Military

(1) Mission Analysis. Mission analysis has seventeen subordinate steps. While this process results in the staff formally briefing the commander, there may be items of such importance to the commander and the formulation of his commander's guidance that they need to be brought to his attention immediately rather than withheld until the formal briefing. Anticipation, prior preparation, and a trained staff are the keys to a timely mission analysis.

(2) Course of Action (COA) Development. After receiving guidance, the staff develops COAs for analysis and comparison. During COA development, the commander and staff continue the risk management process. Environmental considerations will usually be most prominent in meeting the criteria of suitability and acceptability. The staff develops the COAs to accomplish the mission and meet the commander's guidance with respect to environmental considerations.

(3) Course of Action (COA) Analysis. The war game helps the commander and his staff to focus on each stage of the operation in a logical sequence. Every staff member must determine the force requirements for external support, risks, and each COA's strengths and weaknesses. Determining evaluation criteria is probably the most important step of war-gaming for environmental consideration. If environmental considerations are prominent enough, they are included in the commander's guidance and intent, as well as in the specified criteria for the level or residual risk for accident hazards in the COA. It is a requirement for staff officers to conduct risk management for each COA. Every COA must clearly identify the level of risk that the commander is willing to accept to include those associated with environmental considerations.

(4) Course of Action (COA) Comparison. Environmental considerations will normally be included in the general criterion of "residual risk," or if significant enough, may even be a separate criterion. If any environmental consideration was important enough to be in the commander's guidance or intent, it will be listed here as well.

(5) Commander's Decision Briefing. After completing its analysis and comparison, the staff identifies its preferred COA and makes a recommendation. If the staff cannot reach a decision, the XO decides which COA to recommend at the commander's decision briefing. The staff then briefs the commander. Critical environmental considerations have become one of the criteria in the decision matrix.

(6) Course of Action (COA) Approval. Critical environmental considerations listed in the commander's guidance or intent will be a factor in the commander's approval of a particular COA.

(7) Orders Production. Environmental concerns are addressed by every staff officer, as applicable, in respective annexes and appendices.

(1) Individual staff officers incorporate environmental considerations into their staff estimates. The staff estimate may include the following:

• Significant environmental weaknesses and sensitivities in the AO.

• Potential enemy environmental targets.

• Critical or unique resources to the area.

• Environmental conditions related to the situation.

• Applicable laws and regulations.

(2) Staffs identify environmental weaknesses and critical terrain that may be a factor to be avoided, actively protected, or temporarily exploited to accomplish the mission. They identify potential enemy environmental targets and plan contingency responses. The following environmental factors normally require consideration during staff estimates:

• Topography and soils.

• Vegetation, including crops.

• Air quality.

• Wildlife and livestock.

• Archaeological and historical sites.

• Safety and public health.

• Land and facility use, occupation and return.

• Water quality, including surface water, groundwater, storm water, and wetlands.

• HM and HW disposal and potential cleanup requirements.

• Socioeconomic and political condition sensitivities and desired end states pertaining to, or functions of environmental conditions.

(3) The staff develops an OPORD, OPLAN, or CONPLAN and may publish a full environmental annex/appendix only once. To facilitate changes in environmental requirements, the command may produce an environmental-protection-level matrix similar to the example in Figure 4-2. This matrix ties directly into risk assessment and is applied in the MDMP during mission analysis.

• Standard levels of environmental protection facilitate planning, communications, and flexibility. The notional array of protection levels in Figure 4-2 ranges from Level 1 to Level 4. Level 1 is less restrictive and more appropriate for tactical units in combat. Level 4 is very restrictive and more appropriate for tactical units in garrison, on fixed installations, during major training exercises, or while performing humanitarian missions in relatively secure and developed areas. Levels 2 and 3 are merely intermediate steps between the baseline and optimal levels.

• Staffs may use a matrix to designate protection requirements for specific missions or areas, to clearly identify and quickly notify units of changes, or to notify newly arriving units of the rules in the AO.

(4) Many operations require fixed facilities, structures, or other real property for logistics, command and control, administration, communications, billeting, base camp, or other mission purposes. If the tactical situation permits, commanders conduct or direct an initial EBS before occupying the AO.

(5) The initial EBS serves as a tool to assist in determining whether a parcel of land is acceptable for military use. The initial question should always be whether the site is healthy for soldiers. It documents the proposed sites, existing environmental conditions, and the likelihood of past or ongoing activities that may have created environmental, safety, or health problems. These problems include contamination of air, soil, groundwater, and surface water by toxic substances or POL.

(6) EBS documentation becomes extremely important at the end of the mission or upon completion at a facility. At that time, a closure EBS is done. Examples of areas to be addressed in an EBS are below. A complete list may be found in FM 4-04.4 (FM 3-100.4), Chapter 2.

• Property description and condition.

• Soil type and land cover.

• Water supply and source.

• Air quality.

• Signs of contamination.

(7) As soon as time and conditions permit, a more formal or updated EBS and site assessment may be completed. The periodic use of environmental-conditions reports (ECRs) will assist the unit in both maintaining environmental standards and documenting their stay at a site/area.

(1) Standing Operating Procedures. Unit leaders develop SOPs reflecting environmental protection considerations for routine tasks and activities. SOPs provide information to soldiers on how to accomplish routine tasks in an environmentally sound manner. SOPs incorporate local requirements, in which unit leaders ensure that the SOPs coordinate with the higher HQ staff.

(2) Orders/Plans. Unit leaders address environmental protection in their plans and orders (WOs, OPORDs, OPLANs, CONPLANs, and fragmentary orders [FRAGOs]). The higher HQ staff develops an environmental appendix/annex to its OPORD/OPLAN/CONPLAN. Subordinate unit leaders draw environmental information from the environmental appendix to the OPORD/OPLAN/CONPLAN.

(1) Tactical risk is concerned with hazards that exist because of the presence of either the enemy or an adversary, thus involving the considerations of force protection. For example, during the Gulf War, the enemy's demolition of oil fields created a significant health and environmental hazard to the surrounding countryside and to those units maneuvering through the area.

(2) Accident risk includes all operational risk considerations other than tactical risk. It includes risk to friendly forces and risk posed to civilians by an operation, as well as the impact of operations on the environment. For example, improper disposal of HW, personnel that are not properly trained to clean up a spill, and units maneuvering in ecologically sensitive terrain.

(3) Tactical risk and accident risk may be diametrically opposed. The commander may choose to accept a high level of environmental-related accident risk to reduce the overall tactical risk.

Step 1. Identify environmental hazards.

Step 2. Assess environmental hazards to determine the risk.

Step 3. Develop controls and make risk decisions.

Step 4. Implement the controls.

Step 5. Supervise and evaluate.

Step 1. Identify Environmental Hazards. Commanders and staffs identify environmental hazards during mission analysis. FM 100-14 (FM 3-100.14) defines hazards as any actual or potential condition that can cause injury, illness, or death to personnel; damage to or loss of equipment or property; or mission degradation. Environmental hazards include all activities that may pollute, create negative noise-related effects, degrade archaeological/cultural resources, or negatively affect, threaten, or endanger species' habitat.

Step 2. Assess Environmental Hazards to Determine the Risk. Risk assessment is a three-stage process used to determine the risk of potential harm to the environment. The three stages is to assess the probability of each hazard, assess the severity of each hazard, and determine the risk level of each hazard.

• Assessments include two factors—probability and severity. Probability is how often an environmental hazard is likely to occur. Severity is the effect a hazard will have expressed in terms of the degree of injury or illness, loss of or damage to equipment or property, environmental damage, and other mission-impairing factors, such as loss of combat power.

• Probability and severity are estimates that require individual judgment and a working knowledge of the risk management process and its terminology. Leaders must assess the probability and the potential severity of environmental damage. Commanders use common sense, past evaluations, higher commander guidance, historical data, lessons learned, and any other useful sources to determine the probability of an event occurring. Severity, however, attempts to quantify the amount of potential damage created by an event. While leaders must assess the probability of environmental damage, they must also determine how much damage the event would cause, regardless of the probability.

• It is usually easier to determine probability than severity. Definitions for the degrees of severity are not absolutes; they are more conditional and related to mission, enemy, terrain, troops, time available, and civilian considerations (METT-TC). Leaders must use their experience, judgment, lessons learned, and subject matter experts to assist them in determining degrees of severity. The following examples of severity for archaeological, historical, or cultural sites provide leaders a frame of reference for what may be included when estimating degrees of severity.

  • Catastrophic. Irreparable damage to or total loss of an irreplaceable site. Commanders can anticipate widespread public concern. Such damage will require notification of higher HQ, the public affairs office, and outside agencies.

  • Critical. Major physical damage to a historical/cultural structure. Restoration will be difficult, long-term, and costly and will require assistance and notification of higher HQ, the public affairs office, and outside agencies.

  • Marginal. Minor physical damage to historical/cultural structures, which can be restored with outside assistance. Units must report damage to higher HQ.

  • Negligible. Surrounding site damage from individual and vehicular activities will be easily repaired or restored by the unit. There is no physical damage to structures; however, the unit must report damage to higher HQ.

Step 3. A leader determines the risk level of each hazard. Then, using the defined degrees of probability and severity, and the risk assessment matrix, he determines the overall environmental-related risk level. The risk categories are as follows and are further illustrated in Figures 4-3 and 4-4: