ARMY STRATEGY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 26 APRIL 2005 Ms. Pamela A. Whitman Chief, Planning and Integration Branch Environment

1. ARMY STRATEGY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 26 APRIL 2005 Ms. Pamela A. Whitman Chief, Planning and Integration Branch Environmental Division

2. AGENDA • Implementing the Army Strategy for the Environment: The Way Ahead • Environmental Funding • Status of Environmental CLS • National Environmental Policy Act Implementation in IMA

3. “Sustain the Mission – Secure the Future” • Army Environmental Program undergoing significant change • Vision: long-term sustainability • Supports Army in all missions • Applies to all Army units, organizations, personnel, suppliers, support contractors, and partners • OUR GOALS • Foster a sustainability ethic • Strengthen Army operations • Meet test, training and mission requirements • Minimize impacts and total ownership costs • Enhance Well-being • Drive Innovation “Triple bottom line” -- Mission, Environment, Communities

4. Sustainability – “a sustainable Army simultaneously meets current as well as future mission requirements worldwide, safeguards human health, improves quality of life, and enhances the natural environment.” (Army Strategy for the Environment, 2004) SUSTAINABILITY IS ABOUT BALANCE …TODAY AND TOMORROW

5. IMA IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGY TO DATE • HQIMA Plans Division lead to integrate sustainability into strategic planning process • Regional strategic planning training • IMA leadership offsite to develop new goals and objectives 22 – 24 Mar 05 • Strategic planning process deployment • Process will incorporate existing installation sustainability planning processes • Environmental Management Systems complement sustainability planning and implementation

6. IMA Strategic Planning Process 14 Feb – 18 Feb 05 Strategic Planning Process Deployment Workshop (“Train the Trainer” for region reps) 21 Feb – 15 Jul 05 Deploy the Model and Process to Installations (Training for Installation reps) OVERARCHING PLAN TO IMPROVE BUSINESS PRACTICES

7. STRATEGY SUMMARY “Sustainability connects our activities today to those of tomorrow with sound business and environmental practices. We have learned over the past decades that simply complying with environmental regulations will not ensure that we will be able to sustain our mission. We must strive to become systems thinkers if we are to benefit from the interrelationships of the triple bottom line of sustainability: mission, environment, and community.” (October 2004) Peter J. Schoomaker General, United States Army Chief of Staff R.L. Brownlee Acting Secretary of the Army Chief of Staff of the Army

8. ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDING BACKGROUND • Environmental Quality Funding is: • Part of Base Operations Support (BOS) • Proponent funded • Primarily compliance-based • Requirements developed through Environmental Program Requirements (EPR) Report • Bottoms up build • Individual project based • Migrated from unconstrained requirements report to a constrained requirements report

9. CURRENT FUNDING SITUATION DRIVERS • Unprecedented growth in environmental laws drove similar growth in environmental requirements • Waiver of Federal sovereign immunity by Congress • Lack of requirements discipline over the last decade led to misunderstandings over who should program and fund environmental requirements • NEPA analyses • Hazardous waste disposal • Recurring maintenance of infrastructure • Solid waste recycling

10. SHORT-TERM FUNDING STRATEGY Adjust requirements review and approval process

11. SHORT-TERM FUNDING STRATEGY • Determine core environmental requirements • ACSIM and HQDA G3 Range Sustainability Matrix • Assist ACSIM to • Identify policy gaps and overlaps between existing programs • Re-educate functionals and follow-up on guidance implementation

12. MID-/LONG-TERM FUNDING STRATEGY • Strategic guidance • Army Strategy for the Environment • Army Installation Management funding guidance • Strategy implementation next steps • Detailed strategic plan • Funding strategy

13. FY05 FUNDING OUTLOOK • Good News: BOS and SRM (Sustainment, Restoration and Modification) will both be funded to 90% of requirements • Cash flow issues will subside ….. eventually • Bottomline: Environmental Program must be ready to execute the minute funding flows

14. ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDING –THE WAY AHEAD • Exploring requirements modeling • Working toward implementing environmental services as a part of Common Levels of Support (CLS)

15. 0s 1s 2s 3s ENVIRONMENTAL CLS PROGRESS TO DATE • Service A64, Conservation SAT convened 9 – 13 Feb 04 • Service A66, Compliance and A67, Pollution Prevention SATs convened 23 – 27 Feb 04 • Tentatively approved by IMA Director and then Senior Executive Leadership (SEL) in Spring 04 • Implementation initially deferred until FY06 • Directed to develop environmental manpower staffing standard

16. ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDSTHE WAY AHEAD • Convene new Environmental SATs May/Jun 05 • Factors to Consider • ODEP Sustainable Range Activity Matrix • Hazardous Waste funding for tactical units • Courses of Action to develop new SSPs • Include only recurring costs?? • Include only recurring costs and traditional Class 3 projects?? • Include only recurring costs and traditional Class 2 and 3 projects?? • Include all classes of projects • Ensure sufficient subject matter expert representation on SATs • Develop new SSPs • Develop new metrics for each SSP • Cost SSPs • Receive Director IMA and SEL approval • Include in follow-on implementation planning process

17. ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDSTHE WAY AHEAD • CLS independent of requirements build via EPR • ODEP cost-estimating tool for manpower and training requirements • Based on Official Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) • Standard contractor rates • Staffing Standards • We don’t know what right looks like • Total Army Analyses 09 looked unfavorably upon inequity of requirements vs authorizations on environmental TDAs • ACSIM mandate to develop staffing standards • Mandate to document professional service contractor support

18. ENVIRONMENTAL CLS SUMMARY • Environmental Services A64, A66, and A67 will be included in IMA CLS implementation • IMA will have an environmental staffing standard • Your assistance is vital to make this successful

19. NEPA RESPONSIBILITIESAs defined by 32 CFR Part 651 • Integrated early in the planning process • Funded and/or prepared by the proponentunless otherwise directed • Modular Force NEPA assigned to IMA IAW the Army Campaign Plan • Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS) assigned to IMA by ACSIM in coordination with HQDA G3 in 2003 • BRAC 2005 assigned to IMA by ACSIM • Resourced by HQDA funding accounts, not environmental funds

20. NEPA PROPONENT RESPONSIBILITIESAs defined by 32 CFR Part 651 • Proponent responsible for Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA) • Continuous proponent engagement key to success • Proponent defined • unit, element, or organization responsible for initiating and/or carrying out the proposed action • Director of Public Works - installation-wide Military Construction Army (MCA) and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) activities • TRADOC Commanding General – Basic Officer Leadership Training • Environmental Office – Integrated Natural Resource Plan

21. NEPA PROCEDURES/DOCUMENTATION • Categorical Exclusion (CX) • Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) • Documents coverage by a CX • Documents coverage in an existing EA having a signed FNSI • Documents coverage in an existing EIS having a signed ROD • Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) • Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) • Project or strategic level (programmatic) • Draft and Final documents required • Update with supplements if project/mission changes

22. NEPA PROCEDURES/DOCUMENTATIONWHO SIGNS? • Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) • Project Proponent (typically field grade officer or equivalent) • Local NEPA Coordinator and/or Environmental Chief • Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) • EAs do not require a signature • FNSIs require only the project proponent signature AFTER circulating the EA and draft FNSI among stakeholders for 30 days • Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) • Project Proponent(s) • Must be General Officer or General Officer equivalent • NOT the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Environment Safety and Occupational Health [DASA(ESOH)] • Overseas environmental analyses signed IAW Final Governing Standards or local procedures

23. NEPA AND MASTER PLANNINGIAW 32 CFR 651.10 • Applies to all installation, real property and facility management planning activities • Master Plans – Real Property, strategic plans? • Management Plans – environmental management plans • Effective Master Plan NEPA Documentation facilitates future NEPA requirements when they • Incorporate other installation plans • Base analyses on land use (ala Municipal “Zoning” Requirements) • Incorporates sustainability principles • Incorporate Installation Range and Training Plan (RTLP) • Define existing installation mission as “Status Quo” (No Action Alternative) • Provides platform for documenting future proposed actions fitting under the umbrella

24. STATIONING ACTIONS AND NEPA • Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC 2005)…The Mother of All Stationing Actions • Forthcoming BRAC will be treated as a major stationing activity • BRAC 2005 NEPA to provide a comprehensive installation master plan NEPA document • Should be a programmatic document • Mandate to accelerate military construction a challenge • Until final BRAC decisions are made (Fall 05), ALLcurrent stationing actions are considered interim • IMA BRAC NEPA responsibilities • Realignments • Closures • support to special installations

25. STATIONING ACTIONS AND NEPA • 16 May 05 – Initial Announcement • Tasker to affected installation • NEPA Planning Questionnaire • NEPA Action Plan • Natural Resources Action Plan • Cultural Resources Action Plan • Due Mid-Jul 05 • Mobile District NEPA Support Team • Prepares BRAC NEPA Manual • Assists ACSIM and IMA to determine NEPA costs • Manages contracts for NEPA • HQIMA Planning and Integration Branch • Coordinates efforts among regions and installations • Interface with ACSIM BRAC Division BRAC 05 NEPA will be Standardized

26. IMA ROLE IN NEPA IMPLEMENTATION • Manage overall NEPA compliance for the Agency • Proponent of installation master planning, MILCON, & tiered site-specific analyses • Coordinating agency for military training, range construction and weapons programs providing installation management support • Provide NEPA process management and technical support for preparing and staffing appropriate documents

27. IMA ROLE IN NEPA IMPLEMENTATIONas a Proponent • Manage overall NEPA compliance process • Monitor development of NEPA triggering activities to ensure timely compliance • Coordinate with functional organizations to ensure support • Prepare and sign all necessary NEPA documents • Recommend best management practices for incorporation into appropriate Army publications • Forecast future IMA needs and build budget requests into the planning, programming, budget & execution system (PPBES) process

28. SUMMARY • The Army Environmental Program undergoing significant changes • BRAC, Modular Force, and IGPBS will create new tension between mission and environment • Environmental Program will undergo Business Process Redesign and Lean/Six Sigma analyses

29. INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT AGENCY “Sustain, Support and Defend”