|
|
||
 Step 17. Review facts and assumptions. Ideally, initial mission analysis will identify and quantify
most of the likely environmental considerations. During the rest of the decision-making process,
the commander and his staff periodically review the available facts and assumptions. New facts
may alter the requirements and analysis of the mission. Assumptions may have become facts or
invalid. Whenever the facts or assumptions change, the commander and his staff assess the impact
of these changes on the plan and make the necessary adjustments. The discovery of additional
environmental considerations is likely as the planning progresses and the reconnaissance
information is collected.
1-5. Course-of-Action Development. After receiving guidance, the staff develops COAs for analysis
and comparison. During the COA development, the commander and his staff continue the risk
management process. Usually, environmental considerations will be most prominent in meeting the
criteria of suitability and acceptability. The staff develops the COAs to accomplish the mission and to
meet the commander's guidance with respect to the environmental considerations.
1-6. Course-of-Action Analysis. A 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, the risks, and the strengths and weaknesses of each COA. Determining the evaluation
criteria is probably the most important step of war gaming for environmental considerations. 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 of 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; include those risks associated with the
environmental considerations.
1-7. Course-of-Action Comparison. The environmental considerations will normally be included in the
general criterion of "residual risk," or may be a separate criterion if they are significant enough. If any
environmental consideration was important enough to be in the commander's guidance or intent, it will
be listed here as well.
1-8. 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.
1-9. Course-of-Action Approval. Critical environmental considerations may be listed in the
commander's guidance or intent. Those will be factors in the commander's approval of a particular
COA.
1-10. Orders Production. Staff officers address the environmental concerns. Each officer addresses
those concerns in the respective annexes and appendixes.
1-11. Environmental-Specific Planning. Environmental-specific planning focuses on providing units
with the additional environmental-related resources and information necessary to accomplish their
missions. Operational and support planning also includes environmental-protection objectives. In
operational situations, whether for training, contingency operations, or combat, environmental planning
focuses on the mission requirements of a military unit. This planning includes identifying environmental
risks posed by an operation and considering ways to reduce those risks during long-, short-, and near-
1-5
|
||
|
||
