DOCSLIB.ORG

Jefferson Proving Ground Fish and Wildlife Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jefferson Proving Ground Fish and Wildlife Management Plan ·' ·:,-·---~-- .• :.-.· ·: ... ~ ,·._.· ~. ~ .,_ .. ·' ·; ... ___ ,._-,. :'. ·:. •.-. ' ~--~ . : .. ,_; ..•. <.· .·. ~.' _~--.:.;· .:-., ~: ·~ ,.;· . .,:·:_,_-. -. ··/" :;;',: ..;.~j1p~( .. ;·. ·."···, ··. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......... , .... , .... , ... , . 1 LOCATION AND STATUS ........ , . 1 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES. 1 EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCES ...................................................... 2 CLIMATE ...................... , ............................................ 2 NATURAL REGION ............................................................ 2 VEGETATION AND LAND USE ................................................... 3 Forest .............................................................. 4 Grasslands. 6 Natural Areas . 7 Wetlands. 7 • AQUATIC RESOURCES ......................................................... 8 Lakes and Ponds . 8 • Old Timbers Lake. 9 II Krueger Lake. 9 Ponds ..... , , ................................................. , 9 Streams. 10 • 1993 Stream Survey. 10 Otter Creek ... ,, ... ,, ............. ,, ........ , ...... , ... 12 II Little Otter Creek ..... :..................... , ...... , . 12 Graham Creek ........................................... 13 Big Creek .............................................. 13 Little Graham Creek. 13 Stream Fish Cooununities ................................ 14 Index of Biological Integrity .... , ............... , ... ,, 15 Comparison with Previous Studies ............................. 16 Aquatic Invertebrates .. ,., ............. , ..... ,, ...... ,, ...... 18 WILDLIFE RESOURCES ....................................................... 19 •• Terrestrial Invertebrates .......................................... 19 II Amphibians and Reptiles ............................ :. 20 q Birds. 22 1993 Survey of Breeding Birds ................................ 22 Comparison with Previous Studies ............................. 22 Additional Bird Cooununity Data ............... , ............... 23 II Great Blue Heron Rookery ..................................... 24 Avian Productivity and Survivorship Survey ................... 24 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Mammals ............................................................ 25 1993 - 1994 Bat Survey ....................................... 26 Vhite-tailed Deer ............................................ 27 FISH AND W'ILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT ........................................... 28 FRAMEW'ORK FOR HABITAT MANAGEMENT ......................................... 28 Landscape Ecology Approach to Habitat Management ................... 28 Neotropical Migrants and Other Forest-dwelling Birds ............... 29 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................. 32 HABITAT MANAGEMENT. 34 Forest Management .................................................. 35 General Guidelines for Forest Management ..................... 38 Indiana Bat .................................................. 41 Cerulean Warbler. 42 Grassland Management:. 43 General Guidelines for Grassland Management .................. 45 Hens low's Sparrow ............................................ 46 Northern Harrier. 48 Kirtland's Snake ............................................. 49 Natural Areas ...................................................... 50 W'etland Management .................... :. 50 Lake and Pond Management. 50 Stream Management .................................................. 51 River Otter. 52 Salamander Mussel. 52 Pest Management .. ................................. , ................ 53 RECREATION. 54 HUNTING, TRAPPING AND FISHING ................................ •............ 54 NON-CONSUMPTIVE WILDLIFE RECREATION ...................................... 54 RESEARCH AND EDUCATION. 55 Tables ......................................................................... 57 Figures ........................................................................ 72 Literature Cited ............................................................... 76 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table l. Tree species identified on JPG during forest inventories ........ 57 Table 2. Endangered, threatened, rare and watch list plants found on JPG during the 1993 inventory of special plants and natural areas. 59 Table 3. Fish species collected at JPG during June, 1993 stream survey. 60 Table 4. Results of fish collection and Index of Biological Integrity ratings for individual collection stations for June, 1993 stream survey on JPG. 62 Table 5. Amphibians and reptiles of JPG ................................. 65 Table 6. Breeding birds at JPG, observed spring/summer 1993 ............. 67 Table 7. JPG breeding birds listed by the State of Indiana and/or the - --~-...I'RS...-..~··' ~ ...... •. •.•. ····~· ·- --~ ...... "'. --·- •...... ·~· .............. 69 Table 8. Mammals which probably occur on JPG ............................ 70 Figure 1. JPG vegetation classification based on LANDSAT Thematic Mapper Satellite Imagery. ........................................... 72 Figure 2. Location of restricted areas (shaded sections) within JPG ..... 73 Figure 3. National Wetlands Inventory map of JPG ........................ 74 Figure 4. Location of major lakes, ponds, and streams on JPG. Fish collection stations for the 1993 stream survey are labelled. 75 ) . I JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND I FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION I LOCATION AND STATUS The Jefferson Proving Ground (JPG) consists of 55,264 acres (86.35 square miles) located in Jefferson, Ripley, and Jennings Counties in I southeastern Indiana. The area is 17.2 miles long and varies in width from approximately 6 miles at the northern boundary to 4 miles at the southern boundary. The perimeter is roughly bounded by County Road 400 West on the west side, County Road 500 North on the south side, Michigan Road on the east side, and County Road 160 South on the north side. Madison, with a population • of approximately 13,000, is the nearest city. The area immediately surrounding JPG is rural, primarily characterized as agricultural. However, I JPG is located within 90 miles of 3 large metropolitan areas: Cincinnati, Ohio; Indianapolis, Indiana; and Louisville, Kentucky. The entire perimeter, approximately 50 miles, is fenced to restrict access and provide for public I safety. JPG is slated for closure September 30, 1995. Active testing will be terminated September 30, 1994. The Department of the Army (DA) is currently I evaluating reuse options for the base in accordance with the Base Realignment and Closure Act. A caretaker will be contracted to maintain the buildings and I grounds until the final disposition of the base is decided. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The U.S. Army JPG and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) entered I into a Memorandum of Agreement in January, 1994, providing for the FWS to prepare this fish and wildlife management plan. This plan is a segment of the integrated natural resource plans, as directed by Army Regulation 420-74, I Natural Resources - Land, Forest and Wildlife Management. The FWS will use the Technical Manual: Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Management (TM 5- 633) for guidance in preparation of this plan. The purpose of the plan is to r provide guidelines which can be used to manage the fish and wildlife resources on the base. Until ammunition testing on the base is terminated, natural resource management activities on JPG must be conducted within the confines of the national defense mission of the installation. After the base is closed, there may be potential to expand natural resource management activities which were not compatible with the military mission on the base in the past. However, safety concerns associated with unexploded ordnance and contaminants on the base will still mandate strict restrictions on access and activities on JPG. This plan will be sensitive to these safety concerns to the extent that the FWS is aware of the location and magnitude of these potential hazards. • 2 Specific Objectives of the plan are: • 1. Summarize information on physiographic and vegetative features that will affect fish and wildlife management. - 2. Compile and summarize available fish and wildlife survey data. 3. Identify and discuss management guidelines for State and Federal • threatened and endangered wildlife species which inhabit JPG. II 4. Provide habitat management guidelines to maintain or enhance fish and wildlife resources on JPG. Single-species management will be considered when applicable, but priorities will focus on maintaining or improving habitat quality for groups of vulnerable species. The guidelines will not only • provide for a diverse fish and wildlife community on JPG, but will also consider fish and wildlife habitat on JPG with reference to the local and regional landscape. 5. To facilitate the DA' s efforts to evaluate reuse opt; ions, habitat considered most critical to maintaining or enhancing fish and wildlife resources will be identified. • 6. Provide guidelines for hunting, fishing, trapping, and non-consumptive wildlife-associated recreation that will provide for these recreational uses • and also complement the other fish and wildlife management objectives for the base. 7. Identify opportunities for research and education activities related to • fish and wildlife resources on JPG. • EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCES M CLIMATE JPG is located in a temperate climate zone and has wide temperature II ranges among seasons. In winter, the average temperature is 35 degrees F, and the average daily minimum temperature is 26 degrees F. In
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conclusions in Verse
    RepresentativeRepresentative SamplingSampling forfor EnergeticEnergetic CompoundsCompounds atat MilitaryMilitary TrainingTraining RangesRanges Sampling near tank target Sampling near low-order 500 lb YakimaTraining Center bomb, Camp Guernsey Red crater at CFB Gagetown Alan D. Hewitt, Thomas F. Jenkins, Marianne E. Walsh, Michael R. Walsh, Susan Taylor, Charles Ramsey, and Judith C. Pennington MajorMajor ClassesClasses ofof EnergeticEnergetic ChemicalsChemicals UsedUsed byby DoDDoD NO 2 CH3 N O 2 N NO2 Nitroaromatics N N O N (TNT) 2 NO 2 NO2 Nitramines (RDX) H C-O-NO 2 2 Nitrate Esters HC-O-NO (NG) 2 H 22 C-O-NO EnergeticEnergetic ChemicalsChemicals inin MilitaryMilitary ExplosivesExplosives • Composition B (artillery/mortar) 60% Military grade RDX (Contains about 10% HMX) 39% Military grade TNT (Contains about 1% other TNT isomers and DNTs) • Composition C4 (demolition explosive) 91% Military Grade RDX • Tritonal (Air Force Bombs) Military grade TNT, aluminum • Composition A4 (40-mm grenades) Military grade RDX • TNT (artillery) Military grade TNT • Composition H-6 (Air Force bombs) Military grade RDX and TNT, aluminum • Octol (Antitank rockets) Military grade HMX and TNT EnergeticEnergetic ChemicalsChemicals inin MilitaryMilitary GunGun PropellantsPropellants • Nitrocellulose (NC) Polymer used in all gun propellants • Nitroglycerin (NG) Component of double and triple base propellants • Nitroguanidine (NQ) Component of triple base propellants • 2,4-Dinitrotoluene (2,4-DNT) Energetic plasticizer in some single base propellants PhysicalPhysical
    [Show full text]
  • The Japanese Village at Dugway Proving Ground: an Unexamined Context to the Firebombing of Japan
    Volume 16 | Issue 8 | Number 3 | Article ID 5136 | Apr 15, 2018 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus The Japanese Village at Dugway Proving Ground: An Unexamined Context to the Firebombing of Japan Dylan J. Plung Abstract This paper explores a previously unexamined context to the firebombing of Japan. Analysis of the decisions leading up to construction and military testing conducted in 1943 at the Japanese Village at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah allows important insights into the evolution of US bombing strategy. The shift in US strategy from precision to carpet bombing, the testing and development of incendiary weaponry, and the institutionalization and rationalization of pursuing civilian targets throughout Japan are considered alongside this untold history. Additionally, a broader appreciation of World War II timelines is suggested. Keywords Napalm, firebombing, Dugway Proving Ground, Japanese Village, World War II, precision bombing, civilian bombing, Tokyo air raids. M-69 incendiary tests on Japanese style structures at Dugway Proving Ground. This and all subsequent images are from Standard Oil,Design and Construction of Typical German and Japanese Test Structures at Dugway Proving Grounds, Utah, 1943. Via JapanAirRaids.org "The M69/M69X bomb was designed to lodge in the most flammable part of the building—the ceiling beams." 1 16 | 8 | 3 APJ | JF - U.S. Army Dugway Proving Rhode Island) is unfenced open range filled Ground, Historical Fact Sheet, p. 1 with wildlife, cattle, blind curves, and vision- impeding hillsides. Isolated more than twenty miles beyond the gate of Dugway Proving Ground lies the remains of German-Japanese "Initially, it often seemed a home Village, where replicas of German and Japanese was unaffected, until the windows buildings were constructed, bombed at least 27 began to shine from within and times (see Table 1), and rebuilt in order to test then glowed ‘like a paper lantern’ incendiaries for use in World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • COURSE NAME CITY STATE ALBERTVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB Albertville Alabama MOUNTAIN VIEW GOLF COURSE Alden Alabama LAKEWINDS
    COURSE NAME CITY STATE ALBERTVILLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB Albertville Alabama MOUNTAIN VIEW GOLF COURSE Alden Alabama LAKEWINDS GOLF COURSE Alex City Alabama WILLOW POINT COUNTRY CLUB Alex City Alabama ALPINE BAY GOLF CLUB Alpine Alabama WHIPPORWHILL GOLF COURSE Altoona Alabama ANDALUSIA COUNTRY CLUB Andalusia Alabama EVANS BARNES GOLF COURSE Andalusia Alabama ANDERSON CREEK GOLF COURSE Anderson Alabama ANNISTON COUNTRY CLUB Anniston Alabama ANNISTON MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE Anniston Alabama B & J GOLF CENTER Anniston Alabama CANE CREEK GOLF COURSE Anniston Alabama CIDER RIDGE GOLF CLUB Anniston Alabama INDIAN OAKS GOLF CLUB Anniston Alabama PINE HILL COUNTRY CLUB Anniston Alabama BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE Arab Alabama TWIN LAKES GOLF CLUB Arab Alabama UNION SPRINGS COUNTRY CLUB Armstrong Alabama CLAY COUNTY PUBLIC GOLF COURSE Ashland Alabama ATHENS GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB Athens Alabama CANEBRAKE GOLF CLUB Athens Alabama CHRISWOOD GOLF COURSE Athens Alabama SOUTHERN GALES GOLF CLUB Athens Alabama WOODLAND GOLF COURSE Athens Alabama ATMORE COUNTRY CLUB Atmore Alabama WILLS CREEK COUNTRY CLUB Attalla Alabama AUBURN LINKS AT MILL CREEK Auburn Alabama INDIAN PINES RECREATIONAL AUTHORITY Auburn Alabama MOORE&#039;S MILL GOLF CLUB Auburn Alabama MOORE'S MILL GOLF CLUB Auburn Alabama PIN OAKS GOLF CLUB Auburn Alabama EUFAULA COUNTRY CLUB Bakerhill Alabama LAKEPOINT RESORT GOLF COURSE Bakerhill Alabama RED EAGLE GOLF COURSE Bakerhill Alabama WARRIOR POINT GOLF CLUB Barney Alabama HOLLY HILLS COUNTRY CLUB Bay Minette Alabama BENT BROOK GOLF COURSE Bess Alabama
    [Show full text]
  • Jefferson Proving Ground Employee
    Jefferson Proving Ground Employee and Pioneer Interviews Files Index Jefferson County Historical Society, 615 West First Street, Madison, IN 47250 [email protected] 812-265-2335 Carton No. 1 Community History Prior to the creation of JPG. 90% Documents, 10% Photographs Folder No. 1: Bridge # 27 Bennville Bridge, Jennings County; Photo of 3 arch bridge, color and B & W, photo of construction (1910) donated by Jesse Dwight Murphy. Folder No. 2: Housing/ Houses/Buildings; Photo, William and Cora Boggs Home and farm. Donated by Fauna Liter; Quarters 7, Quarters 15, Quarters 23 – former home of George Wehner, farm houses, Quarters 8 – former home of Charles Bently, Quarters 16, former home of William Boggs, Quarters 3, former home of Charles Jones, Quarters 4, former home of Harry R. Barber, Quarters 17, Quarters 21, Quarters 11, Quarters 12 moved to HDQ. Guest house at Old Timbers; donated by Fauna Liter; Oakdale school, base of silo on Craig farm, Wilson Dam at Big Creek – donated by Flora R. Wilson Thacker; envelope of small photos of JPG Qtrs, B & W small photos of Guardhouse, road with trees, Aerial of Old Timbers lodge, Headquarters Building with flag; list of quarters and former owners, Commanding officer’s Quarters, No. 1. Building 100, second floor hall of flags, “G” Firing Position, Tower 484, Bomb-field road, Building 100 with Jet planes flying over. Old Timbers lake 1977, Article, “Explains cost of JPG- Aug 8, 1941, Map with location of bridges Ed Caicedo, Inc. Folder No. 3: B & W small photos of Anderson Produce, Bryantsburg, J. W. Anderson, Minnie Anderson, Opal L.
    [Show full text]
  • 94 Stat. 1782 Public Law 96-418—Oct
    PUBLIC LAW 96-418—OCT. 10, 1980 94 STAT. 1749 Public Law 96-418 96th Congress An Act To authorize certain construction at military installations for fiscal year 1981, and Oct. 10, 1980 for other purposes. [H.R. 7301] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be Military cited as the "MiUtary Construction Authorization Act, 1981". Au'thSdon Act, 1981. TITLE I—ARMY AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop military installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, con­ verting, rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, including land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equipment, for the following acquisition and construc­ tion: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND Fort Bragg, North Carolina, $16,350,000. Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $14,200,000. Fort Carson, Colorado, $129,960,000. Fort Devens, Massachusetts, $1,000,000. Fort Drum, New York, $5,900,000. Fort Gillem, Georgia, $2,600,000. Fort Hood, Texas, $24,420,000. Fort Hunter-Liggett, California, $5,100,000. Fort Lewis, Washington, $16,000,000. Fort Ord, California, $4,700,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, $14,800,000. Fort Riley, Kansas, $890,000. Fort Sam Houston, Texas, $3,750,000. Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Air Field, Georgia, $31,700,000. Presidio of San Francisco, California, $750,000. UNITED STATES ARMY WESTERN COMMAND Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, $12,220,000. Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii, $84,500,000. UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND Fort A.
    [Show full text]
  • Jefferson Proving Ground Madison, Indiana Final Decision
    Jefferson Proving Ground Madison, Indiana Final Decision Document Addendum No Further Action Sites 5 and 6 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Louisville District Louisville, Kentucky Total Environmental Restoration Contract DACW27-97-D-0015 Task Order 1200 August 16, 2001 MONTGOMERY WATSON MONTGOMERY WATSON 16 August 2001 Mr. Brooks Evens U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Louisville District 600 Martin Luther King Jr. Place Attn: CELRL-ED-G-ER Louisville, KY 40202-2230 Re: Final Decision Document Addendum, No Further Action, Sites 5/6 Jefferson Proving Ground, Madison, Indiana Dear Mr. Evens: Enclosed is a copy of the above-referenced Final Decision Document (DD) Addendum associated with Sites 5/6 at the Jefferson Proving Ground. This document was prepared under the Total Environmental Restoration Contract (TERC) Task Order 1200. The Final DD Addendum has been modified to include in Appendix D the latest USEPA comments (dated June 19, 2001) and the responses to those comments. Those comments and responses are as follows: 1. The Army's dioxin/furan risk assessment calculations appear to provide an adequate response to General Comment No. 1 in U.S. EPA's March 28, 2001 review of the Decision Document Addendum and Risk Assessment (Appendix C) for the No Further Action (NFA) Sites 5 and 6. As recommended, the dioxin/furan risk assessment calculations have been incorporated into the Decision Document Addendum and/or Risk Assessment via Appendix D. No further response is needed. Response: Comment noted. 2. The Army has still not adequately addressed General Comment Nos. 2 and 3, or Specific Comment Nos.
    [Show full text]
  • Closure of Jefferson Proving Ground, Indiana, and Realignment to Yuma
    ___ - CLOSURE OF JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND INDIANA AND REALIGNMENT TO YUMA PROVING GROUND ARIZONA li 'J.fI..,o. Pre.1. VOLUME 1 OF 2 *YE=. GI.".] Pre.1. TEXT G,...d Final ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT . I STATEMENT September 1991 - . CLOSURE OF JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND, INDIANA AND REALIGNMENT TO WMA PROVING GROUND, ARIZONA Prepared by: Reviewed by: Louisville District U.S. Amy U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Materiel Command yy\C .- David E. Peixotto William 8. McCrath Colonel, Corps of Engineers Major General, US. Army Commander Chief of Staff Recommended for Approval by: Department of the Army Office of the Chief of Staff William A. Stofft Mabr General, General Staff Director of Management Approved by: Office of the Secretary of the Amy & 6,D& Lewis D. Walker Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Amy (Environment, Safety and Occupational Health) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CLOSURE OF JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND, INDlANA AND REALlGNMENT TO Wh4A PROVING GROUND, ARIZONA LEAD AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S.Amy Materiel Command (AMC); TITLE OFTHE PROPOSED ACTION Closure of Jefferson Proving Ground, Indiana and Realignment to Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona AFFECTED JURISDICTION: Jefferson Proving Ground: Jefferson, Jennings and 1Zipk-y Counties, Indiana. Yuma Proving Ground: Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona PREPARED BY David E. Peixotto, Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Commander, US. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District, P.O. Box 59, Louisville, KY 40201-0059 REVIEWED BY: William 8. McCrath, Major General, Chief of Staff, US. Army Matericl Command RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY Williim A. Stofft, Major General, General Staff, Director of Management, Office of the Chief of Staff, Department of the Army APPROVED BY Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Jack Rabbit II Test Report (Final)
    ATEC Project No. 2015-DT-DPG-SNIMT-F9735 WDTC Document No. WDTC-SPD-FTR-001 FINAL TEST REPORT FOR JACK RABBIT (JR) II Damon Nicholson Norman Lian Allison Hedrick Special Programs Division Eric Schmidt Team SURVICE UNDER CONTRACT NO. W911S6-16-C-0003 Report Produced By West Desert Test Center US Army Dugway Proving Ground Dugway, UT 84022-5000 Report Produced For Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Chemical Security Analysis Center (CSAC) Aberdeen Proving Ground – Edgewood Area, MD 21010-5424 AUGUST 2017 INTENTIONALLY BLANK Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION. 1. REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED August 2017 Final Test Report (FTR) From August 2015 to September 2016 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a.
    [Show full text]
  • Inspector General, Memorandum for Assistant Secretary of the Army
    INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202-2884 REPORT December 26, 1989 NO. 90-028 MEMORANDUM FOR ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT) SUBJECT: Report on the Survey of the Acquisition and Management of Test Facilities at DoD Proving Grounds (Project No. 9AB-0037) Introduction This is our report on the Survey of the Acquisition and Management of Test Facilities at DoD Proving Grounds. The Acquisition Management Directorate made the survey from April to July 1989. The objective of the survey was to evaluate the effectiveness of procedures established to acquire and manage test facilities at DoD proving grounds. Our evaluation included an examination of existing test facilities, facility requirements, modernization plans, and funding. We also evaluated the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, and internal controls used to limit the proliferation of test facilities and instrumentation at the proving grounds. Scope of Survey We reviewed five DoD proving grounds managed and operated by the Department of the Army. The proving grounds were Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Maryland: Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah; Electronic Proving Ground, Fort Huachuca, Arizona: Jefferson Proving Ground, Madison, Indiana: and Yuma Proving Ground, Yuma, Arizona. We interviewed Army headquarters personnel, proving ground commanders, technical di rectors, and facility managers on acquisition, management, capacity, and utilization of test facilities. We toured and inspected existing manned and unmanned test facilities at each of the locations, reviewed the Army's improvement and modernization plans for instrumentation (computers, calibrators, radios, antennas, etc.) and military construction for proposed test facilities for FY 1989 to FY 1995.
    [Show full text]
  • GROUNDS for PERMANENT WAR Land Appropriation, Exceptional
    GROUNDS FOR PERMANENT WAR Land Appropriation, Exceptional Powers, and the Mid-Century Militarization of Western North American Environments by Brandon C. Davis A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (History) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) May 2017 © Brandon C. Davis, 2017 ABSTRACT Few areas across globe have escaped the pressures of militarization. Despite the many significant developments and repercussions tied to the military control of vast areas of national territories, the complex intersections between militarization and the environment have only recently attracted scholarly attention. This dissertation argues that the contemporary condition of global permanent war and ongoing state of emergency are rooted in the military control of land and other natural resources. During the mid-twentieth century buildup of North American defense forces, the practice of military land appropriation not only legitimized and expanded certain types of unilateral, emergency powers but also produced secret and legally permissive spaces in which the exercise of such extraordinary powers and related military land use practices could be more freely conducted. A major impetus driving these mid-century land use developments was the rise of unconventional weapons of mass destruction. Not only did such weapons technologies destabilize the global political order but they also brought about a multitude of disruptions at local sites. By investigating the establishment and operations of two of the world’s largest, most secretive, and longest-lasting chemical and biological weapons proving grounds—the U.S. Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in western Utah and the Canadian-and U.K.-controlled Suffield Experimental Station in southeastern Alberta—this study reveals how the imperatives of permanent war have had critical influence in shaping the workings of power between local citizens, government, and the environment in western North America.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Memories of My Career at General Motors
    SPECIAL MEMORIES OF MY CAREER AT GENERAL MOTORS JOSEPH M. COLUCCI RETIRED EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GENERAL MOTORS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER JUNE 27, 2017 1 GM RESEACH LABORATORIES JOURNEY FROM DAYTON TO THE GENERAL MOTORS TECHNICAL CENTER 1909 - 1955 Charles F. Kettering’s first laboratory, 1909-1911, in a barn in Dayton, Ohio. This was the birthplace of an improved automotive battery ignition system and the electric self- starter. Charles “Boss” Kettering First home of GM Research Corporation, Moraine City, Ohio, 1921 2 In 1929, GM Research moved to Michigan, in the Argonaut Building on West Milwaukee Avenue in Detroit. In 1955, GM Research moved to the newly established GM Technical Center in Warren, MI. The iconic spiral staircase in the lobby of the GM Research Administration Building Pictures from: “75 YEARS OF INSPIRATION, IMAGINATION AND INNOVATION,” JUNE 1995 3 SPECIAL MEMORIES OF MY CAREER AT GENERAL MOTORS I was blessed to have had an extremely interesting and satisfying career at General Motors, mostly spent in the Fuels and Lubricants Department of the GM Research Laboratories. The people I worked with made it a pleasure to go to work. Their technical accomplishments were outstanding and helped make GM, the auto industry, and the world a better place. Their accomplishments have been documented in “The GMR-GM R&D Fuels and Lubricants Department – Its History and Accomplishment,” SAE Paper 2016-01- 0176, April 4, 2015, and rewarded with the 2017 SAE Arnold W. Siegel Humanitarian Award. In addition to their accomplishments, the people, and others to whom my position gave me access, provided many memorable and often humorous stories that are the basis for this memoir.
    [Show full text]
  • 166 Public Law 86-500-.June 8, 1960 [74 Stat
    166 PUBLIC LAW 86-500-.JUNE 8, 1960 [74 STAT. Public Law 86-500 June 8. 1960 AN ACT [H» R. 10777] To authorize certain construction at military installation!^, and for other pnriwses. He it enacted hy the Hemite and House of Representatives of the 8tfiction^'Acf°^ I'raited States of America in Congress assemoJed, I960. TITLE I ''^^^* SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop military installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, con- \'erting, rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, including site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equip­ ment, for the following projects: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES I'ECHNICAL SERVICES FACILITIES (Ordnance Corps) Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: Training facilities, medical facilities, and utilities, $6,221,000. Benicia Arsenal, California: Utilities, $337,000. Blue Grass Ordnance Depot, Kentucky: Utilities and ground improvements, $353,000. Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey: Research, development, and test facilities, $850,000. Pueblo Ordnance Depot, Colorado: Operational facilities, $369,000. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama: Community facilities and utilities, $1,000,000. Umatilla Ordnance Depot, Oregon: Utilities and ground improve­ ments, $319,000. Watertow^n Arsenal, Massachusetts: Research, development, and test facilities, $1,849,000. White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico: Operational facilities and utilities, $1,2'33,000. (Quartermaster Corps) Fort Lee, Virginia: Administrative facilities and utilities, $577,000. Atlanta General Depot, Georgia: Maintenance facilities, $365,000. New Cumberland General Depot, Pennsylvania: Operational facili­ ties, $89,000. Richmond Quartermaster Depot, Virginia: Administrative facili­ ties, $478,000. Sharpe General Depot, California: Maintenance facilities, $218,000. (Chemical Corps) Army Chemical Center, Maryland: Operational facilities and com­ munity facilities, $843,000.
    [Show full text]