Resource Architecture for the Environmental Strategy (RAES) Project JSEM Conference April 13, 2005

1. Resource Architecture for the Environmental Strategy (RAES) Project JSEM Conference April 13, 2005 Project Sponsor, John Fitipaldi, AEPI Project Manager, Steve Siegel, ESG

2. AGENDA Present the results of the RAES project. • Project Purpose and Background • Project Approach • Overview of HQDA–Level Requirements & Resource Processes • Findings • Recommended Courses of Action (COA)

3. VISION STRATEGY STRATEGIC PLAN Public Involvement Investment/Funding Implementation Plans… Implementation Plan Implementation Plan Implementation Plan ASE Road Map “Sustain the Mission – Secure the Future” “Roll-out” throughout next several months. 6-Page Glossy Document Focus  Overall Integration Document Darden School Detailed Plans, Goals, Status, Reporting in Specific Focus Areas

4. Project Purpose Develop integrated architecture alternatives that will enable the Army to resource and execute the Army Strategy for the Environment (ASE) effectively and efficiently.

5. Project Background • Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff establish Army-wide Sustainability Policy with the initiation of the Army Strategy for the Environment (ASE) - signed October 1, 2004 • ASE Goals • Foster sustainability ethic as an Army value • Strengthen Army operational capability • Meet current and future training, testing, and other mission requirements • Minimize impacts and total ownership costs • Enhance well-being • Use innovative technology

6. . Overview of HQDA-Level Requirements and Resource Processes

7. Army Doctrine (TRADOC) QDR Strategic Planning Guidance (SPG) The Army Plan (TAP) Overview of Requirements and Resource Processes PEGs G3, G4 ASA-ALT DASA-CE HQDA G3- DAMO-CIR G3/G8 G3 Change in Force Structure -TAA - ACP/ Modularity Identify Total Force Structure & Related Requirements (e.g. sustainment) Validate Requirements Prioritize Requirements Program Funding Decisions HQDA IMA MACOM/ PEOs Combatant Commanders Installations (Environmental Req) - Laws and Policy - CSA

8. Mobility Lethality Maneuverability Weight Reduction Deployment Communications Information Processing Sustainable Availability Maintainability Storage Perishability Replacement Affordability Survivability Protection Stealth Detection Simplicity Productivity . . . Etc. What kinds of changes in capability is the Army looking for? Any change that improves capability in areas, such as:

9. Requirements and Resource Processes • Changes in Force Structure tomeet the National Military Strategy and Defense Planning Guidance • Combat/Operational Effectiveness assessed in terms of metrics such as force exchange ratios (function of lethality, vulnerability, range…) • Strategic Mobility assessed in terms of metrics such as • Tons and cubic feet of throughput (inter and intra- theater) over a period of time • Number of soldiers deployed over a period of time

10. Requirements and Resource Processes • Army Transformation • Creates a modular Army that is “brigade based”, more responsive with increased rotational depth enabling joint and expeditionary capabilities • A brigade anywhere in the world in 96 hours after lift-off, a division on the ground in 120 hours, five divisions in 30 days – this is strategic responsiveness

11. Requirements and Resource Processes • Sustainment • Sustainment Requirements: from Training Resource Model -TRM (measured in terms of miles & flying hours) • Sustainment Costing: from Operating and Support Management Information System (OSMIS) which calculates costs to support sustainment requirements -- Army buys repairs and spares (NSN) to sustain weapon system (LIN) • Environmental requirements are not directly derived from the Force Structure process.

12. Requirements and Resource Processes • PEGs • II - Installation • EE - Equipping • MM – Manning • OO – Organizing • SS – Sustaining • TT - Training PEGs and Prioritization • MDEP proponents, SMEs, and as appropriate, representatives of commands and agencies participate in Program Evaluation Group (PEG) deliberations which review and prioritize resources to support key Army capabilities • Each PEG builds an executable program. • PEG process rank orders validated programs as input to overall POM 1-n list.

13. . Findings

14. Findings(from interviews with HQDA and literature review) • ASE Goals regarded as most important: • Strengthen Army operational capability • Meet current and future training, testing, and other mission requirements • Environmental program resources should increase contributing to key Army goals. • Army Strategic Goals • Conduct Forcible Entry • Mobilize the Army • Execute Prompt Response • Shape the Security Environment • Support Civil Authorities • Sustain Land Dominance

15. Findings • Those outside (and some inside) the Army environmental community are looking for tangible near-term successes from ASE implementation • Army environmental community should focus on how the Army currently does business • Implementation of ASE Goals will be difficult given the existing environmental requirements and resource processes in the Army • Army environmental requirements come in late in the game. • If environmental metrics and requirements are not in the process from the beginning (TRADOC) there is no way that they will be effectively addressed later

16. Findings • Need better coding of environmental resources • Need to clearly define environmental resources and sustainability resources • When dollars migrate across PEGs (and MDEPs) they are difficult to track and manage • The way to address environmental requirements is to link them to Integrated Logistics and Support (ILS) to ensure environmental concerns are integrated into checklist process

17. Findings • Programs and tools exist that can be leveraged to support ASE goals of strengthening operational capability, increasing sustainability, and minimizing costs • Installation Resource Evaluation Methodology (IREM) links installation and operational requirements with resource/environmental carrying capacities and costs (both inside and outside the fence) – model is being used in support of Army stationing • OSMIS calculates sustainment costs for weapon systems - links acquisition and sustaining resources

18. Findings • Programs and tools exist (cont.) • Installation Sustainability Programs exist that prioritize installation resources to sustain mission needs • Army Compatible Use Buffers (ACUB) - land buffers minimize encroachment and increase training readiness (and share costs with NGO) • Energy is key – e.g., portable Army photovoltaic systems are currently deployed overseas in theater (reducing logistic footprint by requiring less fuel and related items)

19. Issue: Sustainability vs. Sustainment Sustainment: (DoD) “the provision of personnel, logistic, and other support required to maintain and prolong operations or combat until successful accomplishment or revision of the mission or of the national objective.” Sustainability (ASE): …simultaneously meeting current as well as future mission requirements worldwide, safeguarding human health, improves quality of life, and enhances the natural environment. Sustainability (DoD): See military capability. Military capability: (DoD) The ability to achieve a specified wartime objective (win a war or battle, destroy a target set). It includes four major components….a. force structure--Numbers, size, and composition of the units that comprise US defense forces; b. modernization--Technical sophistication of forces, units, weapon systems, and equipments. c. unit readiness--The ability to provide capabilities required by the combatant commanders to execute their assigned missions. This is derived from the ability of each unit to deliver the outputs for which it was designed. d. sustainability--The ability to maintain the necessary level and duration of operational activity to achieve military objectives. Sustainability is a function of providing for and maintaining those levels of ready forces, materiel, and consumables necessary to support military effort. Source: [DoD] Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms and Army Strategy for the Environment

20. . Recommended Courses of Action

21. Recommended Courses of Action • Initiate Sustainability Strategic Partner Program:Civilians from Army environmental program would work at selected HQDA offices for 1 or 2 year rotations Support key Army goals Respective learning and liaison Develop and apply sustainability concepts and practices

22. Recommended Courses of Action • Leverage current tools, projects to produce near-term results • Focus on ASE goals: • Strengthen Army operational capability • Meet current and future training, testing, and other mission requirements

23. Recommended Courses of Action • Develop validation process that incorporates key Army priorities and objectives (including environmental requirements) • Develop framework that provides incentives for installations and organizations to invest in sustainability • Expand and implement Installation-level Sustainability Programs Army-wide

24. Recommended Courses of ActionBasic Tenets • Develop programs/projects that will create low-cost, near-term successes • Work within existing Army processes and framework, and transform as the Army transforms, not as a reactive process