army installation status report natural infrastructure -...

Audrey Weber/ DAIM-EDS / (703) 601-1585 (DSN 329) / [email protected] 281430RFEB20061 of 35

Installation Status Report-Natural Infrastructure

Army Installation Status ReportNatural Infrastructure

Presented By:Ms. Audrey Weber

Office of the Army Assistant Chief of Staff forInstallation Management, Environmental Programs

Joint Services Environmental Management SymposiumMarch 2006



Why Redesign?

• ISR-Environment deemed not useful to the Army

• Redesign supports Strategic Direction of OSD & Army:– Installation Capabilities Council (ICC) Natural Infrastructure

Capability Work Group (NICWG)– Army Strategy for the Environment

• Redesign focuses on ‘leading indicators’ that support training and war-fighting requirements, while still meeting compliance mandates



Natural Infrastructure –What is it?

• Definitions:– Natural – having a form or appearance found in nature– Infrastructure

1: the underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system or organization) 2: the permanent installations required for military purposes

• Natural Infrastructure is:– The natural resource or asset capability (land, air, and

water) needed to support an installation’s mission

Pillar

Media

COMPLIANCE CONSERVATION RESTORATIONPOLLUTION

PREVENTION FOUNDATION

INTG PEST

CULTURAL RES

POLLUTION PREVENTION

HAZ MATERIALS

STORAGE TANKS

SOLID WASTE

ENV NOISE

HAZ WASTE

TSMA

NEPA

WATER QUAL

INTG NAT RES RESTORATION RECYC & SW DIVERSION PROGRAM MGTAIR QUALITY WASTE WATER

REMEDIATION

C3 N/AC2 N/A

ISR Environment2004 ARMY-WIDE PILLAR / MEDIA RESULTS

C3 N/A C3 C1

C2 N/A

C2 N/A

C2 N/A

C2 N/A

C2 N/A

C2 N/A

C3 N/A

C2 N/A

C2 N/A

C2 N/A

C2 N/A

C2 N/A

C2 N/A

C2 N/A

C4 N/AC3 N/A

C3 N/A

C3 N/A

C3 C1

C-rating changes from 2003 to 2004

Overall

Quality Quantity

C1

Conditions MAY limit flexibility in methods for mission accomplishment, but do not increase vulnerability for most envisioned installation missions.

C2

Conditions WILL limit flexibility in methods for mission accomplishment, and MAY increase vulnerability for MANY, but not all, installation missions. The installation requires additional resources for mission accomplishment.

C3

Conditions WILL limit flexibility in methods for mission accomplishment and WILL increase vulnerability for MOST Installation missions. Installation requires significant additional resources to accomplish its missions.

C4

Conditions neither limit flexibility in methods for mission accomplishment, nor increase vulnerability to interruption of installation missions.

OLD FRAMEWORK



Mission Support Environmental Quality Sustainability

ISR-NI Redesign

Land Resources

Water Resources

Air Resources

Energy Resources

Environmental Status

Environmental Status

Current Platform Readiness

Current Platform Readiness

Land Resources

Water Resources

Air Resources

Energy Resource

Regulatory and Community Relations

Future PlatformReadiness

Future PlatformReadiness

Land Resources

Water Resources

Air Resources

Materials Management

Implementation and Operations Regulatory and Community Relations

C2

C1

Commander’s Overall Readiness Assessment At Installation level only

C3

C3

C2

C2

C1

C1

C4

C1

C1

C2

C4

C2

C-3 C-2 C-1

C2



Specific Benefits to the Garrison Commander

Provides mission support indicators related to installation’s natural infrastructure capability

• Ability of existing land to support current/future training

• Condenses many individual sources of existing environmental and infrastructure information data into an ‘early warning system’ that provides visibility of potential mission impacts BEFORE they occur

• Provides the ability to perform ‘what-if’ scenarios to help the GC and staff make resourcing and investment decisions

• Allows for trend analyses and tracking of results to see whether or not investments decisions ‘pay off’ (e.g., standards can be compared over quarters, years, etc. to see if situation is improving or worsening)



ISR-NI Description

3 Program Areas – Mission Support (New)– Sustainability (New)– Environmental Quality



Mission Support

• Description:– New standards – Focuses on measuring how environmental factors

could impact or / support the mission– Broad array of proponents for these standards

• Examples of Standards (Notional):– Maneuver area required vs. available (SME: DPTM)– Drinking water supply vs. usage (SME: DPW O&M)– Allowable air emissions vs. actual (SME: Environment)



Sustainability

• Description:– New standards– Focuses on long-term planning efforts to ensure installation minimizes

environmental impacts and preserves resources – Broad array of proponents for these standards

• Examples of Standards (Notional):– Does Installation have an energy mgmt plan with objectives for increased

efficiency and use reduction? (SME: DPW)– Has Plans and Integration Office (PAIO) assigned a sustainability POC?

(SME: PAIO)– Do MILCON projects currently under design meet minimum SPiRiT or

LEED ratings? (SME: DPW)



100.0%45Total of 45 Standards

6.7%3Environment/DPTM

2.2%1

Master Planning/Environment/DPTM

11.1%5G3/DPTM/Log/Safety/Master Planning

2.3%1G3/DPTM/Log/Safety

20.0%9G3/DPTM

22.2%10Environment

31.1%14DPW/O&M

4.4%2DOL

%Totals for Mission Support Standards

100.0%31Total of 31 Standards

3.2%1DPW/O&M/Environment/DOL

19.4%6DPW/O&M

6.5%2Environment

3.2%1DOL/Environmental

3.2%1G3, DPTM/Real Property

25.8%8G3, DPTM

3.2%1PAIO, Environment

3.2%1PAIO, PAO

3.2%1DOL/DCA

3.2%1DPW

9.7%3Master Planning

16.1%5PAIO

%Totals for Sustainability Standards

Standard Proponents



Environmental Quality

• Description:– Very similar to past ISR Environment Program & Standards– Focuses on how well installation follows environmental procedures

and meets environmental regulations– Fewer questions and more auto-populated data

– Environmental office will still be main proponent for these questions

• Examples of Standards (Notional):– Was an internal or external performance assessment completed in

the most recently completed FY?– Has installation implemented an EMS as defined by the 6 criteria of

the DoD Measure of Merit?

Readiness Chart



C-2

Org Path: Army > Region > InstallationScope Path: Natural Infrastructure

ISR-NI 2006

EQ Standards# of standards = 85

Potential sources for auto population include (EQR, AEDB-R, EPAS, SNC. TJAG) ~ 95% Auto PopulatedInstallation providescomments where applicable

Mission Support Standards

# of standards = 45Potential sources for auto population include: GIS-R, ISR-I (RPLANS), TC-25-1 ARRM (Army RTLP Requirements Model) Installation data entry required & comments where appropriate

Ft Pilot

Sustainability Standards # of qualitative standards = 31Y/N type responsesProgram EvolvingInstallation are required to provide data entry & “OPTIONAL”comments

C-1

Mission Support

Sustainability

Env. Quality

C-3

Notional Drill Down Options: Installation

C-4 C-1

Details

C-2

Org Path: InstallationScope Path: Natural Infrastructure > Mission Support

ISR-NI 2006

LandResources

WaterResources

AirResources

EnergyResources

Details Details Details

C-3C-3

Notional Drill Down Options: Installation

Ability to view Standard level responsesfor selected resource category



Pilot Results

Land Example• Effectively identifies internal & external land use conflicts

• Quantifies impacts• Identifies potential solutions



Land Standard Example(MAARNG-Camp Edwards)

• Land Standards fully tested and reviewed by MAARNG Adjutant and J-3• The standards look at 3 main areas:

Doctrinal maneuver requirements vs. available areaInternal EncroachmentExternal Encroachment

• Importance to Installation and Commander: Analysis is based on the way the land is scheduled and used by the installation – not just an aggregateAnalysis is based on unit type and can accommodate scenariosQuantifies areas and issues that contribute to work-arounds Distinguishes capability vs. capacity and provides commanders with information to make risk-based decisions Provides a single place to view this data – a single consolidated tool



Land Standard Example(MAARNG-Camp Edwards)

Findings from Land Standards:

• Units are moderately constrained by the 31.1 Km2 area basedon doctrinal requirements (without subtracting any denials)

• 2% of Camp Edwards’ training area is permanently denied

• 8 % is temporarily denied (seasonal restrictions)

• From Mar – Jun, 10% of the available training land is denied

• Denials further constrain maneuver areas, causing work-arounds (mainly back-tracking, loss of momentum) that result in moderate to significant constraints for specific units



Land Standard Example cont.(MAARNG-Camp Edwards)

Findings from Land Standards (Cont.):

• Currently no incompatible areas (intersecting contours) outside the installation boundary – but this should be monitored for changes in future mission and compatibility

• There are opportunities to return 4.6 Km2 (15% of total area) to the training inventory (closed demolition range, closed landfill, old bayonet course, remediated areas)

• Camp Edwards can support its 2006 summer training rotation at 75%throughput.



MAARNG - CAMP EDWARDS

Total training area available compared to the area required for specific

combat units to accomplish specific missions,

realistically and safely

Total Training Area = 31.1 Km2

Standard 1: Total Maneuver Area Available vs. Required



Standard 1 – Example (MAARNG)

Evaluates contiguous training areas and training area clusters and assigns ratings for each unit based on the area available versus the area required as stated by TC 25-1.

Draft Cutoff points:

Green 1.0 to .6

Amber .3 to .59

Red .01 to .29

Table 2.1 – Maneuver Area Available Vs. Required (Camp Edwards) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Training Area Name/

ID

Training Area Size

(Km2) Unit Type (ARTEP)

Area Requirement

(Km2) [TC 25-1]

Number of Units

Supported by Available

Area

Resource Rating

Light Infantry Battalion (ARTEP 7-20-MTP) 96.0 (offense) 31.1/96 = 0.3

Rifle Company (ARTEP 7-10-MTP) 48.0 (offense) 31.1/48 = 0.65

Mechanized Infantry / Armor Task Force

(ARTEP 71-2-MTP) 68.0 (offense) 31.1/68 = 0.46

Mechanized Infantry Company (ARTEP 71-1-

MTP) 50.0 (attack) 31.1/50 = 0.62

Engineer Training Mechanized Combat

Battalion (ARTEP 5-335-66-MTP)

192.0

31.1/192 = 0.16

Engineer Training Mechanized Combat

Company (ARTEP 5-337-35-MTP)

96.0 31.1/96 = 0.3

Total Areas

Combined

31.1 (7685.16 Acres)

Chemical Platoon (Smoke/ Decon – ARTEP

3-457-10-MTP)

9.0 (Decon

Operations)

31.1/9 = 3.5 +



Standard 2: Available Training Land Assets

Total Permanently Denied - .391 Km22% of land is permanently denied


Quantifies Permanent Denials (areas denied entire training

year)



Standard 3: Maneuver Area Throughput

Total Denied – 2.976 Km2 10% of land denied


Quantifies temporary denials in addition to permanent denials – these are often

seasonal denials



Standard 4-7 (Encroachment) Standard 4: Land Use Off-Installation

• Evaluates land use outside installation within an established boundary using GIS and/or existing population data:

• Analyzes land use that may be incompatible with training (residential) – may cause constraints

• Analyzes potential land use (may not be developed yet – potential for incompatible development)

No Current Land use Conflicts basedon noise, safety, other projections



Total Potential Area for Return to Training Inventory = 4.616 km2

(15% of total training area)

Standards 8-9: Total Potential Area for Return to

Training Inventory



Pilot Results

Water Quality• Effectively condenses compliancedata into a manageable, at-a-glance format

• Quantifies deficiencies and excesses in capacity and capability based on operational & permit requirements


Installation Status Report-Natural InfrastructureReduces discharge data from this:

Date May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-051 353,200 250,250 324,800 300,600 342,850 491,690 251,620 427,350 324,870 341,980 460,720 515,9102 333,530 304,130 324,300 299,070 292,820 390,240 321,970 459,060 207,450 532,270 428,740 486,0903 261,540 307,400 319,620 242,330 378,390 323,000 398,180 406,120 309,380 546,920 396,720 423,6204 261,200 332,800 285,230 339,410 299,300 279,150 395,560 334,650 313,890 474,900 402,500 461,7205 281,700 301,210 322,320 355,580 161,220 279,460 352,680 288,590 320,560 298,920 324,890 517,3706 275,580 259,520 361,430 301,430 213,570 333,840 306,310 526,230 343,160 200,868 259,220 436,4407 285,120 266,500 298,100 301,500 400,830 354,070 279,130 463,200 325,650 333,360 382,110 507,2808 355,520 324,750 291,000 261,580 384,930 340,170 298,290 412,800 336,410 378,780 460,530 520,7409 317,680 332,100 243,900 307,100 373,010 355,850 354,930 513,420 323,410 422,560 457,510 497,05010 277,930 301,600 150,400 367,080 369,190 240,880 332,590 489,920 384,480 426,450 441,730 497,03011 288,040 237,900 201,300 352,700 258,850 170,040 285,740 414,070 443,780 408,370 524,910 499,49012 307,320 221,050 304,600 386,200 259,360 401,420 339,230 465,210 405,640 379,610 394,860 458,13013 333,870 386,340 425,700 345,820 272,930 347,110 347,850 412,510 407,700 306,030 391,500 404,18014 310,560 338,900 390,600 271,400 325,850 351,060 284,530 457,820 396,540 482,120 361,120 405,24015 292,220 427,850 365,900 198,100 354,010 328,960 254,990 461,330 354,780 486,750 384,830 348,94016 411,000 419,190 228,700 287,410 442,830 304,630 315,190 461,420 249,090 458,980 397,940 251,52017 304,000 414,300 256,600 331,860 370,170 282,390 336,650 403,120 355,180 373,810 391,010 372,16018 299,600 413,500 253,300 342,530 331,440 283,840 340,320 407,730 341,660 212,640 408,090 430,22019 355,170 372,830 330,100 342,550 332,800 448,170 345,390 225,000 360,080 377,330 332,810 403,460

May 2004 - April 2005Wastewater Flow - Sewage Treatment Plant (DSN 001)

To this

++113%192%N/A400353208IWTP

+86%189%620500718327WWTP

Peak 24-Hour Flow

Average Actual Daily

Peak 24-Hour Flow

Average Actual Daily

Permitted Volume (avg.)

Design Capacity

Peak 24-Hour Flow

Average Daily Volume

Type of Discharge

NOTE: Percentages greater than 100 indicate excess capacity/capability. Percentages less than 100 indicate potential deficiencies.



Pilot Results

Airspace Example• Effectively identifies airspace & frequency scheduling and use conflicts

• Quantifies impacts • Identifies potential solutions



Airspace Standard Example(MAARNG-Camp Edwards)

Major Findings from Airspace Standards:• MAARNG total airspace capacity is more than adequate to supportair operations – however, capacity does not imply capability.

• MMR restrictions prohibit live fire into the impact area, greatly reducingthe type of activities that can be supported.

• Opportunity exists to create a UAV school at MAARNG



MAARNG Air Space Capability Results

.50 caliber40mm machine gun M19 M3Anti Tank Rockets M73MLRSMLRS practice RocketM968 35mm Tank Precision GunneryArtillery H155

Aviation Gunnery (Rockets)AHGR Advanced Helicopter Gunnery Range

FCS HALE (High Altitude Long Endurance)FCS TUAV BrigadeFCS SUAV - SmallFCS OAV (Organic Air Vehicle- Soldier/Platoon)

Direct/Indirect Fire

Helicopter

UAV



Airspace Standard Example(Fort Lewis)

Major Findings from Airspace Standards

• Fort Lewis’ Class D airspace is restricted at the top end. SEATAC controls the top 500 feet of Fort Lewis’ Class D (total of 2500 feet). Whilethis does not currently pose a constraint, Fort Lewis will have to coordinate with SEATAC for use of the top 500 feet. This could be an issue when UAVs are fully operational within BCTs.



Fort Lewis Air Space Capability Results

Compatible Airspace Volume: (Compatible volume-nm3/current volume-nm3) - Table 8.2

Gray AAF, Class DR6703AR6703BR6703CR6703D

Rainier MOA 1Rainier MOA 2Rainier MOA 3

Time Volume Denied: (Incompatible air space volume-hrs/Current air space volume- hrs) - Table 8.3

Gray AAF, Class DR6703AR6703BR6703D

% Air Space Availability for Airfields/aerodromes:(annual hours available/annual hours used) Table 8.4

Gray AAF, Class DR6703AR6703BR6703D

Air SpaceResource Capability Rating Color Rating

++++

+++



Sustainability

Why are we incorporating?

• Supports the Strategy for the Environment and will support the objectives that result from the Strategic Plan (all sustainability standards have been mapped to the 6 goals)

• Installations are already doing it and asking for support

• To ensure that we are looking at future resource requirements so that wecan ensure installation readiness into the long-term (25 years or more)



Sustainability

How are we incorporating?• All sustainability standards are currently “qualitative” until the strategicplan is complete – they will support the approved plan

• There are no “C3” ratings for sustainability – installations are not penalized

• Simply provides a check on how installations are looking at andaddressing long-term issues

Findings:• Installations are doing more than they think – the components are there• Both MAARNG and Anniston were surprised and encouraged


Installation Status Report-Natural InfrastructureMAARNG Sustainability Results

Questions Answers RatingsInstallation Sustainability Program Overview

Has the installation established 25-30 year sustainability goals? Yes- moving more toward sustainability

Does the installation have an approved and current 5-year implementation plan? Yes

Will FY06 MILCON projects currently under design meet minimum SPiRiT "Silver" rating? Yes-however, pricing can affect this

Will all FY06 Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) projects (planned or under design) meet minimum SPiRiT "Gold" rating?

Don’t have any community projects. N/A N/A

Does the installation have a sustainable procurement/Environmental Preferable Purchasing program?

No

Does the installation have an active community outreach and education program that addresses environmental quality, mission, and sustainability?

Yes

Does the installation have an active installation training and education program that addresses environmental quality, mission, and sustainability?

Yes

Does the installation have an Environmental Management System (EMS)? Yes

If yes, are the installation’s sustainability goals incorporated in the EMS?

No, not specifically; however as sustainability becomes more clearer it will be incorporated into it.



The Way Ahead

• ISR-NI Validation Tests in 06– 8 CONUS and 1 OCONUS– ARNG, IMA, AMC and USAR

• After Action Review – Useful tool to Army?– What needs to be fixed?

• Full Implementation in 07?– Approval of ACSIM

army installation status report natural infrastructure -...

Documents