you have.”

Physical Facilities Question

11. Are natural and cultural management personnel located in the same facilities?

All but one installation reported that the natural and cultural resources staffs
were housed in the same building or complex. It was common to have both staffs
located in the same office.

In instances where cultural and natural resource staffs are located in the same
building or office area, respondents indicated that both formal and informal
communication was facilitated. They also strongly believe this arrangement is a
fundamental requirement of an integrated resource management program.
However, changes in installation organization often lead to fragmentation of staff
and reduced contact between natural and cultural resources personnel. This was
identified as disruptive to a program. Other respondents felt that if strong
program management existed, staff communication and interaction were less of
a problem even if they were physically separated.

Command Support Question

12. Does the command structure at the installation provide a framework that helps
facilitate cooperation and coordination between natural and cultural resource
management programs?



Chit of Enginaars
ATIN: CEHEC-IMLH (2)
ATTN: CEHECAM-LP (2)
ATTN: CECG

ATTN: CECC-P

ATTN: CECW

ATIN: CECW.O

ATIN: CECW.P

ATTN: CECW.PR

ATTN: CEMP

ATTN: CEMP-E

ATIN: CEMP.C

ATTN: CEMP.M

ATTN: CEMP.R

ATTN: CERD-C

ATIN: CERD-ZA

ATTN: CERD.L

ATTN: CERO-M

‘ATTN: CERM

ATTN: DAEN-ZC

ATTN: DAIM-FOP

ATTN: DAIM-ED.N

CECPW 22910-3862
ATIN: CECPW-E
ATIN: CECPW-FT
ATTN: CECPW-2C
ATTN: DET Il 79906

US Army Engr Distiet
ATTN: Library (40)

US Army Engr Division
ATTN: Library (12)

US Array Europe
ATTN: AEAEN-EH 09014
ATTN: AEAEN-ODCS 09014

SETAF
ATIN: AESE-EN-D 09613
ATTN: AESE-EN 09630

‘Supreme Aliad Command
ATTN: ACSGEB 09703
ATTN: SHIHBENGR 06705

INSCOM
ATTN: IALOG-! 22060
ATTN: IAV-DPW 22186

USA TACOM 48397-5000
‘ATTN: AMSTA-XE

Dotense Distribution Region East
ATTN: DDRE-WI 17070

HO XVIII Aiborne Corps 28307
ATTN: AFZADPW-EE

4th Infantry Div (MECH) 80913-5000
ATTN: AFZC-FE

US Aimy Materol Command (AMC)
‘Alexandria, VA 22333-0001
ATTN: AMCEN-E

Installations: (19)

FORSCOM
Fors Gilem & McPherson 30330
‘ATTN: FCEN
Installations: (23)

6th Infanry Division (Light)
ATTN: APVR-DE 99505
ATTN: APVR:WE-DE 99703,

TRADOG
Fort Monroe 20651
ATTN: ATBO-G

Instalations: (20)

This publication was reproduced on recycled paper.

USACERL DISTRIBUTION

For BeNoir 22080

ATTN. CETECAMT

ATTN. CECC-R 20314-1000,
ATIN: Engr Svategie Sues Crr
ATTN. Water Resources Suppor Ctr
ATIN: Ausvaian Liason Ofice

USA Natick ROSE Center 01760
‘ATTN. STRNC-DT
ATTN. DRONAF

US Ary Materials Tech Lab
ATIN: SLOMT.DPW 02172

USARPAC 96858
ATIN OPW
ATIN. APENA

‘SHAPE 08705,
ATTN: Intrastucture Branch LANDA

‘Area Engineer, AEDC-Avea Otfce
‘Amno'd Ar Force Staton, TN 97389

HO USEUCOM 09128
ATTN, ECHLIE

ANMRC 02172
ATTN. DRXMR-AF
ATTN: ORXMR-WE

CeWeS 39180
ATTN: Library

CECRL 03755
ATIN. Ubary

USA AMCOM
ATIN Facies Engr 21719
‘ATTN: AMSMIC-EH 61209
ATIN. Faciites Engr (3) 85613

USAARMC 40121
ATTN: ATZIC-EHA

Mitary Tratfe Mgnt Command
ATTN: MTEA.GB-EHP 07002
ATTN. MT-LOF 20315
ATTN. MTE-SU-FE 28461
ATTN. MTWHE 94626,

Fort Leonard Wood 65473
ATIN: ATSE-DACB (3)
ATIN: ATZA-TE-SW
ATIN. ATSE-CFLO
ATTN. ATSE-DAC-FL

Miitary Dist of WASH
For McNair
ATTN: ANEN 20319

USA Engr Activity, Capital Area
ATIN: Library 22211

US Army ARDEC 07806
ATTN: SMCARISE

Engy Societies Library
ATTN: Acquisttons 10017

Detense Nuclear Agoncy
‘ATTN: NADS 20305

Defense Logistics Agency
ATTN: DLAWI 22304

Water Reed Army Medica! Cr. 20307

[Natonal Guard Bureau 20310
ATTN. NGB.ARI

US Mitary Academy 10996
ATTN MAENA

ATIN. Faciitios Engineer
ATIN. Goography & Envr Engrg

‘Nava! Facies Engr Command
ATTN. Facitios Engr Command (8)
ATTN. Division Offces (11)
ATTN: Public Works Center (8)
ATTN. Naval Constr Bataion Cir 93043
ATTN. Naval Facies Engr Service Center 93083-4928

USA Japan (USARJ}

ATTN. APAJ-EN-ES 96343
ATTN, HONSHU 96343,
ATTN: DPW-Okinawa 96376

416th Engineer Command 60623
ATTN. Gibson USAR Cir

US Army HSC
Font Sam Houston. 78234
ATIN: HSLO-F
Fitzsimons Army Medica! Ctr
ATTN. HSHG-OPW 80045

Tyndall AFB 32803
ATIN: HOAFCESA Program Ofc
ATTN: Engrg & Srvc Lab

USA TSARCOM 63120
ATTN: STSAS-F

‘American Public Works Assoc 64104-1806

US Ary Envr Hygiene Agency
ATTN. HSHB-ME 21010

US Gov' Printing Otfice 20401
ATTN: Rec SeciDeposit Soc. (2)

Natl Institute of Standards & Toch
‘ATTN. Library 20899

HO AFSPACECOMICEV 80914-4150
HO PACAFICEVP 96853-5412
HO ACC CEVAN 23665-2769
HO AMCICEVP 62225-5022
HO AFMCICEV 45433-5747
HA ABTCICEPT 78150-4321
HO AFRES(CEVP 31098-1635
HO AFSOCICE 32548

HA ANGRCICEV 20331-5187
HQ USAFAICEPR go840-2400
HO AFCEBIECP 78235-5318

Dotense Tach Info Center 22304
ATTN. DTIC-FAB (2)

¥ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994—3510-S/00067



USACERL SR CRC-95/01

13

within natural resources for endangered species inventories, monitoring, and
management.

Another area that can potentially affect the coordination and cooperation of
natural and cultural resources staffs is that of professional respect. This is not a
problem for most installations surveyed. But at times, cultural and natural
resources staff were not taken seriously, were viewed as obstructionists, or were
considered “a necessary evil.”

The overwhelming attitude was that resources staffs provide an integral function
in meeting the mission of the installation and are respected for their professional
knowledge. Staff, both military and civilian, at these “successful” installations
typically demonstrate a willingness to work through even difficult and complex
problems and situations. The willingness and success have been identified as
products of staff continuity (little turnover) and cooperation.

Attitudes also are influenced by other factors. Two installations reported that the
command structure and the attitude of the commander help set the tone regarding
how resource personnel are perceived. Another very successful program reflects
the resource philosophy, management style, and personality of the person in
charge of the resources program. (This is true of all these exemplary programs to
a greater or lesser degree. The program manager is typically a strong personality
with clearly stated opinions.) Managers must spend time in the field with military
staff and “be willing to do battle with the people in green” if their programs are
to succeed. Strong, balanced management results in effective, efficient resources
staffs.

Other important staff-related components varied among installations. Many
interviewees felt that the most qualified resource staffs were composed of
generalists who could work on interdisciplinary teams. Others said that their best
people were often lifelong local or regional residents who brought previous
experience, special insights, and an understanding of resources that helped in
their management activities. Most felt that professionalism, integrity, and
especially commitment, were exceptional among their staffs.”

“Smith and Balbach (1992) and Schram, Dively, and Balbach (1992) made similar observations
regarding resources management personnel within and outside the DoD.



USACERL SR CRC-95/01

23

allows the interacting managers to realistically allocate time and resources.
Periodic reviews define new problems, select additional priority projects, and
document progress and accomplishments.

Anderson and Baum (1988) write that there is “no substitute for a sound
ecologically-based resource inventory as the foundation for decisions aimed at
meshing the management of all major resources in the planned area.” They
believe management flexibility is necessary because new information is always
being developed and becomes available as the process proceeds. In addition, they
think planning groups need to be kept as small as possible but must include
proper representation and expertise and should function intact from the beginning
of the CRMP process to its end.

At many of the DoD installations surveyed many of the CRMP components were
evident and their importance acknowledged. Inventories were recognized as one
of the most important components in developing a successful program. The on-
going nature of inventories and surveys at installations allowed flexibility in
assessment and management. Small groups and continuity of resources staff were
identified as important to management activity success as well.

The CRMP process uses the concept of resources management systems. These
systems consist of a set of considerations or formats (practices, measures, other
items) for each resource during the planning process. The formats are developed
by experts and serve as guidelines for systematic discussion while formulating
coordinated plans (Anderson and Baum 1988). Resource management system
formats have been developed for a number of areas (fisheries, big game, en-
dangered species, forestry, irrigated cropland).

Anderson (1991) has found that the CRMP process can be even more effective if
the following areas are emphasized.

° The process should ensure that the management issue or proposed area is
manageable for CRMP. If the area is too extensive and the issues too
complex, planning and coordination become difficult. In these cases it is
necessary to divide the project into manageable units.

. The team should be as small as possible but have proper representation
and management expertise. It should also interact with other resource
coalitions and working groups. Interaction provides more information and
better communication, allows meetings to be run more effectively, and can
reduce organizational difficulties.



USACERL SR CRC-95/01

Contents

SF 298 enn n enn eee 1
Foreword 0.0.0... 6 cece ete eee eee 2
1 Introduction... 2... eee teen eee 5
Background .... 5
Objective ... 6
Approach 7
History of Resource Management 8

2 Installation Survey... 2.2.2.6. 2c eee eee 11
Staffing Questions... 0... eee eee tet e eee 1
Project Review Questions ....... 60... eee e eee eee eee teen ee 14
Funding Questions ...... 0.0.0 eee eee eee eee nett 15

. Resource Inventory Questions ....... 0.6. e eee reece eee eee eens 18

Physical Facilities Question
Command Support Question

Additional Observations ........ 0.5 cece cette teen e eee
3 Coordinated Resource Management .............--- +++ eee eee e eee 22
CRMP - Coordinated Resource Management Planning 22
Lessons From Water Resources Management ........-..+--+ essere eeeeee 24
The Large Scale Multi-Resource Management Experience .........-.+-++-- 25
Superior Coordinated Resources Management: Exceptional Waters Fishery Manage-
Ment 2. ee eee ene e ee eee e eens 25
Cultural Resources as Environmental Resources ........----- eee eee eeeee 28
Integration of Programs and Mission ..... 0-2... -e eee eee teen eee tees 28
4 Summary and Recommendations ...........-..----20- seer eeereee 30
Summary ... 26. eee eter eee
Recommendations
References ............-0-s eee eeeee
. Unannounced o
Distribution Justification,
By a
Distribution |

Availability Codes

. Avail and/or
Dist Special

A-/



34 USACERL SR CRC-95/01

References

Anderson, E.W., “Innovations in Coordinated Resource Management Planning,” Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation (1991).

Anderson, E.W., and R.C. Baum, “How to do Coordinated Resource Management
Planning,” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (1988).

Barton, B, “Cooperative Management of Interprovincial Water Resources” In: Managing
Natural Resources in a Federal State, Edited by J. Saunders, Second Banff
Conference on Natural Resources Law (1985).

Born, S.M., et al., State Experiences in Managing Exceptional Coldwater Rivers. Institute
for Environmental Studies Report 136 (University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1989).

Born, S.M., et al., “The Exceptional Waters Approach - A Focus for Coordinated Natural
Resources Management,” North American Journal of Fisheries Management, Vol
10 (1990), pp 279-289.

Dorcey, A.H.J., “Techniques for Joint Management of Natural Resources: Getting to Yes,”
In: Managing Natural Resources in a Federal State, edited by J. Saunders.
Second Banff Conference on Natural Resources Law (1985).

Goldstein, B., “The Struggle Over Ecosystem Management at Yellowstone,” Bioscience, Vol
42, No. 3, pp 183-187 (1992).

Hargrove, E.C., Foundations of Environmental Ethics (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
1989).

Joyce, L.A., et al., “Integrating Forage, Wildlife, Water, and Fish Projections with Timber
Projections at the Regional Level: A Case Study in the Southern United States,”
Environmental Management, Vol 14 No. 4 (1990), pp 489-500.

Nash, R.F., The Rights of Nature (University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, 1989).
Neumann, T.W., R.M. Sanford, and J.F. Palmer “Managing Archaeological Cultural

Resources as Environmental Resources: An Aid for Local Governments,” The
Environmental Professional, Vol 14 (1992), pp 117-125.



20

USACERL SR CRC-95/01

Command support was identified as another critical component of a successful
resource management program.’ Only one installation in the survey felt that
command support was a problem for their management program. The staff
believed command only noticed high visibility, priority issues that were often
publicized. In this case, problems were most frequently encountered with midlevel
command officers.

Cultural and natural resources staffs realize that the installation commander
must be aware of their programs and view them as a necessary and positive facet
of installation operations. Most situations reflect this attitude by command
personnel and resources staffs acknowledge that command awareness is in-
creasing. The integration of responsible resource management with other military
activities is “part of doing business” and “required if the mission of the installation
is to be maintained.”

Frequent meetings and briefings keep command personnel informed of the
activities and needs of the resources program at some installations. This approach
promotes what is described as “a corporate decisionmaking process with a very
open dialogue.” Additionally, “command sensitization,” as it is often termed,
frequently serves to accentuate the positive benefits of cultural and natural
resource programs.

Resource management staff often develop specific programs to educate and inform
incoming commanders about installation cultural and natural resources. Educa-
tional brochures and installation tours for command personnel and their families
are common. Two installations developed videos showing installation resources
and current and past projects. Involvement and inclusion of command spouses is
another successful method of exposing nonresource command level staff members
to resources issues and programs.

Command involvement and the support of resources staff and programs has also
been shown to create other, incidental benefits. Some individual managers stress
that installation resources unique to local communities or regions can be a very
positive part of community relations. Managers often showcase the unique
resources and involve command personnel in this process. The result can be
programs that provide valuable media exposure and attract outside resources that
are then used in different management capacities on the installation (i.e., research
projects, resource surveys and inventories, habitat restoration and manipulation).
According to one staff member, a significant benefit of a resources program that
has strong command support and involvement is that it can produce “media

“Also noted by Smith and Balbach (1992).



26

USACERL SR CRC-95/01

Investigations by Born et al. (1989, 1990) have examined state “exceptional
waters” (EW) management programs. These resource management programs
manage exceptional coldwater fisheries in 13 states and are rather extensive,
ranging from a low of 12 miles in Oregon to roughly 12,000 miles in neighboring
Idaho.

Because exceptional waters are especially valuable resources within a jurisdiction
or a region, they often bring together several states and other governmental units.
Although the tools for integrated fisheries management have been identified and
have existed for some time, fragmentation and poor coordination of management
programs have been long-standing problems. Surprisingly enough, how states
identify, coordinate, and integrate management activities had not been analyzed
before the work of Born et al. (1989, 1990).

The two Born studies assessed EW programs and found that the designation of
EW is the first step in coordinated resources management.’ As found in this case
study of exemplary resource management at military installations, the EW
research also showed that great variability existed between programs, and the
knowledge of the participants was often limited regarding management tools and
programs outside their immediate unit. This variability is not seen as detrimental
because the flexibility of staff and the adaptability of management programs meets
most resource management needs. However, it was emphasized that EW pro-
grams must be coordinated between traditional fishery management activities and
related natural resources management programs (e.g., forestry, water quality,
agriculture, mining, grazing) if they are to succeed. How coordination is achieved
in EW programs depends on at least eight important mechanisms and their
application in different management contexts (Table 1).

Another similarity between Born’s study and this one was found in the attitude
surrounding resource management. In EW cases, managing a particular resource
was identified as only part of the management equation (Born et al. 1990). Other
resources and the sociological aspects of resources management must also be
understood and considered for programs to be successful. This is an essential
component where public involvement is great (Born et al. 1990).

Born et al. (1990) also write “in most states we examined, there is substantial
dispersion of the requisite authorities for sound management of these fisheries,

“The methods used by Born et al. (1990) were similar to those of this case study with the exception
that this survey was done exclusively with personal and telephone interviews. Telephone interviews
were part of a follow-up of a mail survey completed by individual fishery managers in the Born et al.
research.


22 USACERL SR CRC-95/01

3 Coordinated Resource Management

Coordination of management activities and management cooperation between
multiple users, managers, and jurisdictions relative to resources management have
been addressed extensively in the literature. Techniques and factors responsible
for the success and failure of coordinated/cooperative resource management have
been identified. The following sections contain information and insights into coor-
dinated resource management found in other, non-DoD experiences.

CRMP - Coordinated Resource Management Planning

Anderson and Baum (1988) outlined a resource management process known as
coordinated resource management planning (CRMP). CRMP originated in Oregon
in the late 1940s and involved a group of ranchers and two Federal agencies.
Since then it has been successfully applied to a variety of resource management
concerns and continues to evolve. CRMP is defined as “a process by which natural
resources owners, managers, and users, working together as a team, formulate the
management of all major resources and ownerships within a specific area and/or
resolve specific conflicts” (Anderson and Baum 1988). The goal is both the process
and the product (management decisions and plans).

CRMP is designed to involve interdisciplinary resource teams, agencies, and users
in interactive sessions that “develop the rationale upon which management
decisions are based” (Anderson and Baum 1988). The process does not require any
participant to “abrogate their authority and responsibility” because final decisions
“are based on consensus, not voting” (Anderson and Baum 1988). Its applicability
to resource management is useful because resource problems typically are not
limited to “single ownerships, single resources, or single resource uses” (Anderson
and Baum 1988). Overlapping resource problems and management challenges are
commonly encountered on DoD installations.

Although a complete description of the CRMP protocol is beyond the scope of this
discussion, many of the required components of CRMP can be found in the current
operations of the installations surveyed in this study, including the need to have
resource inventories, management flexibility, and planning groups. Furthermore,
CRMP uses project prioritization and periodic reviews. Project prioritization


USACERL SR CRC-95/01

Piety, E., and H.E. Balbach, Present Funding for Legacy-related Resource Management
Programs, draft preliminary report (1992).

Schram, F.R., D. Diveley, and H.E. Balbach, Legacy Resource Management Programs
Outside the Department of the Defense: Final Report (1992).

Smith, S.D., and H.E. Balbach, “Survey of Current Programs Preliminary Findings:
Department of Defense Cultural and Natural Resource Programs” (1992).

Stroup, R.L., and J.A. Baden, Natural Resources: Bureaucratic Myths and Environmental
Management (Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research, San Francisco, CA,
Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, MA, 1983).



USACERL SR CRC-95/01

17.

research agreements. Some natural resource programs generate substantial
revenues that are used to support the programs. In many cases, surplus revenues
go into general accounts, eventually reaching other programs. In one case,
allocation and the routing of funds comes under the direction of one individual;
funds are used as needed. This management approach precludes problems of
coordination due to funding source.

Although researchers expected that funding would be viewed as a critical issue in
the success of resource management programs, comments provided by managers
and specialists went beyond those areas specifically addressed by the survey.
Annual budgets showed considerable variation at the installations surveyed.”
Some budgets were small, approximately $150,000 for both cultural and natural
resources combined, while others were more than $2,000,000. It is interesting to
note that many program supervisors and resource staff members stated that they
would need to double their current budgets to further develop their resources
program. The increase in funds would move their program from what they
currently characterize as “only adequate” to “where it ought to be.” The
magnitude of this increase is serious and particularly important because it must
be viewed in its proper context; this survey is only assessing what have been
identified as exemplary resource management programs.

The budget increases do not need to be permanent in many cases. Several
resource personnel indicated that they could achieve a level of operation witha
temporary increase lasting a few years. Short term increases could allow resource
programs “to get healthy” and “catch up with needs.” New money could be devoted
to special projects and to completing and updating both natural and cultural
resources inventories (addressed in the following section).

Respondents also raised the issue of securing funds. Many noted that obtaining

~ funds earmarked by DoD for cultural and natural resource management can be

confusing and some programs compete with one another unnecessarily. They also
pointed out that notification and information on how to get funds is often lacking.”
In addition, a common complaint among the survey respondents stemmed from the
fact that their personnel expend significant amounts of time and effort obtaining

“Specific budget questions were not asked in the survey or during the interviews. The information
presented here was volunteered by resource staff members because they felt it was important for the
purposes of this study, especially regarding the increasing of budgets.

“Finding money for installation programs was often described by resources staff as a terribly
frustrating task. Piety and Balbach (1992) reports that tracking cultural resources and natural
resources money is very difficult at installations as well. Accounting activities are not rigid and costs
are rarely accounted for separately. Close monitoring is only found for certain special projects and
programs (e.g., contracts, archaeological surveys, and endangered species following notice of
violation [NOV]).



USACERL SR CRC-95/01

greatest net good).” The adoption of this theory by economists (economic utilitarian-
ism) eventually instilled in people the idea that resources need to be utilized because
their use would generate the greatest net good. If resources were not used, they were
considered wasted (Hargrove, 1989).

The early development of professional resource management unfortunately followed
economic utilitarianism. An example of the application of the utilitarian ethic is
exemplified in the development of forest resource management in the United States.
Trees were “best utilized” when converted into fuel, paper, and building materials.
Therefore, forest management took a form that put timber production first and
foremost. Gifford Pinchot, the first Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, pointed out that
conservation did not mean protection of resources but their wise and efficient use to
serve the material interests of humankind (Nash, 1989). The forests were not, at that
time, recognized for the ecosystem services they provided to humans and other
organisms (biodiversity, watershed protection, recreation); they were merely a system
that produced raw materials. However, the emergence of the ecological sciences
brought knowledge concerning ecosystems and from that came a new perspective to
resource management (Nash, 1989).

Resource management has moved from a historical focus on single use resources issues
to a complex focus on multiple resource issues. Specific resources are now viewed,
probably correctly, as parts of interdependent systems and the greatest net good (to
both individuals and society) is not achieved by management of one resource at the
expense of others. The evolution from singular resource management toward multiple
resource management has been slow and has suffered numerous setbacks. An
inadequate understanding of natural systems and strong emotional beliefs and
preferences regarding human artifacts, endangered species, and other resources make
integrated resource management difficult. Individual and agency biases and
fragmentation of management efforts does not, as Stroup and Baden (1983) write,
“promote the kind of resource management that leads to high social welfare.”

Resource management issues throughout the United States affect Federal, state, and
private organizations, and individuals. The policies and practices of resource
management are increasingly more public. This public awareness was recently
exemplified by the continuing debate over the fire policy in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem following the major burns of 1988. In Yellowstone Park, aspects of multiple
resource management were severely criticized by both those inside and outside park
management. Before this situation can be turned around and the Park and its

“Good is defined as happiness, and happiness as pleasure. Utility, therefore, attempts to maximize
happiness. When utilitarianism was embraced by economists, the result was often exploitation and
domination of natural systems and the subsequent creation of material wealth (j.e., human happiness).



32

USACERL SR CRC-95/01

needed staff, is necessary at even these exemplary installations. Each
location must have an adequate number of qualified staff to carry out
required management duties. Ideally, staff composition should reflect
resource composition and magnitude. At exemplary installations, this
appears to be a closer match than is the DOD-wide norm, so fewer
unacceptable deviations appear. There is no standard formula that can be
applied to determine how many natural and cultural resource personnel
are needed at a location because too much diversity exists within DOD, but
statements of need from the installation level should not be assumed to be
typical complaining. The need for additional staff, or supporting contrac-
tors or other trained specialists, is very real and may be underestimated.

Supervisors can only manage resources if they have the requisite informa-
tion base to make decisions. Informed decisions require resource invento-
ries and a system to deliver the information. The exemplary installations
represent the upper level of current accomplishment in inventory comple-
tion and information management. This is one of the ways in which they
are conspicuously different from the DoD norm. Inventories, data
management systems, and the technical staff to develop and maintain them
are costly. Specific budgets for this purpose are far from the norm within
DoD. These needs, therefore, must become regularly programmed budget
items directed toward expanding staff, carrying out inventories, and
developing information management systems. These funds must not be
allocated only at headquarters, but must be realistically available to
installation natural and cultural resource management staff for pro-
grammed purposes and must be protected from diversion to other instal-
lation entities. Resources management programs cannot continue to
operate from limited general operating funds nor can they depend on funds
generated by their own program activities, which may be at odds with
stewardship goals.

Successful programs ultimately depend on command support. It is a
characteristic of these highly successful programs that their managers have
convinced a succession of local commanders that natural and cultural
resources are important to the installation’s military mission. The less
successful program managers merely succeed in being allowed to coexist
with the military mission. DoD-wide programs need to be developed to
inculcate in all officers, and especially prospective commanders, the
importance of cultural and natural resources management. This task
cannot rest solely on the shoulders of resources personnel.



USACERL SR CRC-95/01

based on coordination and cooperation toward complete integration. It may be
argued that integration generally refers to the same coordination and cooperation
relationships, but this is not the case. Resources programs that
cooperate/coordinate differ from those that are integrated. Cooperate is to act or
work with another or others; coordinate is to bring into a common action,
movement, or condition, or to act together in a smooth concerted way; integrate is
to form into a whole or to end the segregation of and bring into common and equal
membership in society or an organization. The major distinction is that
cooperation and coordination bring different, often unequally represented, groups
to act together temporarily. Integration forms a new group that has been
developed from smaller units having equal membership and is not temporary.

Integration of cultural and natural resources management on military installa-
tions is not the last step in developing and maintaining a successful stewardship
program. There must be a conscious effort to integrate the mission into the
management program as well, but an integrated resources program must remain
as the foundation of the overall management effort. Why? Because cultural and
natural resource bases are, for the most part, fixed and therefore constrain certain
types of activity. Military missions are everchanging and must be adapted to the
resources. In essence, integration will need to develop through a phased process,
moving from cooperation to coordination to partial integration to full integration

as listed below.

. Phase I - Cooperation between natural and cultural resource programs.

. Phase II - Coordination between natural and cultural resource programs.
. Phase III - Integration of natural and cultural resource programs into a

single resources program (i.e., envirocultural resources).
. Phase IV - Integration of military mission into a single resources program.

Most of the exemplary resource management programs assessed in this case study
can be categorized somewhere between Phase II and Phase III; the programs are
coordinated but not integrated. Other military installation resource management
programs that are not exemplary are probably between Phase I and Phase II. It
is important to recognize that cooperation and coordination have their place in
resources management, but integration will continue to occur and may become the
norm in the near future. The success of State EW programs and the management
of archaeological cultural resources as environmental resources further verifies
this trend toward integration.



6 USACERL SR CRC-95/01

The SCP contains five related initiatives to discover how Legacy-related resources are
being managed at DoD facilities:

1. Conduct a DoD-wide survey consisting of an extensive set of questions for military
installation natural and cultural resource personnel. The survey consisted of
qualitative and quantitative questions about current programs and resources.

2. Conduct installation site visits to interview cultural and natural resource staff
and gain a greater familiarity with Legacy-related resource programs throughout
DoD. Personal interviews provided a means for evaluating resource awareness
and characterizing management programs.

8. Evaluate resource management outside DoD to determine how other agencies
manage both cultural and natural resources. Researchers assessed over 30 state
and regional offices of various agencies by phone interviews or site visits to learn
about their resource management programs.

4. Examine funding for Legacy-related resources programs was also examined to
determine tracking and management of monetary resources being expended at
installations for resource management activities.

5. Conduct a case study of exemplary programs to identify and evaluate successful
cultural and natural resources programs within DoD.

The information generated from these activities will be used to characterize DoD
resources and how they are managed with the goal of improving current programs and
moving toward long-term stewardship. This research focused on initiative 5.

Objective

The objectives of initiative 5 are to (1) identify instances where natural resource and
cultural resource programs have succeeded in coordinating management activities and
(2) determine properties and processes that foster coordinated resource management.
Tasks supporting these objectives include identifying the characteristics, mechanisms,
and factors that prompt coordinated resource management and recognizing obstacles
to integrated management at DoD facilities. Information from these exemplary
programs and program managers can direct development of initiatives for coordinated
in-house natural and cultural resource management programs at DoD installations,
thereby helping to ensure the overall success of the Legacy Program.



USACERL SR CRC-95/01

1. Introduction

Background

The Legacy Resource Management Program was created following Congressional
passage of the Defense Appropriations Act of 1991.” The purpose of the program is to
develop a comprehensive, integrated resource management program for Department
of Defense (DoD) installations and properties (Public Law [PL] 101-511). To achieve
the overall goal of the Legacy Program, the DoD needs to integrate resource
management activities at two distinctly different functional levels: outside the DoD
and within the DoD. The first level will require cooperative agreements and resource
management plans for all DoD lands, facilities, and property in concert with outside
public and private agencies (i.e., Bureau of Land Management [BLM], Soil Conserva-
tion Service [SCS], United States Forest Service [USFS], and The Nature Conservancy
[TNC]). The second level, which constitutes the focus of this research, requires
development and coordination of natural and cultural resources management
programs at DoD installations. These programs need to be examined and modified,
where necessary, to ensure the success of the long-term goal of the Legacy
Program—development of an integrated stewardship program for both cultural and
natural resources within DoD mission activities and the public interest.

To meet this second level of integration, an assessment of current resource programs
needed to be conducted at DoD installations because quantitative information about
the types and status of both cultural and natural resource management programs at
installations was largely lacking at headquarters level. To rectify this situation, the
Survey of Current Programs (SCP) Task Area was created to gather installation data
and generate information to help develop an integrated stewardship program. New
program development would depend on information about current DoD resource
management operations and on identification of characteristics and factors that could
be modified to promote better, integrated resource management. Discovering the
extent and manner in which DoD resource management programs currently function
required activities in a number of related initiatives.

“The Legacy Resource Management Program Report to Congress, September 1991, contains an in-
depth description of the legislative purposes of the program.



18 USACERL SR CRC-95/01

funds for their programs. This situation is expected and tolerated to some degree,
after which it is seen as “lots of effort in nonproductive time to get money” and “an
inefficient use of staff in an understaffed program.”

Lastly, the interviews consistently showed that at most installations, staff
members find creative ways to get funds, expand their programs, and stretch
dollars. The use of volunteer organizations, cooperation with universities and
outside agencies, and the completion of small projects developed within the context
of other larger activities is common to all installations surveyed.

Resource Inventory Questions

9. Have complete inventories of both natural and cultural resources been carried
out at the installation?

10. Are resource surveys periodically updated?

Survey results indicated that completed total inventories of both cultural and
natural resources exist at only one of the installations examined.” This lack of
completed inventories may seem unusual considering the exemplary status of the
surveyed installations. However, the result is deceiving because it reflects an
overall situation that can best be characterized as dynamic. Typically, complete
inventories may exist for either cultural or natural resources but not both. Many
of the installations had partial inventories, but the degree of completion and the
level of detail varies widely. For example, one large installation had completed
the natural resources inventories except for the forestry component and had more
than 50 percent of the cultural resources inventoried.

Incomplete inventory status is a product of different circumstances and factors.
Most installations had not completed inventories because of lack of both funds and
staff. Many installation inventories reflected specific resource priorities. In
situations where forest resources information was important for timber manage-
ment and the generation of revenues, specific inventories were often complete and
highly developed. This was achieved by channeling program generated revenues
back into that particular resource management area. Other programs had
different situations where wildlife, fisheries, wetlands, or endangered species were
completely inventoried because of compliance requirements or recreational value.”

“This was achieved only through the continuing cooperation and aid of local academic institutions and
volunteer efforts.
“Also noted by Smith and Balbach (1992).



8 USACERL SR CRC-95/01

6. Does available funding foster the coordination of management activities between
natural and cultural resources programs?

7. Does the current level of monetary resources meet the management needs of the
respective resources at the installation?

8. Does the source of funding inhibit or constrain coordination activities?

9. Have complete resource inventories of both natural and cultural resources been
carried out at the installation?

10. Are resource surveys periodically updated?

11. Are natural and cultural resource management personnel located in the same
facility?

12. Does the command structure at the installation provide a framework that helps
facilitate cooperation and coordination between natural and cultural resource
management programs?

The resource program at each selected installation was assessed using the above
questions by either a face-to-face or telephone interview with natural and cultural
resource personnel. The brief survey did not concentrate on either natural or cultural
resources but attempted to provide balanced coverage. Personnel at various levels and
with different specialties (archaeologists, ecologists, program supervisors, and
engineers) were interviewed to obtain different management program perspectives
within the resource program hierarchy.

Following the formal questioning period, participants were given the opportunity to
provide additional comments that they felt were important or relevant to coordinated
resources management. The face-to-face interviews lasted about 1% hours and
telephone interviews took between 35 and 60 minutes. In addition, results from other
Legacy supported activities and correlations with the literature were also considered
in reaching the final conclusions.

History of Resource Management

In the not-too-distant past, resource management reflected John Stuart Mill's
utilitarian ethic. Utilitarian theory holds that what is right is to act or bring about the
greatest possible good consequences over bad consequences for all concerned (i.e., the



24 USACERL SR CRC-95/01

. Use of preliminary checklists of topics and issues streamlines the planning
process.
. Problems must be related to resource management, not land use.

While none of the exemplary programs surveyed follow the formal CRMP process
(all have developed their own protocols), this type of system may be useful. In
instances where resources programs are new, poorly developed, or ineffective, a
CRMP process could provide structure and organization and its formats can guide
resource management. Both the process, or the formats independent of the CRMP
process, could be applied to reactive or proactive programs. CRMP formats may
be particularly useful in situations where staff expertise is lacking by assisting in
specific resources assessments and subsequent management.

Lessons From Water Resources Management

Water resources management (primarily issues of quantity and quality) has
historically relied on cooperative, coordinated management approaches. Different
management techniques are used and the level of interaction and organization
varies. An example of successful management in Canada can be found in the
Prairie Provinces Water Board (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba) (Barton 1985).
Management problems in this case stemmed from the complexity of managing
three rivers and not from jurisdictional issues, which is often the case. Manage-
ment difficulties were overcome in part by cooperative research agreements and
by creating a board that set ground rules for the group but left enough room for
each province to manage their own water resources. This arrangement minimized
intrusion into other jurisdictions. The cooperative management group, organized
in 1969, developed a process that relies heavily on frequent informal contacts,
regular meetings of committees, and a commitment to cooperate and formulate
formal agreements.

Dorcey (1985) has also identified techniques for successful joint management of
natural resources in Canada relative to water resources. Since the 1950s,
management has moved from an ad hoc approach to a more formal process, which
he feels is being driven by legislation. The processes discussed by Dorcey (1985)
heavily rely on adopted guidelines, development of task forces for conflict
resolution and planning, and the use of an Environmental Assessment and Review
Process (EARP).’ Developing communications and bargaining skills, changing

“EARP is roughly the equivalent of environmental assessments and environmental impact statements
as required by NEPA.


US Army Corps
of Engineers

Construction Engineering
Laboratories

A Case Study of Coordinated Resource &
Management Programs at Selected Q LO SP
Department of Defense Installations @, \“

y
Bruce C. Dickson and Harold E. Balbach

USACERL Special Report CRC-95/01
October 1994

ye

a
can who

360 P0/0S66!

The Legacy Resource Management Program,
created after Congressional passage of the Defense
Appropriations Act of 1991, requires a compre-
hensive, integrated resource management program
for Department of Defense (DoD) installations and
properties. To help meet the goals of the Legacy
Program, researchers con-ducted an assessment of
current resource programs. Objectives of this phase
of the research were to (1) identify instances where
natural resource and cultural resource programs
have succeeded in coordinating management acti-
vities and (2) determine properties and processes
that foster coordinated resource management. To
meet these objectives, researchers conducted case

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

studies of seven exemplary installations/activities.
The studies showed that understaffing, particularly
for cultural resources management, is a universal
problem; a qualified, committed staff is considered
the most important factor is establishing and main-
taining a successful resources program. Inadequate
funding does not inhibit coordination and project
review between cultural and natural resources staffs,
but it has prevented many installations from devel-
oping complete resource inventories. Strong
command support and accurate information from
installation resource inventories were also identified
as critical factors in successful resource
management.

Q SEED 3



USACERL SR CRC-95/01

11

Installation Survey

This chapter examines the results of an installation survey of exemplary programs.
The specific survey questions are listed and additional problems and issues that were
raised during the interviews are included. The results of each topical area are
presented individually. In cases where there are multiple questions, each specific
question is handled individually and in relation to the other questions within that
subject area due to their interrelated nature. Lastly, research findings from literature
sources relative to coordinated/integrated resource management are discussed.

Staffing Questions

1. How well balanced, in relation to the installation's respective resources, are the
numbers of professionally trained natural and cultural resource personnel at your
installation?

2. Where are the personnel deficiencies (shortages)?

3. Are these professionals and their activities and responsibilities respected by other
installation personnel or are you often viewed as obstructionists?

Staffing at the exemplary installations is highly variable and depends on resources
and mission requirements. Of the seven installations surveyed, five managers
indicated their resource management staff was balanced in relation to the resources
at their location. This does not mean that there are equal numbers of natural
resources and cultural resources staff at these installations. In most cases natural
resources personnel outnumber cultural resources personnel, often at a ratio of 6 tol
or greater. The distribution of staff is skewed because some installations have vast
resource bases (particularly those in the West), different missions have specific
requirements, and the mission’s degree of impact on cultural and natural resources
varies among installations. At locations with large, diverse natural resources bases,
the staff often manage timber, wildlife, fisheries, agricultural, and other resources.
Some of these natural resource areas have been the focus of past management
programs and remain installation priorities. Because of this previous status, natural
resources management programs often contain more special programs and initiatives



10

USACERL SR CRC-95/01

immediate surroundings be managed as an ecosystem, an ethical and institutional
reorientation will be required (Goldstein, 1992).

Resource management issues also affect the DoD. DoD has extensive land holdings
and over 1,000 installations in the United States and its possessions (Smith and
Balbach, 1992). Differences in resource needs, like those found at DoD installations,
often result in conflict within and among associated internal and external manage-
ment agencies and user groups. These conflicts, when left unresolved, can impede or
derail a comprehensive resource management plan. Conflicts need to be identified and
resolved if multiple resource management programs are to succeed in their broadest
sense.



USACERL SR CRC-95/01 31

inventories may exist for either cultural or natural resources, but not both.
Many of the installations had partial inventories, but the degree of
completion and the level of detail varies widely, with cultural resources
lagging behind natural resources. All installations were involved in
updating the resource surveys. The information generated by inventories
was viewed as critical to successful management.

. All but one installation reported that the natural and cultural resources
staffs were housed in the same building or complex. It was common to
have both staffs located in the same office. Resources staff also strongly
believed this arrangement was a fundamental requirement of a coordinated
resource management program, facilitating both formal and informal com-
munication.

. Command support was identified as another critical component of a
successful resource management program. Only one installation in the
survey felt that weak command support was a problem for their manage-
ment program. Cultural and natural resources staff realize that the
installation commander must be aware of the programs and see them as
a necessary and positive facet of installation operations. Command
involvement and the support of resources staff and programs have also
been shown to create other benefits and set the overall tone for the nature
of the program.

Recommendations

If the goal of the Legacy Resource Management Program is to achieve an
integrated stewardship program for natural, cultural, and earth resources within
DoD, some aspects of the existing, single-goal programs will require modification.
Changes, some of major proportions, will be required in the operational philoso-
phies of some services, intermediate command levels, and certain individual
installations. The changes will require a revised commitment from field staff,
program supervisors, installation commanders, the military service hierarchy and
the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The following recommendations are
provided to assist in guiding existing policies and programs toward integration.

° A quality program is, as illustrated by these exemplary installations, only
as good as the staff and, especially, the on-site program manager. The
installations included in this nonrandom investigation were fortunate in
having aggressive management leadership and dedicated supporting staff.
However, substantial staffing increases, or a means to substitute for



30 USACERL SR CRC-95/01

4 Summary and Recommendations

Summary

This case study exemplary programs has identified characteristics, mechanisms,
and factors that promote successful, coordinated resource management programs
at DoD installations.

. The survey revealed that in most cases staffing at these “exemplary”
installations is balanced in relation to the particular resource management
needs, but most installations are understaffed, especially for cultural
resources. Natural resources personnel outnumber cultural resources staff
often at a ratio of 6 to 1 or greater. Qualified, committed staff are
considered the most important factor in establishing and maintaining a
successful resources program.

. All these installations have some form of project review process that
includes both natural and cultural resource staff; the organization and
format differs among services and installations. Generally, the review
process encountered at these installations for any action follows a NEPA
style format. Respondents indicated that this approach was always used
when it was legally mandated and that their familiarity with the process
was naturally extended to actions of a lesser nature.

. Funding does not inhibit coordination between natural and cultural
resources at exemplary installations. In many instances funding for
cultural and natural resources was separate; in other cases finances were
shared. Adequate funding is a problem even at the exemplary installa-
tions. All respondents indicated they could upgrade their programs if they
had a larger budget and could expand staff and complete inventories. A
number of program supervisors and resource staff members stated that
they would need to double their current budgets to further develop their
resources program. However, the budget increases can be temporary in
most cases.

. Survey results indicated that completed inventories of both cultural and
natural resources exist at only one installation. Typically, complete



USACERL SR CRC-95/01

Approach

The research goal was to be achieved by examining specific cases on DoD installations
where successful resource management programs are operating. Researchers
identified and investigated cases of superior coordination in cultural and natural
resource management programs in all military services. These cases were nominated
by the various Service Headquarters in Washington, DC, during March 1992, and
represent many of the inherent differences in ecologically diverse geographic regions,
military services, installation size, and missions/land uses at a variety of installations.

Ten exemplary programs were initially identified and contacted. Of those, seven
provided sufficient information for evaluation: Vandenberg Air Force Base and San
Clemente Island Naval Air Station in California, The Air Force Academy and Fort
Carson in Colorado, F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming, Fort Polk in Louisiana,
and the Atlantic Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, Virginia.
The latter is not an installation per se, but is a group of facilities managed jointly by
an environmental and intergovernmental coordinator.

A brief set of questions on coordination of cultural and natural resource programs was
developed after discussions and review of several preliminary studies concerning
resources management in general and DoD experiences in particular. Areas of inquiry
were eventually narrowed to six topics relative to cultural and natural resource
management at military installations: staffing, project review, funding, resource
inventories, physical facilities, and command support. The specific questions are
presented below.

1. How well balanced, in relation to the installation's respective resources, are the
numbers of professionally trained natural and cultural resource personnel at your
installation?

2. Where are the personnel (staff) deficiencies (if any)?

3. Are these professionals and their activities and responsibilities respected by other
installation personnel or are you often viewed as obstructionists?

4, When a prospective action has the potential to impact natural and/or cultural
resources, is there a standard review process that includes both natural and
cultural resources personnel, or is the review done independently?

5. Is the review process rigorous and part of a regular installation routine (i.e., a
standard procedure)?



USACERL SR CRC-95/01

21

exposure that fosters positive public attitudes and perceptions, which in turn often
avoids controversy and reduces watchdogging.”

Additional Observations

The survey focused on specific areas identified as important to a successful natural
and cultural resources management program. Discussions with personnel from
both resource management areas often included topics that were not directly
addressed in the survey but were influential in the success of the overall program.
Two areas repeatedly emerged as crucial components for developing and main-
taining a successful program. The first, and most critical, is staff related. The
problems with understaffing have been discussed. It was also evident that pro-
gram quality reflects the quality and commitment of the individual resources staff
members and their willingness to work together. This cannot be overemphasized.
Staff at the exemplary installations were doing much more than would normally
be expected considering funding, lack of information, and other constraints.

The second area is personnel oriented, but is different from the first area because
it is a function of how, from a philosophical position, management of natural and
cultural resources programs are conducted, and how staff view their individual
and collective contributions. Program personnel, one a manager and the other an
active field person, at separate installations indicated that an encompassing
resource philosophy must come from the top to prevent biased management of one
resource over another. This management philosophy stresses that “there is no
difference between cultural and natural resources; both are managed for their
continued sustainable use.” Adoption of this philosophy by both supervisors and
field workers eliminates problems of coordination and cooperation because
resources are no longer differentiated; the mission and installation are viewed
from a new perspective that dictates that “all resources are essential to providing
a healthy training environment, not just a training environment” and “utilization
{military mission] depends on sustainable resources.”

The ability of DoD resources staff to comply with Federal and state regulations
regarding historic structures, archaeological sites, endangered species, and a host
of other issues is due to their professionalism, performance, and commitment.
Most are attempting, and see it as their goal, to go beyond compliance and move
toward a proactive resource management program. One field resource staff mem-
ber commented that his vision of the military base of the future was one that had
a robust, fully-integrated resources program that could “create a military installa-
tion in a national park setting.” While this may not be readily achievable at some
installations it is at least a laudable goal.



USACERL SR CRC-95/01

27

Table 1. Coordination mechanisms for EW management programs.

Coordination Mechanism When Applied
Joint Planning Frequently
Plan Review Frequently
Formal Coordination Committees Rarely
Informal Communication Frequently
Memoranda of Understanding Occasionally
Environmental Impact Review Frequently
Cost-Sharing (acquisition, research) Occasionally
Joint Staffing/Staff Sharing . . Occasionally

surrounding watersheds, and the user community. This suggests the importance
of coordinated, if not fully integrated, resources management.”

Of the coordination mechanisms identified in Table 1, Born et al. (1990)
highlighted four as very important: joint planning, plan review, environmental
impact reviews, and informal communication. Informal communication was noted
as the most critical coordination mechanism. (Informal communication was also
noted by resource management personnel at the exemplary installations as being
critical to coordinated management and, according to them, is best achieved by
having natural and cultural resource staffs in the same office.) In addition, model
EW programs had the following characteristics (Born et al. 1990).

. Data quality and analyses; in short, a program must practice “good
science,”

° Continued monitoring and analysis for program adjustments, ;

. Reliance on professional judgement when valid, complete data is unavail-
able,

° Full support of administrative levels of agency,

: Endorsement by the scientific community (technical legitimacy and

program stature) of the activities and methods,

. Aggressive public education/information,
. Close ties with potential support groups,
. Use of decisive, broad programmatic changes rather than incremental

changes under some circumstances,



2 USACERL SR CRC-95/01

Foreword

This report was prepared for the U.S. Army Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for
Installation Management (OACS[IM]) with funding through the Legacy Resource
Management Program under military interdepartmental purchase request E87910349,
dated 29 April 1992, “Manual for Documenting Historic Military Structures.” The
technical monitor was Dr. Constance Ramirez, DAIM-ED-N.

This work was conducted through the Tri-Services Cultural Resources Research
Center by the Environmental Natural Resources Division (EN) of the Environmental
Sustainment Laboratory (EL), U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research
Laboratories (USACERL). The principal investigator was Dr. Harold E. Balbach. Dr.
William Severinghaus is Chief, CECER-EN, and Mr. William Goran is Chief, CECER-
EL. The USACERL technical editor was Gloria J. Wienke, Information Management
Office.

The following individuals are gratefully acknowledged for their contributions to this
report: Steven Smith of the South Carolina Archaeological Institute, and the
installation Resource Management staffs.

LTC David J. Rehbein is Commander and Acting Director, USACERL, and Dr. Michael
J. O'Connor is Technical Director.

The Tri-Services Cultural Resources Research Center is a re
search and technical support center that assists the U.S. military
services in the stewardship of cultural resources located within
Department of Defense (DOD) installations or facilities. The
Center, located at USACERL, helps installations manage their
cultural resources and comply with Federal, State, and DOD

HISTORY

Tri Services Cultural .
Resources Research preservation mandates.

Center



14 USACERL SR CRC-95/01

Project Review Questions

4. When a prospective action has the potential to impact natural and/or cultural
resources, is there a standard review process that includes both natural and
cultural resources personnel, or is the review done independently?

5. Is the review process rigorous and part of a regular routine (i.e., a standard
procedure)?

Coordination and cooperation between natural and cultural resources staffs for
reviewing prospective installation actions that may have an impact on natural
and/or cultural resources were identified as an important components of a
successful management program. Six installations have a standard review process
that includes both natural and cultural resources staffs. Most installation
personnel also felt that their project review process was rigorous and followed a
standard procedure. Differences emerged between services and installations
regarding how the review process functions, where and when it is applied, the
degree of formality, and the documentation that accompanies a review.

Generally, the review process for any action at these installations was similar to
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process. The NEPA
framework provides the necessary structure and organization for reviews.
Respondents indicated this approach was always used when it was legally
mandated and their familiarity with the process naturally extended to actions of
a lesser magnitude. Therefore, those surveyed felt they have a standard, rigorous
review process that meets most needs. They believe this type of review process
allows projects to move quickly from planning to completion with fewer delays.

For example, the Air Force has a formal review process with accompanying
required documentation that is very effective. A resource specialist at one Air
Force installation estimated that their process catches more than 95 percent of the
actions with the potential to affect resources. Another installation, with a less
developed resources management program, described their review as an “ad hoc
process based on NEPA that is working but could be improved.”

Other elements also contribute to the effectiveness of the review process at
installations. The stage at which resources staff are included for consultation in
the development of a proposed action was recognized as another very important
factor for a successful review process. Early involvement by the resources staffs
helps minimize delays and associated costs. In most instances the review process
* brings cultural and natural resources personnel in at an early stage, thereby
facilitating project development and avoiding what is referred to by some resource



16

USACERL SR CRC-95/01

8. Does the source of funding inhibit or restrain coordination activities?

Inquires regarding funding brought the most varied and lengthy responses of any
of the survey questions. All installations in the survey responded to question six
by saying available funding does not inhibit coordination between natural and
cultural resources.” In many instances funding for cultural and natural resources
was separate; in other cases finances were shared. Program personnel related
that competition for funds was rarely a problem and that cooperation between
staffs facilitated allocating money for projects. One respondent said activities are
coordinated because “our situation fosters unity as neither [resource program] gets
enough funding.” For major actions where cultural and natural resources impacts
are expected to be substantial and for compliance projects, funds typically were
available.” Allocations for smaller projects is not always as certain and may rely
on command decisions, “fenced money,” or year end money.

Question seven sought to determine if funding levels were viewed as adequate at
these exemplary installations to meet the needs of the resources staffs. Survey
results indicate that funding is a universal problem. No installation responded
that they had sufficient funding to meet their management needs. As found in
other survey areas, cultural resources suffers more from underfunding than
natural resources. Money often flows where requests are most urgent (endangered
species were often specifically cited). Another problem unique to cultural
resources is that unlike some natural resource program areas (timber, agricultural
outleases) cultural resources seldom generate income that can support activities
and programs,"

But other factors were also noted. One respondent clearly stated that funding was
never adequate because “we are always being asked, or need, to do more.” Some
installations reported that they could use their monetary resources more
effectively if they had more staff, especially in cultural resources. Understaffing
creates a situation that requires extensive contracting which, in some cases, is
more expensive than it would have been for the project to be done in-house.

Study results also show that the source of funds usually has little influence on
coordination between cultural and natural resources. Reasons for the lack of
influence were related to the fact that both cultural and natural resources often
seek alternative sources of funding for projects through interagency and university

“Schram, Diveley, and Balbach (1992) found that the same was true for resources programs outside
the Department of Defense.
Also observed by Smith and Balbach (1992).
+ A formal or informal restriction on the purpose for which a fund allocation can be used.
11 Also found by Smith and Balbach (1992).



REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE ome Ne cobb

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information Is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing Instructions, searching existing data Sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for information Operations and Reports, 1215
Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

7. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) | 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
October 1994 Final
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE ~__]5. FUNDING NUMBERS
A Case Study of Coordinated Resource Management Programs at Selected Depart- MIPR
ment of Defense Installations E87910349
6. AUTHOR(S)

Bruce C. Dickson and Harold E. Balbach

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 1S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL) REPORT NUMBER
P.O. Box 9005 SR CRC-95/01

Champaign, IL 61826-9005

‘9. SPONSORING 7 MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING / MONITORING
U.S. Army Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
(OACS[IM])

ATTN: DAIM-ED-N
600 Army, Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0600

71, SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Copies are available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 72b. DISTRIBUTION CODE,

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13, ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
The Legacy Resource Management Program, created after Congressional passage of the Defense Appropriations Act of
1991, requires a comprehensive, integrated resource management program for Department of Defense (DoD)
installations and properties. To help meet the goals of the Legacy Program, researchers con-ducted an assessment of
current resource programs. Objectives of this phase of the research were to (1) identify instances where natural
resource and cultural resource programs have succeeded in coordinating management activities and (2) determine
properties and processes that foster coordinated resource management. To meet these objectives, researchers conducted
case studies of seven exemplary installations/activities. The studies showed that understaffing, particularly for cultural
resources management, is a universal problem; a qualified, committed staff is considered the most important factor is
establishing and maintaining a successful resources program. Inadequate funding does not inhibit coordination and
project review between cultural and natural resources staffs, but it has prevented many installations from developing
complete resource inventories. Strong command support and accurate information from installation resource inven-
tories were also identified as critical factors in successful resource management.

14. SUBJECT TERMS : (15. NUMBER OF PAGES
Legacy Resource Management Program 38
natural resources--management 16. PRICE CODE
Coordinated Resource Management Planning (CRMP)

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 15. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified SAR
ISN 7540-01-280-5500 tandard Form 298 (Rev. 2-69)

Prescribed by ANSI Std 239-18
298-102



USACERL SR CRC-95/01

25

attitudes and behavior, using expertise, leadership and accountability, planning,
impact assessments, and mediation, are all acknowledged as important techniques
for joint management (Dorcey 1985). All of these areas may not apply to military
installations but many have been mentioned as important to DoD program success
by respondents of the exemplary programs survey.

Weaknesses of joint/cooperative management and obstacles to successful resource
management programs are also discussed by Dorcey (1985). Three areas are
identified as serious: (1) weakness in data and information generated, (2) des-
criptive knowledge of the natural system may be good but functional knowledge
is lacking, and (3) poorly developed planning and planning analysis. These areas
can often be improved and, once addressed, have the potential to dramatically
change resource management success.

The Large Scale Multi-Resource Management Experience

Goldstein (1992) identified management problems and potential solutions relative
to the management of Yellowstone National Park and the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Activity and interest from 28 political units in 3 states, 5 Federal
agencies (National Park Service, United States Forest Service, United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Land
Reclamation), private owners, and other interest groups have resulted in frag-
mented management efforts. Coordinated resource management is hampered by
differences in legal mandates, institutional evolution, and bureaucratic rivalry.

Beyond these problems knowledge of ecosystem components is inadequate and the
organizations lack a system to access the information that has been collected
(Goldstein 1992). Joyce et al. (1990) also believe that successful multiresource pro-
grams require a classification and inventory system. Inventories again surface as
a critical management component. When management is spread among different
units, inventories must be available and accessible. Considering the cost re-
quirements of inventories, restricted access to the information they generate is
irresponsible. This points to the need to have interactive management groups that
share all resource information and data.

Superior Coordinated Resources Management: Exceptional Waters Fishery

Management

Coordination and cooperation in resources management is probably best
exemplified by state programs for managing high value coldwater fisheries.



The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication,

or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an
official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.
The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official
Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized

documents.

DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN IT IS NO LONGER NEEDED

DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR



USACERL SR CRC-95/01

. If cultural and natural resources programs are to be brought together and
placed under one umbrella as a means to ensure integration of programs,
major changes will be required in many locations. These changes must
occur in two complementary areas, the philosophical and the physical. A
philosophical orientation that does not differentiate between natural and
cultural resources will go a long way toward fully integrated management
and pave the way toward sustainable systems management. It is also
recommended that the two resources staffs be located in the same building
and, where possible, share adjacent office areas. This survey of exemplary
programs consistently found (confirming reports in the technical literature)
that informal communication is the key to successful resources manage-
ment and can only occur if both resources staffs have frequent contact.



28 USACERL SR CRC-95/01

. Link programs, and
. Persistence.

Exceptional waters management programs reflect many of the same needs,
problems, and management characteristics (both structural and functional) found
at DoD installations. Accordingly, many of the factors attributed to EW program
success were noted by those interviewed in this case study of exemplary programs.
It is also worth noting that development of coordinated EW programs can be
achieved within a reasonable timeframe. Montana and Pennsylvania were
identified as having model state programs; the former was initiated in 1959 and
the latter in 1983 (Born et al. 1990).

Cultural Resources as Environmental Resources

Neumann, Sanford, and Palmer (1992) feel that archaeological cultural resources
are probably the most challenging management problem facing small staffs that
lack specialized cultural resources personnel. The problem stems from the fact
that the resources are often hidden and difficult to detect (subsurface) and that
they have little practical value to the public. To overcome these difficulties, the
researchers propose that archaeological cultural resources be managed like natural
resources because of their inherent similarity. This similarity is reflected in both
cultural and natural resources being part of a local ecological system which are
pollutable (loss of integrity), potentially nonrenewable, and spatially predictable
(Neumann, Sanford, and Palmer 1992). These characteristics allow archaeological
cultural resources to be viewed like natural resources and managed accordingly.
From a practical standpoint this view is readily understood, does not require
special training of management personnel, and moves from site management to
landscape analysis and management. This approach has been successfully applied
to managing prehistoric cultural resources along the western shore of Chesapeake
Bay, MD, and in Onondaga County, NY (Neumann, Sanford, and Palmer 1992).
This management approach would be very useful where cultural resources
programs are understaffed at DoD locations and could begin the process of
integrating cultural and natural resources programs.

Integration of Programs and Mission

Resources management is moving toward integrated multiresource management.
Based on analysis of the exemplary installation programs and review of the
technical literature, resources programs are shifting from management activities


12

USACERL SR CRC-95/01

and initiatives than cultural resources management programs. The disproportionate
number of natural resources personnel also reflects the fact that they often perform
some collateral duties in cultural resources.”

Shortages in resource management staffing were identified in six of the cases assessed.
Although both natural and cultural resource areas could use larger staffs, cultural
resources is the area with the greatest need. Cultural resources staff shortages were
particularly acute for archaeologists, even though many of the installations have large
archaeological resources that need to be evaluated, cataloged, and managed.’

Natural resources staff often assume cultural resources duties and responsibilities
even though they lack sufficient professional preparation or experience. One
resource manager felt that while this filled a need in his staff, it had a negative
effect in that the person was not available to work in his/her area of specialization.
This was viewed as an inefficient use of human resources. Additionally, the need,
and inability, to hire and maintain a highly specialized staff also presented
problems. Because most resources staffs need additional personnel, the loss of a
person due to funding cuts or other circumstances has the potential to create
major functional difficulties in a resource management program. One respondent
stated, “If we lose one person, we lose one function.” This makes it readily
apparent that many management programs are operating at a minimal level; they
cannot undergo staff reductions and maintain their exemplary status.

To deal with staff shortages, installations use several programs to supplement the
in-house staffs. Some installations rely on contractors to perform cultural resource
assessments and compliance requirements when actions are proposed. Other
installations use coordinated management agreements with agencies like the
National Park Service. This type of arrangement is also used for natural
resources management.

Three of the installations surveyed have extensive ongoing agreements with
colleges and universities for resource assessments and special projects. Without
the services of graduate students and academic professionals, many special
projects would never be conducted. This situation was most often encountered
within cultural resources for archaeological assessments and research projects and

“Smith and Balbach (1992) made similar observations following visits to military installations in 1991

and 1992. Their findings indicate that this situation is common and as they state “natural resource

programs are somewhat entrenched in the installation hierarchy” (Smith and Balbach, 1992).

“Smith and Balbach (1992) also indicate that while natura! resources personnel often have collateral

duties and responsibilities in cultural resources, the reverse is relatively rare.

* Although Smith and Balbach (1992) found that cultural resources programs often are understaffed, they do not
believe all installations need full-time cultural resources management personnel.



USACERL SR CRC-95/01

managers as “show stoppers.” One supervisor stated that from his experience “it
is best to bring staff [both cultural and natural resources] in on a project at the
point where the project looks like it has a high probability of approval, but not too
early because many projects never get approved; otherwise resources are wasted.”
This comment clearly shows that successful program managers are acutely aware
of staffing constraints and funding limitations, and allocate both in a manner that
maximizes their usefulness.

Lack of advance notice of actions and minor project alterations (including digging
requests and maintenance and construction activities) were identified as the most
frequent causes of project delays. One installation conducts weekly reviews of
problem projects and monthly reviews of all projects to facilitate communication,
environmental and cultural review, and ultimately project development and
completion. Command personnel attend the monthly reviews.

The maturity of the resource management program and the availability of other
resources (funding, staff): contribute to the quality of the review process for
cultural and natural resources coordination. However, it should not be assumed
that installations with small staffs and a lesser degree of formality associated with
their review process are less capable or effective. Two respondents reported that
the smallness of their staff contributed to their ability to review, recommend
modifications, and finalize projects. They believe that small, cohesive staffs can
assess most projects rapidly (less bureaucracy), have interdisciplinary professional
expertise, staff responsibilities are known and tasked rapidly, and frequent
informal staff contact increases communication and interaction.

Most resource specialists agreed that maintaining a formal process (environmental
assessment [EA], environmental impact statement [EIS], National Historic
Preservation Act [NHPA] §106) was necessary for large-scale projects or special
problems. For small projects, however, many specialists believe a formal process
unnecessary; the review could be best handled by including only specific resources
personnel. Minor reviews often were done independently by either cultural or
natural resources staff.

Funding Questions

6. Does available funding foster the coordination of management activities
between natural and cultural resources programs?

7. Does the current level of monetary resources meet the management needs of the
respective resources at the installation?