FY2021 SLO Directory
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth
Texas Military Preparedness Commission Office of the Governor Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth 2020 MISSION Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth (NAS JRB FW) is the first joint reserve base in the United States. NAS JRB FW is responsbile for training and equipping aviation units and ground support personnel for deployment in preparation for world-wide mobilization. NAS JRB FW seeks to provide joint training capabilities and resources to enable war fighter readiness while sustaining personnel and families’ needs and future compatibility. TENANT COMMANDS* PARTNERSHIPS Navy - Information Command Reserve This is a historical asset to the local community and has excellent (CNIFR); Information Dominance Corps community support. Annual community engagements include Reserve Command; Region Southeast base tours, speaking engagements at local schools, Air Power Reserve Component Command Fort Worth; Demonstrations, and youth drug education programs. The Air Operational Support Center (NOSC); Fleet Power Council is extremely supportive of the installation, military Logistics Support Wing (CFLSW); Fleet families, and veterans. NAS JRB FW has completed a Joint Logistic Support Squadron 59 (VR-59). Land Use Study (JLUS) and, as a result, formed the Regional Coordination Committee (RCC) to enhance and maintain Air Force - 10th Air Force Headquarters; intergovernmental coorperation. The RCC at NAS JRB FW is a 301st Fighter Wing (Reserve); 136th Airlift nationally recognized model for intergovernmental cooperation. Wing (Texas Air National Guard); 457th Air Force Fighter Squadron. Variable Total Impact Army - Baker Company 90th Aviation Direct Employment 6,616 Support Battalion; Alpha Company, 6th $3.8 Battalion, 52nd Aviation Regiment Output to the Texas Economy (in billions) GDP (in billions) $2.3 Marine Corps - Marine Aircraft Group 41 (MAG-41); Fighter Attack Squadron 112 Disposable Personal Income (in billions) $1.3 (VMFA-112); 14th Marine Regiment; and the 8th Marine District. -
Letter to SHPO Draft MITT SFP Comments
December 16, 2020 Carlotta Leon Guerrero Acting Guam State Historic Preservation Officer Guam State Historic Preservation Office Department of Parks and Recreation 490 Chålan Palåsyo Agana Heights, 96910 Via email: [email protected] Subject: 2020 Draft Programmatic Agreement Among the Commander, Joint Region Marianas and the Guam State Historic Preservation Officer, Regarding Military Training and Testing on, and within the Surrounding Waters of the Island of Guam Buenas yan Håfa Adai, While I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft Mariana Islands Training and Testing (MITT) Programmatic Agreement (PA), it must be stated that the document that has been presented to the public constitutes an injustice to the CHamoru people, as it will repeat the mistakes of past programmatic agreements that privilege military use of our land and water over our indigenous practices without genuinely safeguarding our historic sites, our cultural resources, and our heritage from the impacts of the federal actions, identified and unidentified, both of which are covered in the PA. Throughout our experience, programmatic agreements have provided little to no recourse of protecting our sacred and unique heritage, as is the case with Mågua village, Tailålo’, Litekyan, countless burial and latte sites, and the natural landscapes that are integral to our historic sites and districts. If we are to truly safeguard our cultural and environmental resources, the PA should not be entered into unless it can guarantee the full protection of our unique and sacred heritage. This draft PA fails to do so, especially with a massive and long-term undertaking such as the MITT. Should the Leon Guerrero-Tenorio Administration pursue the PA, I recommend that consultations be terminated at this time to allow for broader public input to create a document that ensures preservation of our burials, historic sites and districts, cultural practices, our heritage, and mandates transparency, accountability, and restitution, not mitigation. -
The Chatham Naval Air Station
Chatham Naval Air Station AT THE ATWOOD HOUSE by spencer grey People whose houses are located on Nickerson Neck in Chathamport most likely know that between 1917 and 1922, 36 acres of their neighborhood was the location of one of the Naval Air Stations that were established in the expectation that the United States would most likely be drawn into the war that was causing turmoil in Europe. Germany had deployed a number of their U- Boats throughout the Atlantic Ocean, and they clearly would be a threat to navigation in this area. Before construction of their houses had begun, there were large sections covered with cement, the remains of the floors of the hangars. The base consisted of living quarters for the personnel stationed there, hangars, a boat house, a hospital, repair shops, maintenance buildings and a pigeon loft. The latter was required because radio communications between the planes and the station were not reliable, but pigeons could be counted on to carry messages back to the base. Once the support buildings were in place, four Curtiss R-9s were delivered to the station. A few months later, four Curtiss HS-11 flying boats arrived at the Chatham Depot and were trucked to the base, where they were assembled. Once in service, these planes were used to patrol two areas, one to the north and another to the south, to keep a watch out for U-Boats in the surrounding waters. Because of the real possibility of a crash landing, the planes were equipped with emergency rations, water for three days, a flashlight, a flare pistol with red and green cartridges, a sea anchor, life preservers, a signal book, and local charts. -
NSIAD-91-83 Military Bases: Relocating the Naval Air Station Agana's Operations
GAO .- l_ll_..... .,.I, ,l.l .-..____ _ .._._ _-.--- ..--.. --...--.. “..--T------- I hTt~I1llwr 1!t!lo MILITARY BASES Relocating the Naval Air Station Agana’s Operations 142952 I I RELEASED RESTRICTED--Not to be released outside the General Accomtlng Office unless specifically approved by the Offlce of Congressional Relations. GAO/NSIAI)-91-W . Far East Office P.O. Box 61087 Honolulu, HI 96860 B-240437 December 31,199O The Honorable Ben Blaz IIouse of Representatives Dear Mr. Blaz: The government of Guam has made numerous requests to the U.S. government to transfer the facilities and land of the Naval Air Station Agana to its control. According to the government of Guam, the transfer is necessary to permit expansion of the International Air Terminal and its operations to accommodate Guam’s growing tourist industry and to promote economic development. This report responds to your request that we evaluate (1) the feasibility of relocating the operations at the Naval Air Station to Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, (2) the estimated costs of such a move, and (3) the potential costs of making enough Navy land available at the Air Station to expand the International Air Terminal without moving all of the Navy’s operations. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries of Defense, Interior, Transportation and the Navy and Air Force; the Chairmen, House and Senate Committees on Appropriations; the Governor of Guam; and other interested parties. -
FY 2020 Defense Budget
Preface The Overview Book has been published as part of the President’s Annual Defense Budget for the past few years. From FY 1969 to FY 2005, OSD published the “Annual Defense Report” (ADR) to meet 10 USC section 113 requirements. Subsequently, the Overview began to fill this role. The Overview is one part of an extensive set of materials that constitute the presentation and justification of the President’s Budget for FY 2020. This document and all other publications for this and previous DoD budgets are available from the public web site of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller): http://comptroller.defense.gov. The Press Release and Budget Briefing, often referred to as the “Budget Rollout,” and the Program Acquisition Costs by Weapons System book, which includes summary details on major DoD acquisition programs (i.e., aircraft, ground forces programs, shipbuilding, space systems, etc.) are especially relevant. The website for Performance Improvement tables and charts is http://dcmo.defense.gov/Publications/AnnualPerformancePlanandPerformanceReport.aspx. Other background information can be accessed at www.defense.gov. The estimated cost of this report or study for the Department of Defense is approximately $27,000 for the 2019 Fiscal Year. This includes $13,000 in expenses and $14,000 in DoD labor. Generated on 2019Mar05 RefID: E-DE33FD3 i This Page Intentionally Left Blank. ii Overview – FY 2020 Defense Budget Table of Contents 1. FY 2020 Budget Summary – A Strategy Driven Budget 1-1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1-1 2018 National Defense Strategy ......................................................................................... 1-2 FY 2020 Budget Request Overview .................................................................................... 1-3 Building a More Lethal Force ............................................................................................. -
For Publication. the Version of the Proposed Rule R
This document has been submitted to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for publication. The version of the proposed rule released today may vary slightly from the published document if minor editorial changes are made during the OFR review process. The document published in the Federal Register will be the official document. Appendix A to part 802- List of Military Installations Part 1 Site Name Location Adelphi Laboratory Center Adelphi, MD Air Force Maui Optical and Supercomputing Maui, HI Site Air Force Office of Scientific Research Arlington, VA Andersen Air Force Base Yigo, Guam Army Futures Command Austin, TX Army Research Lab – Orlando Simulations Orlando, FL and Training Technology Center Army Research Lab – Raleigh Durham Raleigh Durham, NC Arnold Air Force Base Coffee County and Franklin County, TN Beale Air Force Base Yuba City, CA Biometric Technology Center (Biometrics Clarksburg, WV Identity Management Activity) Buckley Air Force Base Aurora, CO Camp MacKall Pinebluff, NC Cape Cod Air Force Station Sandwich, MA Cape Newenham Long Range Radar Site Cape Newenham, AK Cavalier Air Force Station Cavalier, ND Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station Colorado Springs, CO Clear Air Force Station Anderson, AK Creech Air Force Base Indian Springs, NV Davis-Monthan Air Force Base Tucson, AZ Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Arlington, VA Eareckson Air Force Station Shemya, AK Eielson Air Force Base Fairbanks, AK Ellington Field Joint Reserve Base Houston, TX Fairchild Air Force Base Spokane, WA Fort Benning Columbus, GA Fort Belvoir Fairfax County, VA Fort Bliss El Paso, TX Fort Campbell Hopkinsville, KY Fort Carson Colorado Springs, CO Fort Detrick Frederick, MD Fort Drum Watertown, NY Fort Gordon Augusta, GA Fort Hood Killeen, TX 129 This document has been submitted to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for publication. -
GAO-11-459R Military Buildup on Guam Grow from About 15,000 in 2007 to About 39,000 by 2020
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 June 27, 2011 The Honorable Tim Johnson Chairman The Honorable Mark Kirk Ranking Member Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Subject: Military Buildup on Guam: Costs and Challenges in Meeting Construction Timelines In 2004, the bilateral U.S. and Japanese Security Consultative Committee began a series of sustained security consultations to strengthen the U.S.-Japan security alliance by establishing a framework for the future of the U.S. force structure in Japan. The United States and Japan agreed to reduce the U.S. force structure in Japan while maintaining the U.S. force presence in the Pacific theater by relocating units to other areas, including Guam. As part of this effort, called the Defense Policy Review Initiative, about 8,600 Marines and 9,000 dependents were to move from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam by a projected date of 2014, as described in the bilateral agreement.1 On June 21, 2011, however, United States and Government of Japan officials noted that completion of the Marine relocation will not meet the previously targeted date of 2014, but confirmed their commitment to complete the relocation at the earliest possible date after 2014. 2 The Department of Defense (DOD) also plans to move other military forces and equipment to Guam on different schedules in implementing a new strategic approach in the Pacific as part of its worldwide Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy. These latter initiatives involve each of the military services and the Army National Guard working concurrently to complete infrastructure projects to support Guam-based U.S. -
Meritorious Advancement Program Gains a Season
IIN THIS ISSUE IN TNAVYHIS IS COLLEGESUE PROGRAM SURVEY: DIAGRAMMINGThe Navy College THE Program DEEP:The NAV NavyY- SPON- College Program SORED(NCP)(NCP) SCIENTIST announcedannounced aa new,new, moremore AWARDEDefficient F customerOR SEA- service FLOOR MAPPING opinion survey July 24, as part Dr. David Sandwell received of the continuing improvement the Charles A. Whitten Medal, process for Voluntary Vo l . 2 6 , No . 30 No rf o l k , VA | f l a g s h i p n e w s . c o m 07 . 2 6 . 1 8 – 0 8 . 01. 1 8 sponsored by the American Vo l l .. 22 6 ,, NoNo .. 3030 No rfrf oll k ,, VA || ff ll a g s h ii p n e w s .. c o m 07 .. 22 66 .. 1 8 – 0 8 .. 01.. 1 8 Education. » See A6 GeophysicalEducation. Union (AGU). » See A6 See A6 VOL.TRUMAN 27, No. 06, N orfolk, VA | flagshipnews.com STRIKE02.14.2019–02.20.2019 GROUP RETURNS TO NORFOLK, REMAINS READY MERITORIOUS A DVANCEMENT PROGRAM G AINS A S EASON, QUOTAS INCREASE F/A-18 Super Hornets perform a fly over the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman MCSN Angelina Grimsley F/A-18F/A-18 SuperSuper HornetsHornets performperform aa flyfly overover thethe Nimitz-classNimitz-class aircraftaircraft carriercarrier USSUSS HarryHarry S.S. Tr uman Sa(CVNilors prepare75) during to bea change frocked of at command a promotion ceremony ceremony for inthe the “Fighting hangar bayCheckmates” of the Nimitz-class of Strike aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74). (CVN(CVN 75)75) duringduring aa changechange ofof commandcommand ceremonyceremony forfor thethe “Fighting“Fighting Checkmates”Checkmates” ofof StrikeStrike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 211. -
Navy and Marine Corps
Which installations might make the top 10 most vulnerable to climate-related events required by the FY18 NDAA? Answer: We are seeing extreme weather events, droughts and sea level rise. Superstorm Sandy caused $50 million in damage at Naval Weapons Station Earle. More recently, Hurricane Irma severely impacted Naval Air Station Key West in 2017 and Hurricane Florence caused $3.6 billion in damage at Camp Lejeune in 2018. Wildfires in 2018 forced the evacuation of Naval Air Station Point Mugu, and burned approximately 1,200 acres at Camp Pendleton. Droughts can have broad implications for base infrastructure, impair testing activities, increase the number of black flag day prohibitions for testing and training, and contribute to heat-related illnesses. Naval Station Norfolk is experiencing sea level rise averaging 4.6mm per year, with a 5.1mm increase in 2017. Sea level rise, land subsidence, and changing ocean currents have resulted in more frequent nuisance flooding and increased vulnerability to coastal storms. The ten most vulnerable Marine Corps installations (in no particular order) are: Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, CA Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, NC Marine Corps Base Camp Butler, Okinawa, Japan Marine Corps Base Hawaii, HI Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, SC Marine Corps Support Facility Blount Island, FL Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, SC Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA Marine Corps Reserve Forces, New Orleans, LA Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego, CA The sixteen* most vulnerable Navy installations -
Sigonella, Italy Index
TECHNICAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REGARDING THE INSTALLATIONS/ INFRASTRUCTURE IN USE BY THE U.S. FORCES IN SIGONELLA, ITALY INDEX Sec Object Page I PURPOSE 4 II REFERENCES 4 III APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE 4 IV DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS 5 V USE AND OPERATION 8 VI COMMAND 9 VII FLAGS AND HONORS 11 VIII PERSONNEL 11 IX INFRASTRUCTURE 11 X UTILITY SERVICES 12 XI SUPPLY OF GOODS AND SERVICES 14 XII FINANCIAL MATTERS 14 XIII CUSTOMS AND TAXATION MATTERS 16 XIV SOCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 16 XV SECURITY AND POLICE RESPONSIBILITIES 17 XVI AIR/SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED ACTIVITIES 18 XVII TRAINING/OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES 19 XVIII REMOVABLE AND REAL PROPERTY AND RESIDUAL VALUE 20 XIX LOCAL COMMISSION 20 XX PROCEDURES FOR MUTUAL COOPERATION .... 21 Page 2 of 22 XXI ANNEXES 21 XXII EFFECTIVE DATE, IMPLEMENTATION AND REVISION 21 XXIII AUTHENTICATION 22 Page 3 of 22 I. Purpose To promulgate command policy and procedures for the implementation of international agreements between the United States and Italy concerning the use and operation of military installations/infrastructure located in Sigonella, Italy II. References 1. The North Atlantic Treaty, signed at Washington, D.0 on 04 April 1949 and specifically the provisions contemplated in Article 3. 2 Agreement Between the Member States to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Status of Forces, signed at London on 19 June 1951 (NATO SOFA) 3. Bilateral Infrastructure Agreement (BIA) between the United States of America and Italy, signed on 20 October 1954 4. -
Interagency Coordination Group of Inspectors General for Guam Realignment Annual Report
Interagency Coordination Group of Inspectors General for Guam Realignment Annual Report Section 2835 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 January 29, 2021 (Public Law 111-84) PUBLIC LAW 111-84 Section 2835 of the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010,” entitled “Interagency Coordination Group of Inspectors General for Guam Realignment,” establishes the Interagency Coordination Group and requires the group to objectively conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations funded for military construction on Guam in connection with the realignment of military functions and relocation of military personnel on Guam. Specifically, this section states, in part: (c)(1) OVERSIGHT OF GUAM CONSTRUCTION.—It shall be the duty of the Interagency Coordination Group to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of the treatment, handling, and expenditure of amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for military construction on Guam and of the programs, operations, and contracts carried out utilizing such funds, including: (A) the oversight and accounting of the obligation and expenditure of such funds; (B) the monitoring and review of construction activities funded by such funds; (C) the monitoring and review of contracts funded by such funds; (D) the monitoring and review of the transfer of such funds and associated information between and among departments, agencies, and entities of the U.S. and private and nongovernmental entities; (E) the maintenance of records on the use of such funds to facilitate future audits and investigations of the use of such funds; and (F) the monitoring and review of the implementation of the Defense Posture Review Initiative relating to the realignment of military installations and the relocation of military personnel on Guam. -
97 STAT. 757 Public Law 98-115 98Th Congress an Act
PUBLIC LAW 98-115—OCT. 11, 1983 97 STAT. 757 Public Law 98-115 98th Congress An Act To authorize certain construction at military installations for fiscal year 1984, and for Oct. 11, 1983 other purposes. [H.R. 2972] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That this Act may Military be cited as the "Military Construction Authorization Act, 1984'\ Au'thorizSn Act, 1984. TITLE I—ARMY AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may acquire real property and may carry out military construction projects in the amounts shown for each of the following installations and locations: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND Fort Bragg, North Carolina, $31,100,000. Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $15,300,000. Fort Carson, Colorado, $17,760,000. Fort Devens, Massachusetts, $3,000,000. Fort Douglas, Utah, $910,000. Fort Drum, New York, $1,500,000. Fort Hood, Texas, $76,050,000. Fort Hunter Liggett, California, $1,000,000. Fort Irwin, California, $34,850,000. Fort Lewis, Washington, $35,310,000. Fort Meade, Maryland, $5,150,000. Fort Ord, California, $6,150,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, $16,180,000. Fort Richardson, Alaska, $940,000. Fort Riley, Kansas, $76,600,000. Fort Stewart, Georgia, $29,720,000. Presidio of Monterey, California, $1,300,000. UNITED STATES ARMY WESTERN COMMAND Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, $31,900,000. UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, $1,500,000. Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, $5,900,000.