Army Environmental Programme by gdf57j

VIEWS: 21 PAGES: 40

									Army Environmental Programme
2008–2009 Status Report
November 2009
Director Land Environment
CS09-0387
Table of Contents
Foreword .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Context .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Army Environmental Programme 2008–09 Expenditures ....................................................... 3
Major Issues and Projects ................................................................................................................ 4
    2.1. Valcartier Garrison: TCE Contamination ........................................................................................... 4
    2.2. Suffield Sustainable Management Plan (SSMP) ............................................................................... 4
    2.3. Range and Training Areas (RTAs) Characterization Project ................................................................ 5
    2.4. Arctic Operations Advisor Course .................................................................................................. 5

Expected Outcomes Survey ............................................................................................................. 6
Army Environmental Strategy Report FY 08/09......................................................................... 7
Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) Report 08/09 ......................................................... 8
FCSAP – Year-End Report................................................................................................................ 9
Suffield Sustainable Management Plan ................................................................................... 10
Corporate Environmental Program (CEP) Financial Report 08/09 ...................................... 10
Annex I ............................................................................................................................................... 11
    Army Environmental Programme 08/09 Expenditures ............................................................................ 11

Annex II .............................................................................................................................................. 12
    Expected Outcomes Survey ................................................................................................................ 12

Annex III ............................................................................................................................................ 15
    Army Environmental Strategy Report FY 08/09 ..................................................................................... 15

Annex IV ............................................................................................................................................ 17
    Sustainable Development Strategy Report 08/09 ................................................................................. 17

Annex V .............................................................................................................................................. 28
    FCSAP – 2008-09 LFC Year-End Report ............................................................................................. 28

Annex VI ............................................................................................................................................ 34
    Suffield Sustainable Management Plan (SSMP) – Funds spent in 08/09 ................................................ 34




Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                                                                               L
                                                                                                                                                               i
Foreword                        Foreword
                                I am pleased to present the Army Environmental Programme’s Status Report. As was the
                                case last year, considerable energy and resources were devoted in 2008-2009 to improve
                                the Army Environmental Programme.

                                The purpose of this report is to ensure effective communication of the results we achieved
                                in 2008-2009, as well as demonstrate our accountability with respect to the management
                                of the programme. As indicated in this report, DLE and the environmental staff throughout
                                the Army organization have managed challenging issues and environmental projects with
                                professionalism and leadership. I am proud of our accomplishments and the people who
                                helped make them happen. None of these achievements would have been possible with-
                                out the collaboration of a network of devoted military and civilian professionals who worked
                                together to integrate environmental considerations into the decisions made by the Army at
                                our bases throughout the country.

                                I am confident that these achievements have contributed to enhance the Army’s sustain-
                                ability activities as well as support the Army’s mission of generating combat-effective
                                troops. In future years, we look forward to continue improving the management and imple-
                                mentation of the Army Environmental Programme, and we are confident that the Army will
                                be an environmental leader among Federal organizations and our allied armies.

                                Éric Trépanier
                                Director Land Environment




 Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                                          L    1
                                                                                                  Context
      Context
      In the 21st Century, no military strategy can be considered complete without recognizing
      and managing the risks that any damage to the environment would pose to the military’s
      operational readiness. The Army Environmental Strategy implicitly recognizes these risks
      and acknowledges our moral obligation to protect the environment, while offering a road-
      map for the way ahead. The Army must therefore be above reproach in its environmental
      practices, a leader in both words and deeds.

      The Army’s commitment to environmentally sustainable activities is not new. In fact, the
      Army has a mature and robust environmental programme with baseline funding and a his-
      tory of formal environmental management dating back to 1992.

      In December 1997, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces imple-
      mented their first Sustainable Development Strategy, which included making a commitment
      to Parliament to demonstrate environmental stewardship. This first step led to the creation
      of the land environmental organisation, Director Land Environment (DLE), and to increase
      the employment of environmental officers at all of the Army’s training areas and installations
      throughout the country. DLE and the Army’s network of dedicated environmental profes-
      sionals ensure that the considerable resources of the Army Environmental Programme are
      available to support the Army in its mission of generating combat-effective troops and in
      upholding the environmental priorities of the Government and Canadians.




The Army’s commitment to environmentally sustainable activities is not new. In
fact, the Army has a mature and robust environmental programme with baseline
funding and a history of formal environmental management dating back to 1992.




L 2                                                                                                    Status Report 2008–2009
Army Environmental Programme
2008–09 Expenditures
More than half of the financial resources managed through the Army Environmental Programme
originate from external sources. One may note that most of the Army funding dedicated to the
                                                                                                  1
                                                                                               Chapter




environment is directed to the environmental management of RTAs and pollution-prevention
measures that contribute directly to the sustainability of military readiness and compliance
with environmental laws. In addition to the expenses outlined below, we must add more than
80 positions involved in managing and implementing the Army Environmental Programme.


Army Environmental Programme Total Expenditures : $ 12,578 K
1.1 Army Funding : $5,724 K


                                                      Range and
                                                      Training Management
             Program Support
                                                      $2,166K – 37%
             $437K – 8%




     Pollution Prevention                                   Contaminated Sites
     $1,825K – 32%                     Environmental        $891K – 16%
                                       Management System
                                       $403K – 7%


 Effluent Management                 $570
 Species at Risk                     $420
 HAZMAT Management                   $372
 Environmental Assessments           $200
 POL Tank Environmental Management    $74
 Halocarbon Management                $73
 Air Emissions                        $51
 Greenhouse Gases                     $31
 Solid Waste Management               $19
 Integrated Pest Management           $16




1.2 External Funding : $6,854 K
    •	 TBS	Federal	Contaminated	Sites	Action	Plan	(FCSAP)	=	$	6,228K
    •	 ADM(IE)	Corporate	Environmental	Program	(CEP)	=	$	626K




Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                         L
                                                                                                         3
    Major Issues and Projects
    2.1. Valcartier Garrison: TCE Contamination
    In 1997, the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) was discovered at the Valcartier Garrison in its
                                                                                                         2
                                                                                                     Chapter




    waterworks system, a problem linked to groundwater contamination. We now know that the
    plume originates from surrounding areas where ammunition-related research and manufac-
    turing activities had been carried out from the 1950s to the 1980s. The plume covers an
    area of roughly five square kilometers.

    Main challenges:
    •	   Discussions	with	partners
    •	   Class-action	law	suit
    •	   Continuous	public/media	attention
    •	   Intergovernmental	issues
    •	   Directives	under	Fisheries	Act
    •	   Technical	and	technological	limitations

    08/09 Achievements:
    The project is now at a pivotal stage (from definition to option-analysis phase).

    2.2. Suffield Sustainable Management Plan (SSMP)
    The SSMP is a multi-year comprehensive project. The aim of this project is to develop a
    long-term management plan for guiding the activities of all tenants at the CFB Suffield RTA.
    This is to be accomplished by developing a land-use framework with integrated manage-
    ment tools that will enable the Base Commander to govern and sustain military training and
    research at CFB Suffield, while ensuring compliance with legislation and DND policies, in a
    manner fostering sound environmental stewardship.

    Main project challenges:
    •	   Improve	the	current	CFB	Suffield	Information	Management	System
    •	   Identify	land-use	objectives	and	thresholds
    •	   Review	and	develop	environmental	policies
    •	   Review	and	develop	environmental	management	plans
    •	   Review	and	develop	real-property	management	tools
    •	   Review	and	develop	a	land-use	framework

    08/09Achievements:
    Most of the project resources were committed to preparations and participation at the Suf-
    field NWA Joint Review of the EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project. The detailed
    preparation was crucial to the success of DND, as the Panel’s overall conclusion regarding
    EnCana’s proposed project to infill up to 1275 shallow gas wells in the Canadian Forces
    Base Suffield National Wildlife Area was that the project should not proceed at this time.



L
4                                                                                                   Status Report 2008–2009
2.3. Range and Training Areas (RTAs) Characterization Project
Most of our weapons are fired on our training ranges. To sustain the long-term use of our
training ranges, DLE, in collaboration with DRDC, has established the objective of under-
standing and minimizing the environmental impacts of military training.

Main challenges:
•	   Identify	the	hazards:	RTA	characterization
•	   Understand	the	fate	and	behaviour	of	munitions-related	contaminants
•	   Modify	training	practices
•	   Develop	tools	and	solutions	for	sustainable	management	of	RTAs

08/09 Achievements:
The concentrations of munitions-related materials in the soil and groundwater at RTAs were
characterized for CFB Meaford, Valcartier Garrison and CFB Petawawa. Measures were initi-
ated to reduce and understand the problem of metals contamination at small-arms ranges.
Solutions to address environmental issues related to UXO (Unexploded Explosive Ordnance)
clearance, nitroglycerin contaminated soils and burning of propellants were also studied.

2.4. Arctic Operations Advisor Course
The Government of Canada and the Department of National Defence have committed them-
selves to increase the presence of the Canadian Forces (CF) in the Canadian Arctic. Over
the two-month period from February to March, the Canadian Forces Land Advanced Warfare
Centre (CFLAWC) conducts the annual Arctic Operations Advisor Course (AOA) in areas
surrounding the city of Yellowknife, NWT, and community of Resolute Bay, Nunavut. The
Canadian Arctic is an extremely sensitive natural environment, and an increased CF presence
has the potential of causing irreversible environmental degradation.

Main challenges:
•	   Partnerships	between	federal/territorial	departments	and	agencies	and	the	peoples	of	
     the North
•	   Respect	for	land-claims	agreements	in	existence	or	under	negotiation
•	   Consent	from	potentially	affected	First	Nations	and	Inuit	communities
•	   Infrastructure	deficiencies	requiring	long-distance	garbage	hauling	and	complete	waste	
     removal from exercise areas
•	   Environmental	assessments	in	the	Arctic	are	generally	not	self-directed,	but	are	rather	
     conducted by assessment boards, which can have a significant impact on project planning

08-09 Achievements:
Given the complexity of planning projects in the Arctic, the Director Land Environment (DLE)
has been providing assistance to CFLAWC to ensure compliance of the AOA with all applicable
environmental laws, environmental assessment processes and permit/licensing requirements.




Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                L
                                                                                                5
    Expected Outcomes Survey
    In 2008-2009, DLE undertook an assessment of the Army Environmental Programme’s
    status with respect to the expected outcomes stated in the annual planning document,
    i.e., the Strategic Orientations and Resources Direction (SORD), now known as the Army
    Operating Plan (AOP). This assessment has not only allowed the programme to improve
                                                                                                        3
                                                                                                    Chapter




    its performance management, but has also helped us define more appropriate expected
    outcomes for the AOP 2010-11, in addition to providing background information for the
    2010-2011 Risk Assessment.

    The assessment included:
    •	   14	activity	types
    •	   36	expected	outcomes
    •	   5	Area	HQ	(L2)	and	13	major	installations	(L3)

    Main findings:
    •	   Progress	made	with	regard	to	all	08/09	expected	outcomes,	but	not	in	connection	
         with all L2s/L3s
    	    A	All expected outcomes remain valid and are retained in the AOP 10/11

    •	   The	survey	provided	us	the	opportunity	to	target	specific	L2s/L3s	in	terms	of	expected	
         outcomes for 10/11, (e.g., completion of EMS implementation)
         A	This practice will be retained for future AOPs

    2008/2009 Expected Outcomes Progress
    50




    40




    30




    20




    10
                                                  Complete
                                                  In Progress
                                                  Not Started
     0


    The findings and results are presented at Annex II.




L
6                                                                                                  Status Report 2008–2009
Army Environmental Strategy
Report FY 08/09
Fiscal Year 08/09 marked the first of the five implementation years for the Army Environmental
Strategy. The complete findings and results are presented at Annex III.
                                                                                                   Chapter



                                                                                                             4
  I.   With respect to the Environmental Compliance and Stewardship Strategic
       Goal, progress was made in terms of developing compliance-inspection protocols as
       well as integrating environmental issues in the planning phase of Army activities and
       projects.

  II. As for the Sustainable Ranges & Training Areas (RTAs) Goal, most of the strategy
      objectives and targets for RTAs were postponed one year due to a handover of respon-
      sibility for the file from one DLE section to another. Nevertheless, the RTA Environmental
      Working Group and DLE developed a risk-assessment methodology for RTA-specific
      environmental aspects that will be transferable to other aspects of the Programme.

  III. With regard to the Quality Management System Goal, DLE focused on reinforcing
       the LFC Environmental Management System by implementing the corrective actions
       identified in the Audit completed in March 2008.

  IV. Finally, implementation of the Human Resources Framework Goal started with
      the	development	of	an	HR	Guidance	Document	by	DLE	as	well	as	a	review	of	DLE’s	
      organizational structure and position classifications.




Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                             L
                                                                                                             7
      Sustainable Development
      Strategy (SDS) Report 08/09
      Over the past years, the Defence Environmental Programme has been addressing legal
      issues, though the current focus is on minimizing the impact of our activities on the environ-
                                                                                                       Chapter
                                                                                                       Chapter



                                                                                                                 5
      ment. These efforts have remained a work in progress since promulgation of the first SDS
      Strategy in 1997. To improve the DND contribution to the federal environmental agenda,
      DLE has been gathering data for all Army installations in connection with Sustainable Devel-
      opment Strategy (SDS) commitments, and has been reporting the findings to the Director-
      General Environment, the DND/CF SDS authority, annually on 1 June.

      Achievements 08-09:
      Minor improvements in 08/09, as Army resources were assigned to higher-risk priorities
      associated with compliance issues.

      The findings and results are presented at Annex IV.




Over the past years, the Defence Environmental Programme has been addressing
legal issues, though the current focus is on minimizing the impact of our activities
on the environment.




L 8                                                                                                       Status Report 2008–2009
FCSAP – Year-End Report
The Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP) is a cost-share program (usually
80% FCSAP, 20% Department) managed by Environment Canada and the Treasury
Board Secretariat (TBS) to assist departments in the assessment and remediation of
contaminated sites for which they are responsible.
                                                                                            Chapter



                                                                                                      6
Action during FY 2008-09:
•	   LFC	requested	a	total	of	$9.4	million	to	undertake	31	FCSAP-eligible	projects.
•	   Some	activities	were	dropped	or	revised,	including	reduction	of	a	funding	approval	
     by	DGE	of	$4.0	million	for	the	TCE	Valcartier	project	(from	the	first	$5.3	million	
     submission).
•	   Other	contaminated-site	projects	were	added,	resulting	in	a	revised	overall	FCSAP-	
     approved	budget	of	$6.4	million.	
•	   There	was	a	reduction	of	36.2%	in	relation	to	the	original	FCSAP	budget	estimate,	
     with only a 5% lapse rate occurring at the end of the fiscal year.

Achievements 08/09:
LFC undertook 37 FCSAP-eligible projects (25 assessments and 12 remediation/risk-
management projects), 6 more than originally planned, representing an expenditure total
of	approximately	$6.0	million	($3.5	million	for	assessments	and	$2.5	million	for	remedia-
tion/risk-management).

The findings and results are presented at Annex V.




Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                      L
                                                                                                      9
      Suffield Sustainable
      Management Plan
      Corporate Environmental Program (CEP)
      Financial Report 08/09
                                                                                                       Chapter
                                                                                                       Chapter



                                                                                                                 7
      In October 2008, the Defence Management Committee (DMC) endorsed the continuation
      of the CEP to provide funds to address major corporate environmental responsibilities. The
      CEP	is	a	rolling	5-year	program	with	a	baseline	allocation	currently	set	at	$15M/year.	DLE	
      supervises one CEP project, the CFB Suffield Sustainability Management Plan. The aim of
      this project is to develop a long-term management plan, which will be used to guide the
      activities of all the tenants in the CFB Suffield Range and Training Areas.

      Suffield Sustainable Management Plan (SSMP) FY08/09 Summary
      •	   SSMP	team	members	and	subject-matter	experts	participated	in	the	EnCana	Shallow	
           Gas Infill Development Project Joint Review Panel (JRP) in October 2008.
      •	   Completion	of	Definition	Phase	Part	1:	Gap	Analysis.	The	initial	Work	Breakdown	
           Structures project resulted in completion of the mandate to identify the issues and
           gaps associated with specific sustainability issues at CFB Suffield (e.g., environmental,
           properties, user requirements, etc.). These results are now being analyzed for use as a
           basis in defining key project objectives and associated tasks.
      •	   Corporate	Environmental	Program	funding	=	$	626K

      The findings and results are presented at Annex VI.



The aim of this project is to develop a long-term management plan, which will
be used to guide the activities of all the tenants in the CFB Suffield Range and
Training Areas.




L10                                                                                                       Status Report 2008–2009
Annex I
Army Environmental Programme 08/09 Expenditures

  Sum of Actuals                                                             Area
                                                                                                                        Grand Total
  Internal Order /Group                     LFWA         LFCA         SQFT           LFAA       LFDTS         DLE
  O&M                                         $5 744      $36 941      $21 834        $4 653     $2 175      $15 308        $86 655

  Contaminated Sites                        $182 093     $367 322     $319 831       $22 651            -           -      $891 897

  POL Tank Environmental Mgt                 $36 891        $(165)     $22 544       $10 860            -     $4 002        $74 133

  HAZMAT Management                         $146 381     $133 364      $76 298        $2 790            -    $13 594       $372 427

  Solid Waste Management                      $9 109      $10 052              -            -           -           -       $19 161

  Greenhouse Gases                                  -            -             -     $30 587            -           -       $30 587

  Integrated Pest Management                  $6 862       $9 400              -            -           -           -       $16 262

  Effluent Management                       $107 418     $186 120     $184 145       $88 519            -     $3 306       $569 509

  Halocarbon Management                      $57 320       $2 302      $12 932              -           -           -       $72 554

  Species at Risk                            $69 063     $162 646      $55 906      $125 146            -     $7 048       $419 809

  Air Emissions                                     -            -     $37 053       $14 255            -           -       $51 308

  Communications                             $21 489       $5 881       $4 263       $42 151            -    $15 112        $88 896

  Dev / Impl of EMS                          $13 093     $123 298     $166 225              -    $4 728      $31 411       $338 754

  Environmental Training / HR Management    $134 117      $46 556       $2 349       $23 725            -    $54 999       $261 745

  Environmental Assessments                  $31 100      $46 146     $114 624          $622            -     $7 693       $200 184

  Environmental Audits                        $2 457      $21 200              -      $3 805            -    $36 807        $64 269

  Environmental Management of RTAs         $1 235 023    $162 845      $54 233      $368 896     $1 022      $61 062     $1 883 080

  RTA Environmental Research                        -            -             -            -           -   $283 569       $283 569
  Grand Total                              $2 058 158   $1 313 908   $1 072 236     $ 738 659   $ 7 925     $ 533 910    $5 724 797




Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                                           L     11
Annex II
Expected Outcomes Survey

                                                                                                Almost        In        Not        Not       Grand
     Activity Type/IO        SORD 09 Expected Outcomes                                  Done
                                                                                               completed   progress   started   applicable   Total

                            1) Undertake communication activities in line with the
                                                                                         8         -          2         2           5         17
     Communications            LFC environmental communication strategy
                            2) Each L2 organisation must hold one environmental
                                                                                         3         -          -         1          14         18
                               outreach activity per year
                            1) All lands that are owned or administrated by the
                                                                                         10       3           2          -          3         18
                               Army must have a Phase I assessment

                            2) All suspected contaminated sites must have a
                                                                                         4        1          10          -          3         18
     Contaminated Sites        Phase II assessment

                            3) All installations must also have a contaminated sites
                                                                                         4        1           9         1           3         18
                               action plan
                            4) Contaminated site action plan must be implemented
                               u sing risk management priorities approach as             2         -         10         3           3         18
                               described in LFC EMS Chapter 4, Section 2
                            1) A risk assessment must be completed at each instal-
                                                                                         13       2           -          -          3         18
                               lation to determine the risk associated with effluents
     Effluent Management
                            2) Sampling programmes must be conducted as per
                                                                                         7        1           7          -          3         18
                               risk assessments
                            3) Mitigation plans must be developed as required            1         -          8         2           7         18

                            1) Training and guidance on environmental assessment
     Environmental
                               (EA) must be provided to all staff that may be in a       12        -          4         1           1         18
     Assessments
                               position to deal with EA

                            2) All organisations must perform general environmental
     Environmental Audits                                                                8        1           7         2           -         18
                               compliance audits/inspections

                            1) EMS must be implemented and sustained in all
     Environmental                                                                       13        -          5          -          -         18
                               organisations
     Management System
                            2) Installation environmental baseline study and
                                                                                         6        2           4         4           2         18
                               baseline study updates should be conducted




L
12                                                                                                                      Status Report 2008–2009
Expected Outcomes Survey (cont’d)

                                                                                     Almost        In        Not        Not       Grand
  Activity Type/IO     SORD 09 Expected Outcomes                             Done
                                                                                    completed   progress   started   applicable   Total
                      1) Halocarbons management procedures must
                                                                              12        -          3          -          3         18
                         be developed and implemented

                      2) An inventory of all infrastructure and vehicle
                         related systems and equipment containing
                                                                              7         3          5          -          3         18
                         halocarbons owned by the Army must be
  Halocarbons            kept and updated
  Management
                      3) Designated personnel who deal with equipment
                         containing halocarbons must receive appropriate      11        -          4          -          3         18
                         training
                      4) For all installations, halocarbons phase-out plan
                                                                              3         1          8          3          3         18
                         must be developed and implemented
                      1) All installations must have an implemented
                                                                              8         2          6          -          2         18
                         HazMat management plan
  HazMat
  Management          2) All installations must have up-to-date HazMat
                                                                              5         1          9          -          3         18
                         inventories
                      3) Evaluate HazMat training requirements and
                                                                              4         4          6          1          3         18
                         provide the required training to staff
                      1) IPM plans must be developed and implemented          7         2          4          1          4         18
  Integrated Pest
  Management          2) All organizations shall have policies and
                         procedures in place to ban the use of pesticides     8         2          3          2          3         18
                         for cosmetic lawn care

                      1) All installations must have a POL tank
                                                                              7         1          5          2          3         18
                         management plan
  POL Tank
                      2) All installations must have a POL tank
  Management                                                                  4         -          8          3          3         18
                         inspection programme

                      3) Staff dealing with POL tank systems must
                                                                              4         1          7          2          3         17
                         be trained
                      1) Natural water bodies quality must be monitored       2         -          8          2          6         18
  RTA Environmental   2) Environmental impacts of land uses
                                                                              2         -          8          4          4         18
  Management             (military and non-military) shall be monitored
                      3) Environmental training on RTA environmental
                                                                              9         -          1          4          4         18
                         aspects shall be provided




Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                                                  L 13
Expected Outcomes Survey (cont’d)

                                                                                             Almost        In                   Not       Grand
     Activity Type/IO       SORD 09 Expected Outcomes                                Done                        Not started
                                                                                            completed   progress             applicable   Total
                           5) Practices to avoid the introduction of invasive
                              species must be implemented and invasive                2        1           5          6          4         18
     RTA Environmental        species must be controlled
     Management (cont’d)
                           6) As required, natural resources inventories and
                              other RTA environmental baselines must be               7        1           4          2          4         18
                              updated
                           1.1) Establish the list of all species at risk that may
                                                                                      11        -          4          -          3         18
                                be found on properties
     Species at Risk
                           1.2) Complete species-at-risk inventories/surveys          8        3           3          -          3         17

                           1.3) Develop site-specific management plans                2        1           8          4          3         18

                           1.4) Implement and communicate species-at-risk
                                                                                      1        3           6          5          3         18
                                management plans

     Training and
                           1) U Env O course training must be provided               14        2           -          -          2         18
     HR Management         2) Environmental staff should participate to LFC
                                                                                      17        -          1          -          -         18
                              and DGE environmental conferences

     Grand Total                                                                     246       39         184        57         119       645



Comments
•	      The	vast	majority	of	expected	outcomes	are	for	recurrent	activities	–	in	those	cases	“done”	means	that	the	outcomes	were	
        achieved for 08/09.
•	      The	survey	looked	only	at	the	AOP	expected	outcomes;	other	elements	of	the	programme,	such	as	compliance	and	local	
        issues, were not assessed.
•	      All	expected	outcomes	assessed	as	equally	important.
•	      A	degree	of	subjectivity	applies	to	the	responses	(“done”	versus	“almost	completed”	and	“in	progress”)




L
14                                                                                                                   Status Report 2008–2009
Annex III
Army Environmental Strategy Report FY 08/09

  Strategic Goal                      Results/achievements for 08/09

  1. Environmental compliance         Target 1.1. – All 15 major Army installations have Compliance Inspection Protocols in place
     & stewardship                    Results:
                                      - Compliance inspection protocols were collected from the bases. This means that Target 1.1 is on
  Manage the Army’s resources in        time. While progress in 09-10 will be slowed down for PCB and halocarbons due to a staff shortage,
  a sustainable manner, reduce the      the generic management plan for storage tanks that will be developed with the RMC Green Team
  environmental impact of military      will include the planned inspection protocol.
  activities and promote legal
  compliance                          Target 2.2. – Environmental issues are integrated in the planning phase of Army activities
                                                    and projects (PRICIE)
                                      Results:
                                      - An environmental component has been added to the PRICIE documentation. However, it remains to
                                        be seen whether or not DLE will be systematically consulted during PRICIE processes. A follow-up
                                        is needed.

  2. Sustainable Ranges & Training    Most of the Strategy objectives and targets for RTAs have been postponed by one year by DLE 5 before
     Areas (RTAs)                     being handed over to DLE 3.
                                      Target 1.1. – Develop priorities, process model and plan for sustainable RTA management.
  Ensure that RTAs are managed
  in an environmentally sustainable   Results:
  manner                              - The RTA Environmental Working Group, DLE 5, DLE 2 and DLE 3 developed a methodology for Risk
                                        Assessment for RTA environmental aspects that will be transferable to other aspects in the Pro-
                                        gramme. This was the early process in the development of sustainability indicators specific to each
                                        Army RTA. Indicators will be established in FY 09-10 and will then require extensive testing before
                                        being deemed reliable.
                                      Target 2.1. – Establish consistent and up-to-date natural resource baseline information
                                      Results:
                                      - Target 2.1 depends to a large extent on the work that will be accomplished with SMP Suffield. In
                                        the interim, ongoing monitoring will continue and the development of sustainability indicators will
                                        facilitate the work.
                                      Target 3.1. – Implement Species at Risk Action Plan
                                      Results:
                                      - The work on Species at Risk is largely dependent on clarifications from Environment Canada (EC).
                                        The focus has been on the development of an MOU between DND and EC. The MOU is with EC for
                                        final review.
                                      Target 3.2. – Develop and implement measures to protect surface water and groundwater
                                      Results:
                                      - There has been progress with respect to the assessment of the specific risk to surface and
                                        groundwater. This has been included in the risk assessment process developed by the RTA Env WG.




Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                                                              L
                                                                                                                                              15
Army Environmental Strategy Report FY 08/09 (cont’d)

     Strategic Goal                  Results/achievements for 08/09

     3. Quality Management System    Reinforce the LFC EMS
                                     Prior to adding a Quality Management component (based on ISO 9000) to the LFC EMS, it was
     Start implementing a Quality    necessary to reinforce the current LFC EMS with regard to ISO 14000 standard by performing an
     Management System for the       EMS audit. The audit was coordinated by DLE 3 and was completed as planned on 31 March 08.
     Army Environmental Programme    In 08-09 we have progressed in implementing audit-based corrective actions with the support of
                                     DCC.

                                     Achievements in 08-09 to reinforce LFC EMS:
                                     - The Action Plan to implement LFC EMS audit-based corrective actions.
                                     - Implementation of corrective actions has progressed significantly (about 75% completed)
                                     - Reinforced EMS is providing more detailed instructions and clearer guidance for overall Army
                                       Environmental Programme management.


     4. Human Resources Framework     DLE HR Guidance
                                     During FY 08/09, DLE 2 developed a DLE HR Guidance document in collaboration with the HR
     Move ahead with the implemen-   Working Group. This HR Guidance document will help DLE to establish and maintain the human
     tation of the Human Resources   resources capabilities needed to meet the requirements of the Army Environmental Programme
     Framework for the Army          (Objective 1). The HR Guidance document establishes the guiding principles for the following
     Environmental Programme staff   issues:
                                     •	Recruitment
                                     •	Employee	Orientation
                                     •	Retention	&	Awards	and	Recognition
                                     •	Communications
                                     •	Continuous	Learning	and	Professional	Development
                                     •	Succession	Planning
                                     •	Well-Being
                                     •	Performance	Management

                                     The DLE HR Guidance document will serve as a model for developing similar guidance measures
                                     for all levels of the Environment Programme as planned in the AES Human Resources Framework.

                                     Evaluation of DLE’s organizational structure and position classifications
                                     In May 2008, DLE hired an external consultant to carry out an evaluation of its organizational
                                     structure and position classifications. In October DLE staff examined the results of this evaluation
                                     and agreed to undertake a number of changes, such as creating a new project management sec-
                                     tion and providing professional development opportunities within the directorate, in order to better
                                     respond to the needs of the organization.




L
16                                                                                                                             Status Report 2008–2009
Annex IV
Sustainable Development Strategy Report 08/09

SC. 4.1. WASTE FUEL
Strategic commitment: Reduced disposal of waste fuel by 31 March 2010.

                                                2007/2008                                                    2008/2009

                      Fuel sent for disposal       Fuel recycled/recovered         Fuel sent for disposal       Fuel recycled/recovered
  Location
                          Liquid (liters)               Liquid (liters)                Liquid (liters)               Liquid (liters)

  Calgary                             1,080                                   0                          0                              4,600

  Chilliwack                                0                                 0                      121                                   0

  Edmonton                           45,100                                   0                   10,500                               17,000

  Gagetown                           13,800                                   0                    7,900                                   0

  Kingston                            6,846                                   0                    6,700                                   0

  London                                205                                   0                    1,964                                   0

  Meaford                                   0                                 0                          0                                 0

  Montreal/SJ                        14,991                                   0                      615                                   0

  Northern Ontario                          0                                 0                          0                                 0

  Petawawa                           45,862                                   0                      900                                   0

  Shilo                               1,600                                   0                    2,387                                   0

  Suffield                                  0                             32,750                         0                             62,200

  Toronto                            11,437                                   0                          0                                 0

  Valcartier                            117                                   0                   12,572                                   0

  Wainwright                          9,000                               49,800                  20,512                               60,900

  TOTAL                            150,038                                82,550                  64,171                           144,700

Reporting period: 01 Apr 08 - 31 Mar 09




Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                                                                L
                                                                                                                                                17
Sustainable Development Strategy Report 08/09 (cont’d)

SC. 4.4. REDUCING OZONE DEPLETION POTENTIAL
Strategic commitment: Reduce the weight of halocarbons by 5% in in-service systems and
equipment as expressed by their Ozone Depletion Potential per year by 31 March 2010 from
a baseline of 31 March 2004
Performance measures: Ozone-depleting potential (ODP) of halocarbons remaining in service.

                                             2007/2008                                     2008/2009

                               Total weight of
                                                                        Total weight in service           ODP
     LOCATION              halocarbons in service    ODP equivalent
                                                                                 (kg)                  equivalent
                                     (kg)

     Calgary                                655                 51.76                  752.04                  57.038

     Chilliwack                           269.29                60.34                  388.44                  53.157

     Edmonton                          4,558.15                242.49                4,558.15                 242.490

     Gagetown                          7,665.86             18,820.00                7,164.78              11,776.000

     Kingston                          4,308.38                226.86                3,379.67                 181.000

     London                               666.18                69.42                   58.76                   3.000

     Meaford                              540.38               605.97                  536.41                  98.000

     Montreal/SJ                       6,206.95                196.17                2,910.99                 146.280

     Northern Ontario                      76.46                11.81                   75.26                  14.180

     Petawawa                          5,505.50             15,659.30                3,803.46               4,126.000

     Shilo                             1,169.49                 59.20                1,130.49                  59.000

     Suffield                          5,146.77              3,185.15                7,752.60               2,828.420
     Toronto                              830.00                66.46                  830.00                  66.463

     Valcartier                        4,069.72                213.59                3,507.64                 188.330

     Wainwright                            96.83                 5.68                1,137.28                  46.540

     TOTAL                            41,764.96             39,474.20              37,985.97               19,885.898


Reporting period: 01 Apr 08 - 31 Mar 09




L
18                                                                                                          Status Report 2008–2009
Sustainable Development Strategy Report 08/09 (cont’d)

SC. 4.5. REDUCING GREENhOUSE GAS (GhG) EMISSIONS
Strategic commitment: Reducing Greenhouse Gas (GhG) emissions by 134.9 kilotonnes
of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2010 from 1998 baseline.

Previous year

    2007-2008

                                                   Propane
                                                                               Diesel
                                                       for
                                                                              fuel for
    Base/Wing/       Electricity 1                 lighting,
                                                                             lighting,        Energy4 generated
    Formation/        (conven-       Natural       heating,    Distillate                                                Gross
                                                                             heating,           on-site from
     Unit/ASU/          tional        gas           cooling    fuel oil 3                                             floor area
                                                                              cooling         “Green” sources*
     GSU, etc.        sources)                    and power
                                                                            and power
                                                   genera-
                                                                            generation
                                                     tion 2

                                                                                                            Alter-
                                                                                                            nate
   Location             (kWh)          (m )
                                         3
                                                     (L)          (L)          (L)         (kWh)   Type                 (m2)
                                                                                                             Unit
                                                                                                            (MJ)

  Calgary              3,792,877      1,055,014                                                                          66,967

  Chilliwack           5,301,897      1,008,335        5,526                         848                                 94,689

  Edmonton            37,967,259      9,082,826                                                                         448,658

  Gagetown            50,788,719     10,799,191     400,267     737,166                                                 374,175

  Kingston            47,935,524     10,727,670                                                                         330,703

  London               7,377,786      1,768,720                                                                         136,869

  Meaford              5,773,501      1,218,376                    8,133                                                 63,449

  Montreal/SJ         51,620,121      9,609,448                 118,850          8,143                                  458,000

  Northern Ontario     1,223,547       333,674                                                                           26,119

  Petawawa            40,331,108     13,041,058       46,006    506,619         77,632     7,766   Solar     27,958     358,795

  Shilo               19,455,596      4,450,445       22,557                    16,294                                  172,518

  Suffield            23,135,152      7,864,300       46,236                  234,130                                   150,976

  Toronto             12,092,071      1,575,627                                                                          99,599

  Valcartier          70,407,400     14,900,000       34,000    529,000         15,000                                  533,310

  Wainwright          16,501,561      5,825,869                                                                         141,637

  TOTAL              393,704,119     93,260,553     554,592    1,899,768      352,047      7,766             27,958   3,456,464


* Wind, solar, biomass, etc.



Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                                           L       19
Sustainable Development Strategy Report 08/09 (cont’d)
Greenhouse Gas (GhG) Emissions

     2008-2009

                                                           Propane                          Diesel fuel
     Base/Wing/                                          for lighting,                     for lighting,
     Formation/          Electricity 1                                                       heating,           Green energy4              Gross
                                                           heating,      Distillate fuel
     Unit/ASU/          (conventional    Natural gas                                         cooling          generated on-site         floor area
                                                         cooling and          oil 3
     GSU, etc.            sources)                                                          and power
                                                         power gen-
                                                           eration 2                        generation

                                                                                                                            Alternate
     Location              (kWh)            (m3)              (L)             (L)              (L)         (kWh)   Type                   (m2)
                                                                                                                            Unit (MJ)
     Calgary              4,553,467.00      953,078.48                                                                                     66,395

     Chilliwack           5,336,703.00    1,094,066.00       5,960.50                           565.50                                     94,689

     Edmonton            35,432,949.00    9,177,198.00                                                                                    448,658
     Gagetown            49,889,995.00    9,646,089.00    340,225.50        761,424.60                                                    374,175

     Kingston            43,413,120.00   10,707,815.00     16,685.00                                                                      330,703

     London               6,688,198.60    1,516,501.90                                                                                    136,869

     Meaford              5,935,718.00    1,235,487.00                       10,609.10                                                    110,882

     Montreal/SJ         52,014,146.00   10,018,524.00    207,879.00         61,460.00       15,979.00                                    452,734

     Northern Ontario     1,288,587.68      336,633.64       8,815.90                                                                      26,119

     Petawawa            41,790,925.00   13,393,345.00     51,267.00        459,115.00       61,745.00     7,766    Solar     27,958      369,311

     Shilo               19,098,798.00    4,322,302.00     31,289.00                         34,877.13                                    172,518

     Suffield            24,604,044.00    8,418,900.00     25,610.00                        334,678.00                                    150,976

     Toronto             12,941,918.21    1,397,082.55                                                                                     99,599

     Valcartier          77,027,871.00   14,161,124.00     30,318.00        301,051.00        8,754.00                                    533,310

     Wainwright          17,152,205.00    5,164,845.00                                                                                    140,172

     TOTAL              397,168,645.49   91,542,991.57    718,049.90      1,593,659.70      456,598.63     7,766              27,958    3,507,110

Note
1
     Electricity from conventional sources: hydro, coal-fired, gas-fired, oil-fired power generation plants.
2
     In general, propane consumed at base is in liquid state, transported in storage tanks, cylinders or transport trucks.
     1,000	L	=	1	m3,	1	lb	of	propane	=	0.89413	L
3
     Also known as No. 2 fuel oil or light fuel oil.
4
     Wind, solar, biomass, etc.

Comments:
FY 08/09:
There are some yearly variations in energy consumption due to colder winter weather conditions at some installations
and an increase in operational tempo, especially with respect to training in preparation for overseas operations.


L
20                                                                                                                   Status Report 2008–2009
Sustainable Development Strategy Report 08/09 (cont’d)

MC. 1. LIQUID EFFLUENTS MANAGEMENT PLAN
Strategic Commitment: Implementation of management plans at all affected sites


                                                    FY 07/08                          FY 08/09

  Location                                # Developed       # Implemented   # Developed       # Implemented

  Calgary                                               0               0                 0               0

  Chilliwack                                            1               1                 1               1

  Edmonton                                              1               0                 1               1

  Gagetown                                              1               1                 1               1

  Kingston                                              1               0                 1               0

  London                                                0               0                 0               0

  Meaford                                               0               0                 0               0

  Montreal/SJ                                           0               0                 0               0

  Northern Ontario                                      1               0                 1               0

  Petawawa                                              1               0                 1               0

  Shilo                                                 1               1                 1               1

  Suffield                                              1               1                 1               1

  Toronto                                               1               0                 1               0

  Valcartier                                            0               0                 0               0

  Wainwright                                            1               1                 1               1

  TOTAL                                          10/15                  5          10/15                  6


Reporting period: 01 Apr 08 - 31 Mar 09




Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                              L
                                                                                                              21
 Sustainable Development Strategy Report 08/09 (cont’d)

 MC. 2. TREATED WATER MANAGEMENT

 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
 ·      Quantity of annual total treated water consumed/produced
 ·      Annual number of DND adverse drinking-water quality incidents from WATERNET reports (WATERNET is an interface
        for Department of National Defence (DND) and Canadian Forces (CF) Water Managers to report confirmed Adverse
        Drinking-Water Quality (ADWQ) Incidents as they occur at DND/CF sites across Canada)


                                       BASELINE FY 07/08                                     FY 08/09

                                                           Adverse drink-                                   Adverse
                                 Treated water                                  Treated water
                                                           ing water qual-                               drinking water
                              consumed/produced                              consumed/produced
                                                             ity incidents                              quality incidents

     Location                        (m3)                        (#)               (m3)                        (#)

     Calgary                                  27 575.92                  0                38 562.00                         0

     Chilliwack                              128 224.00                  0            130 615.00                            0

     Edmonton                                408 287.80                  0            518 234.00                            0

     Gagetown                                363 378.00                  1            369 406.00                            1

     Kingston                               1 063 408.00                 0           1 176 706.00                           0

     London                                   61 794.60                  0                53 102.10                         0

     Meaford                                 102 374.00                  0                88 210.00                         0

     Montreal/SJ                             457 702.00                  0             527 882.00                           0

     Northern Ontario                           8 464.00                 1                 5 394.44                         0

     Petawawa                               1 159 692.00                 0           1 031 975.00                           0

     Shilo                                   310 658.00                  0             244 540.00                           0

     Suffield                                466 917.00                  0             418 808.00                           0

     Toronto                                  43 262.84                  0                30 806.22                         0

     Valcartier                              817 231.00                  0             718 205.00                           0

     Wainwright                             1 218 322.00                 0           1 470 207.00                           0
     TOTAL                                  6 637 291.16                 2           6 822 652.76                           1




L
22                                                                                                              Status Report 2008–2009
Sustainable Development Strategy Report 08/09 (cont’d)

MC. 3. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Affirmation of participation in local or municipal 3R
(Reduce/Recycle/Reuse) initiatives.

Previous year

                                                       MATERIALS RECYCLED
                                                            FY 07/08

  Location                                                                        Yard     Food
                     Paper*    Glass    Metals   Wood       Plastics   Textiles                     Other
                                                                                  waste    waste

                     Yes/No    Yes/No   Yes/No   Yes/No      Yes/No    Yes/No     Yes/No   Yes/No   Yes/No

  Calgary              Y         N        Y        N           N            N       N        N        N

  Chilliwack           Y         Y        Y        Y           Y            N       N        N        N

  Edmonton             Y         Y        Y        Y           Y            N       N        N        N

  Gagetown             Y         N        Y        Y           Y            N       N        N        Y

  Kingston             Y         N        Y        Y           N            N       N        Y        N

  London               Y         N        N        N           N            N       N        N        N

  Meaford              Y         Y        Y        Y           Y            Y       Y        Y        Y

  Montreal/SJ          Y         Y        Y        Y           Y            Y       Y        Y        Y

  Northern Ontario     Y         Y        Y        N           Y            N       N        N        N

  Petawawa             Y         Y        Y        N           Y            N       Y        N        N

  Shilo                Y         N        Y        N           Y            N       N        N        N
  Suffield             Y         N        Y        Y           Y            N       N        N        N

  Toronto              Y         Y        Y        Y           Y            N       Y        N        N

  Valcartier           Y         Y        Y        Y           Y            Y       Y        Y        Y

  Wainwright           Y         N        Y        N           N            N       N        N        N
  TOTAL “Y”           15         8       14        9          11            3       5        4        4




Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                             L
                                                                                                             23
Sustainable Development Strategy Report 08/09 (cont’d)

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
2008-2009 results

                                                         MATERIALS RECYCLED
                                                              FY 08/09
     Location
                        Paper*   Glass    Metals   Wood        Plastics   Textiles   Yard waste Food waste    Other
                        Yes/No   Yes/No   Yes/No   Yes/No      Yes/No     Yes/No      Yes/No     Yes/No       Yes/No
     Calgary              Y        N        Y        N            N           N          N          N          N/A
     Chilliwack           Y        Y        Y        Y            Y           N          N          N          N/A
     Edmonton             Y        Y        Y        Y            Y           N          N          N          N/A
     Gagetown             Y        N        Y        Y            Y           N          N          N           Y
     Kingston             Y        N        Y        Y            N           N          N          Y           N
     London               Y        Y        Y        N            N           N          N          N           N
     Meaford              Y        Y        Y        Y            Y           Y          Y          Y           Y
     Montreal/SJ          Y        Y        Y        Y            Y           Y          Y          Y           Y
     Northern Ontario     Y        Y        Y        N            Y           N          N          N           N
     Petawawa             Y        Y        Y        N            Y           N          N          N           N
     Shilo                Y        N        Y        N            Y           N          N          N          N/A
     Suffield             Y        N        Y        Y            Y           N          N          N          N/A
     Toronto              Y        Y        Y        Y            Y           N          Y          N          N/A
     Valcartier           Y        Y        Y        Y            Y           Y          Y          Y           Y
     Wainwright           Y        N        Y        N            N           N          N          N          N/A
     TOTAL “Y”           15        9       15        9           11           3          4          4           4

Reporting Period: 01 Apr 08 - 31 Mar 09




L
24                                                                                                        Status Report 2008–2009
Sustainable Development Strategy Report 08/09 (cont’d)

A.3. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLANS
SDS 2000 TARGET: Develop and implement Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plans
at all Bases/Wings by 31 March 2004


                                                  FY 07/08                                     FY 08/09

                                                             Developed and                                Developed and
  Location                      # Organizations                              # Organizations
                                                              implemented                                  implemented

  Calgary                             1                            Y                1                           y

  Chilliwack                          1                            Y                1                           Y

  Edmonton                            1                           N                 1                           Y

  Gagetown                            1                            Y                1                           Y

  Kingston                            1                            Y                1                           Y
  London                              1                            Y                1                           Y

  Meaford                             1                           N                 1                           Y

  Montreal/SJ                         1                            Y                1                           Y

  Northern Ontario                    1                           N                 1                          N

  Petawawa                            1                           N                 1                          N

  Shilo                               1                            Y                1                           Y

  Suffield                            1                            Y                1                           Y

  Toronto                             1                            Y                1                           Y

  Valcartier                          1                            Y                1                           Y

  Wainwright                          1                            Y                1                           Y
  TOTAL                               15                          11               15                          13

Reporting Period: 01 Apr 08 - 31 Mar 09

Comments:
FY 08/09: The ASU Northern Ontario B Env O position has only been filled since Feb 2009 after being vacant for some time.
Petawawa and Northern Ontario plan to develop and implement IPMs in 08/09.




Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                                            L
                                                                                                                            25
Sustainable Development Strategy Report 08/09 (cont’d)

B.1. hAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PLANS
SDS 2000 TARGET: Develop and implement hazardous Material Management Plans at all
Bases/Wings by 31 March 2004


                                            FY 07/08                               FY08/09

     Location                 Development              Implemented   Development             Implemented

     Calgary                       1                       1             1                       1

     Chilliwack                    1                       1             1                       1

     Edmonton                      1                       0             1                       1

     Gagetown                      1                       1             1                       1

     Kingston                      1                       0             1                       1

     London                        1                       0             1                       0
     Meaford                       1                       1             1                       1

     Montreal/SJ                   1                       1             1                       1

     Northern Ontario              1                       0             1                       0

     Petawawa                      1                       1             1                       1

     Shilo                         1                       1             1                       1

     Suffield                      1                       1             1                       1

     Toronto                       1                       0             1                       0

     Valcartier                    1                       1             1                       1

     Wainwright                    1                       1             1                       1
     TOTAL                         15                      10            15                      12

Reporting Period: 01 Apr 08 - 31 Mar 09




L
26                                                                                                Status Report 2008–2009
Sustainable Development Strategy Report 08/09 (cont’d)

D.1. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
SDS 2000 TARGET: Implement Environmental Management Systems by 31 March 2004

                                                        FY 07/08                             FY 08/09

  LOCATION                                # Organizations    EMS implemented   # Organizations     EMS implemented

  Calgary                                       1                  1                 1                   1

  Chilliwack                                    1                  1                 1                   1

  Edmonton                                      1                  0                 1                   1

  Gagetown                                      1                  1                 1                   1

  Kingston                                      1                  0                 1                   1

  London                                        1                  0                 1                   0
  Meaford                                       1                  1                 1                   1

  Northern Ontario                              1                  0                 1                   0

  Petawawa                                      1                  1                 1                   1

  Shilo                                         1                  1                 1                   1

  Suffield                                      1                  1                 1                   1

  Toronto                                       1                  0                 1                   0

  Wainwright                                    1                  1                 1                   1

  LFWA HQ                                       1                  1                 1                   1

  LFCA HQ                                       1                  0                 1                   0

  LFAA HQ                                       1                  1                 1                   1

  LFQA (Valcartier & Montreal/SJ)               1                  1                 1                   1

  CLS/DLE                                       1                  1                 1                   1
  TOTAL                                         18                 12                18                  14

  Percentage implemented                                66.66%                               77.77%

Reporting Period: 01 Apr 08 - 31 Mar 09




Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                                     L
                                                                                                                     27
Annex V
FCSAP – 2008-09 LFC Year-End Report

                                                         Federal                                                                  Base/ Wing/
                          Primary Reference
        Region                                      Contaminated Site                     Project title                            Formation/
                       Indication Number (PRIN)
                                                     Identifier (FCSI)                                                          Directorate DND

     TCE Valcartier                 S-9769              29757007                          TCE Valcartier                           Valcartier

     Total TCE Valcartier - Assessment
     Total TCE Valcartier - Remediation
     Grand Total TCE Valcartier
                                    S-319               04089001              Gagetown Old POL Tank Farm (S-319)                   Gagetown
        Atlantic                    S-318               04089010                   Shirley Road Dump/Landfill                      Gagetown
                                    S-323               02193002                      Summerside Armoury                           Gagetown
     Total Atlantic - Assessment
     Total Atlantic - Remediation
     Grand Total Atlantic
                                    S-1934              10992006         Meaford CATC Meaford Former Refueling Station 2            Meaford
                            S-10671, S-10747       00001009, 00008403                     Meaford RTA                               Meaford
                                   S-10745              00008401           Meaford - Former Tank Parking Area - Bivy 9              Meaford
                                   18 sites              18 sites                    Petawawa Assessment                           Petawawa
                            S-10592, S-10679       11347008, 00008335                    Petawawa RTA                              Petawawa

                                                   00008361, 00008362,
        Central        S-10705, S-10706, S-10703                                    ASU Toronto Assessments                         Toronto
                                                        00008359
                                   S-10704              00008360                     ASU Toronto HMCS York                          Toronto
                                   S-10497              10869001                  ASU London: Wolsley Barracks                      London
                                    S-5822              10868001                 ASU London: Highbury Complex                       London
                                    S-1934              10992006            Meaford CATC: Former Refueling Station 2                Meaford
     Total Central - Assessment
     Total Central - Remediation
     Grand Total Central




L
28                                                                                                               Status Report 2008–2009
                                                                                                    (Slippage)
Project type       Project original     Final approved project   Total FCSAP project expenditures
                                                                                                     Overage
  (A or R)           funding ($)              funding ($)           (from year-end reports) ($)
                                                                                                         ($)

     R               5 324 000                1 304 999                     1 253 282                (51 717)

  Total A                 0                       0                             0                       0
  Total R            5 324 000                1 304 999                     1 253 282                (51 717)
   A +R              5 324 000                1 304 999                     1 253 282                (51 717)
     R                 10 000                  16 066                        15 924                   (142)
     R                 50 000                  53 423                        58 277                   4 854
     R                 40 000                  39 300                        36 672                  (2 628)
  Total A                 0                       0                             0                       0
  Total R             100 000                  108 789                       110 873                  2 084
   A +R               100 000                  108 789                       110 873                  2 084
     A                 50 000                  100 000                       95 524                  (4 476)
     A                600 000                  660 000                       638 243                 (21 757)
     A                    0                    60 000                        60 000                     0
     A                290 000                  290 000                       269 304                 (20 696)
     A                350 000                  620 000                       560 971                 (59 029)

     A                 30 000                  28 632                        28 623                    (9)

     A                150 000                  130 000                       123 234                 (6 766)
     R                 50 000                  42 163                        28 154                  (14 009)
     R                 50 000                  15 000                         6 580                  (8 420)
     R                150 000                  100 000                       92 000                  (8 000)
  Total A            1 470 000                1 888 632                     1 775 900               (112 732)
  Total R             250 000                  157 163                       126 734                 (30 429)
   A +R              1 720 000                2 045 795                     1 902 634               (143 161)




         Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                                 L
                                                                                                                 29
 FCSAP – 2008-09 LFC Year-End Report (cont’d)

                                                      Federal                                                                 Base/ Wing/
                         Primary Reference
       Region                                    Contaminated Site                    Project title                            Formation/
                      Indication Number (PRIN)
                                                  Identifier (FCSI)                                                         Directorate DND
                                                                      Montreal: Characterization of various sites at
                              S-10694                00008350                                                                  Montreal
                                                                                     Fort St. Jean
                                                                      Montreal Garrison: Management of grounds
                              S-10663                00001001                                                                  Montreal
                                                                                  and infrastructure
                              S-10713                00008369           Montreal: Construction of LAVIII garage                Montreal

                              S-10600                05906064              Characterization of surface waters                  Valcartier

                           S-610, S-10712        05906016, 00008368   Groundwater-monitoring perimeter-/Shannon                Valcartier

                              S-10681                00008337                    Valcartier: Skeet range                       Valcartier

                              S-10699                00008355          Valcartier: Soil contamination (range butts)            Valcartier
                                                                          Valcartier: historical study of former
     Québec                   S-10711                00008367                                                                  Valcartier
                                                                                   small-arms ranges
                             S-106898                00008354                        Valcartier RTA                            Valcartier
                              S-10713                00008369           Montreal: Construction of LAVIII garage                Montreal

                              S-10401                05906061              Site remediation, former well P-2                   Valcartier

                              S-10500                29757026             CFB Valcartier: Perchlorate in water                 Valcartier

                              S-10681                00008337                    Valcartier: Skeet range                       Valcartier

                              S-10699                00008355          Valcartier: Soil contamination (range butts)            Valcartier
     Total Quebec - Assessment
     Total Quebec - Remediation
     Grand Total Quebec




L
30                                                                                                           Status Report 2008–2009
                                              Final                                            (Slippage)
Project type        Project original                        Total FCSAP project expenditures
                                         approved project                                       Overage
  (A or R)            funding ($)                              (from year-end reports) ($)
                                           funding ($)                                              ($)

     A                 100 000               190 415                    190 415                   (0)

     A                     0                 259 000                    150 628                (108 372)

     A                     0                 13 920                     13 920                     0

     A                 300 000               219 500                    218 159                 (1 341)

     A                 150 000               148 200                    148 890                   690

     A                 100 000               130 000                    118 910                 (11 090)

     A                  30 000               36 000                     35 785                   (215)

     A                  50 000               52 270                     59 060                   6 790

     A                 350 000               349 000                    397 845                 48 845
     R                 240 000               576 125                    576 125                    0

     R                  95 000               25 000                     22 378                  (2 622)

     R                 100 000               86 000                     82 481                  (3 519)

     R                 100 000               11 000                     11 310                    310

     R                  70 000               331 000                    328 346                 (2 654)
  Total A             1 080 000             1 398 305                  1 333 612               (64 693)
  Total R              605 000              1 029 125                  1 020 640                (8 485)
   A +R               1 685 000             2 427 430                  2 354 253               (73 177)




          Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                            L
                                                                                                            31
 FCSAP – 2008-09 LFC Year-End Report (cont’d)

                                                          Federal                                                       Base/ Wing/
                          Primary Reference
       Region                                        Contaminated Site           Project title                           Formation/
                       Indication Number (PRIN)
                                                      Identifier (FCSI)                                               Directorate DND

                                                    00001005, 00001006,
                       S-10667, S-10668, S-10669,
                                                    00001007, 00001008,   ASU Calgary: Assessments                        Calgary
                           S-10670, S-10702
                                                         00008358

                       S-9917, S-10484, S-10682,    37203001, 16439013,
                                                                           Chilliwack: Assessments                       Chilliwack
                                 S-362              00008338, 16506001

                                 S-10701                 00008357          Edmonton: Assessments                         Edmonton
                                 S-10700                 00008356         Shilo: Former Camp Hughes                        Shilo
       Western                   S-10663                 00001001          Shilo: Former skeet range                       Shilo

                             S-10739, S-10740       00008395, 00008396     Shilo RTA: Areas 9 and A                        Shilo
                                 S-10765                 00012448           CLS Shilo: Landfarming                         Shilo

                                                    15305008, 00008349,
                       S-9872, S-10639, S-10697                            Wainwright: Admin Area                       Wainwright
                                                         00008353

                                 S-10696                 00008352            Wainwright: Burn Pit                       Wainwright
                                  6 sites                  6 sites           Wainwright: Old RTA                        Wainwright
     Total Western - Assessment
     Total Western - Remediation
     Grand Total Western

     Total LFC Assessment

     Total LFC Remediation

     Grand Total LFC




L
32                                                                                                     Status Report 2008–2009
                                              Final                                            (Slippage)
Project type        Project original                        Total FCSAP project expenditures
                                         approved project                                       Overage
  (A or R)            funding ($)                              (from year-end reports) ($)
                                           funding ($)                                              ($)


     A                  40 000               67 500                     67 274                   (226)



     A                 160 000               200 536                    174 704                 (25 832)

     A                 100 000               100 000                    75 359                  (24 641)
     A                  25 000               30 800                     30 657                   (143)
     A                     0                 13 291                     11 813                  (1 478)

     A                     0                  3 600                      6 398                   2 798
     A                     0                 32 100                     32 368                    268

     A                  50 000                5 771                      5 771                    (1)

     A                  25 000               21 700                      5 554                  (16 146)
     A                 125 000                6 312                      6 311                    (1)
  Total A              525 000               481 610                    416 209                (65 400)
  Total R                  0                    0                          0                       0
   A +R                525 000               481 610                    416 209                (65 400)

     A                3 075 000             3 768 547                  3 525 722               (242 825)

     R                6 279 000             2 600 076                  2 511 529               (88 546)

   A+R                9 354 000             6 368 623                  6 037 251               (331 372)




          Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                            L
                                                                                                            33
  Annex VI
  Suffield Sustainable Management Plan (SSMP) –
  Funds spent in 08/09
  The work being conducted during this Option and Definition Phase is divided into seven (7)
  interrelated Work Breakdown Structures (WBS). Each WBS assigned to key stakeholders
  consists of activities geared towards achieving the identified objectives.

  WBS 1.0 – Project Management
  Under WBS 1.0, the project manager ensured that appropriate resources were available in
  a timely manner and that a process to identify and manage issues was in place.
  Funds	spent	in	08/09:	$	84,801.14	–	Paid	to	DCC	for	project	support

  WBS 2.0 – Establish the RTA Environmental Baseline
  WBS 2.0 defined all the gaps related to critical environmental issues. The gap analysis was
  used for WBS 3.0 and for Phase II of the Suffield SMP.
  Funds	spent	in	08/09:	$	95,391.13	–	Paid	for	staff	wages	and	TD.	The	staff	was	employed	
  in support of WBS 3.0.




WBS 2.0 defined all the gaps related to critical environmental issues.
The gap analysis was used for WBS 3.0 and for Phase II of the Suffield SMP.




L34                                                                                             Status Report 2008–2009
WBS 3.0 – Lead the Panel Review for the National Wildlife Area
WBS 3.0 was developed to coordinate DND participation in the NWA Joint Review Panel 6-24 Oct 08.
Funds	spent	in	08/09:	$	328,428.27	–	Paid	for	preparation	and	participation	at	the	Suffield	NWA	JRP

WBS 4.0 – Property Management
WBS 4.0 included a review of the issues associated with the sale of the underground gas storage facility, and
review of the access agreements. The management of non-Alberta-owned mineral rights was also examined.
Funds	spent	in	08/09:	$	362.97	–	TD	expenses

WBS 7.0. – Develop SSMP Recommendations
WBS 7.0 is the integration of all deliverables from the aforementioned items. WBS 7.0 coordinated completion of
gaps identification, gaps risk analysis and gaps prioritization.
Funds	spent	in	08/09:	$	98,618.04	–	Staff	wages	and	TD	expenses




Army Environmental Programme
                                                                                                                  L
                                                                                                                  35

								
To top