DOCSLIB.ORG

I-5 JBLM Vicinity IJR and Environmental Documentation Phase 1 – Corridor Plan Feasibility Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I-5 JBLM Vicinity IJR and Environmental Documentation Phase 1 – Corridor Plan Feasibility Study I-5 JBLM Vicinity IJR and Environmental Documentation Phase 1 – Corridor Plan Feasibility Study January 2014 || I‐5 JBLM AREA CORRIDOR PLAN FEASIBILITY STUDY EXECUTIVE STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE Governmental Jurisdiction Representative ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WSDOT Olympia Region – Plans Office Bill Elliott, Project Manager City of DuPont Michael Grayum, Mayor/ Washington State Department of Transportation and the consultant team Dawn Masko, City Administrator wish to thank the many individuals and agencies that participated and WSDOT Rail Office Frank Davidson provided data and information used in the I‐5 JBLM Area Corridor Plan City of Lacey Virgil Clarkson, Mayor Headquarters – Assess & Hearings Barbara De Ste Croix Feasibility Study Federal Highway Administration Dan Mathis, Washington Division Office (FHWA) Administrator Olympic Region Transportation Dennis Engel Intercity Transit Ann Freeman‐Manzanares Planning Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM) Tom Knight, Chief of Staff Design Liaison Kent Kalisch Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM) Steve Perrenot, Director of Public Olympic Region – Traffic Engineer Steve Kim Works TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Environmental Manager Jeff Sawyer Nisqually Tribe Joe Cushman, Director of Planning & Camp Murray Ron Cross Traffic Office LisaRene Schilperoort Economic Development City of DuPont Peter Zahn Project Development JoAnn Schueler Nisqually Tribe Larry Sanchez City of DuPont Geri Reinart WSDOT Rail Office Tom Slimak Pierce County Pat McCarthy, Pierce County Executive City of Lakewood Desiree Winkler Olympic Region ‐Traffic Design Michael Villnave Engineer Pierce County Brian Ziegler, Public Works Director FHWA Dean Moberg Headquarters Traffic Office Brian Walsh Pierce County Council Douglas Richardson, FHWA Don Petersen Councilmember, District No. 6 Intercity Transit Dennis Bloom Assistant Regional Administrator John Wynands Pierce Transit Lynne Griffith, CEO JBLM Tom Tolman Urban Planning Office Shuming Yan Puget Sound Regional Council Charlie Howard, Director of Bill Velez Headquarters – Assistant State Scott Zeller Integrated Planning Matt Weeks Design Engineer Sound Transit Mike Bergman Nisqually Tribe Jim Longley South Sound Military & Dan Penrose, Program Manager Pierce County Rory Grindley CONSULTANT TEAM Communities Partnership (SSMCP) Toby Rickman Lochner Gary Demich, Principal in Charge Town of Steilacoom Ron Lucas, Mayor Pierce Transit Jay Peterson Shea Carr Jewell Alliance Perry Shea, Project Manager Thurston Regional Planning Council Lon Wyrick, Executive Director Puget Sound Regional Council Matthew Rohrbach Lochner Bob Munchinski Washington National Guard John Wunsch, Chief, Planning and Sound Transit Eric Chipps Shea Carr Jewell Alliance Jean Carr Programming, for the WA Army Town of Steilacoom Mark Burlingame Transpo Group Jon Pascal National Guard Construction and Facilities Office Thurston Regional Planning Council Thera Black Shannon & Wilson Katie Walter Bharath Paladugu Washington State Department of Kevin Dayton, Olympic Region Transportation Administrator Recent or Pending Improvement Projects ...................................................................................... II-4 Camp Murray Gate Relocation ......................................................................................... II-4 TABLE OF CONTENTS TIGER III Grant Projects .................................................................................................. II-4 Page Madigan Gate Access Improvements .............................................................................. II-4 I. Introduction III. Existing Study Area Conditions Background ..................................................................................................................................... I-1 Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................................ III-1 Purpose of the Project .................................................................................................................... I-2 Interstate 5 ...................................................................................................................... III-1 I-5 Corridor Study Area ................................................................................................................... I-2 Interchanges ................................................................................................................... III-1 Design Year and Phased Implementation ...................................................................................... I-2 I-5 Geometric Review...................................................................................................... III-3 Project Phases ................................................................................................................................ I-3 Bridge Inventory .............................................................................................................. III-3 Phase 1 ............................................................................................................................ I-3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................... III-3 Phase 2 ............................................................................................................................ I-3 Railroads ......................................................................................................................... III-3 Purpose of the Corridor Plan Feasibility Study ............................................................................... I-3 JBLM Access, Land Use and Traffic ............................................................................................. III-4 How Were Decisions Made in the Study? ....................................................................................... I-3 JBLM Access .................................................................................................................. III-4 How was the Study Prepared? ....................................................................................................... I-4 JBLM Land Use Considerations ...................................................................................... III-5 Report Organization ........................................................................................................................ I-4 JBLM Traffic Levels and Patterns ................................................................................... III-5 Agency and Public Involvement ...................................................................................................... I-4 I-5 Traffic Volumes and Performance ............................................................................................ III-6 Executive Committee ........................................................................................................ I-4 I-5 Mainline Travel Volumes ............................................................................................ III-6 Technical Support Team .................................................................................................. I-4 Mainline and Ramp Traffic Patterns ................................................................................ III-7 Focus Groups ................................................................................................................... I-4 Travel Speeds along I-5 through JBLM Area .................................................................. III-8 Public Information ............................................................................................................. I-5 Hours of Congestion ....................................................................................................... III-8 Web Site ........................................................................................................................... I-5 I-5 Travel Time ................................................................................................................ III-9 Person Trips .................................................................................................................... III-9 II. Project Setting Factors Affecting Traffic Operations ................................................................................ III-9 Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) ................................................................................................ II-1 Summary of Existing I-5 Traffic Operations ................................................................................. III-12 Camp Murray ................................................................................................................................. II-2 Collision Analysis ........................................................................................................................ III-13 Pierce County ................................................................................................................................ II-2 Collision Rates .............................................................................................................. III-13 City of DuPont ................................................................................................................................ II-2 Collisions by Time of Day .............................................................................................. III-13 City of Lakewood ..........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Defense - Military Base Realignments and Closures (1)” of the John Marsh Files at the Gerald R
    The original documents are located in Box 11, folder “Defense - Military Base Realignments and Closures (1)” of the John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 11 of The John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON October 31, 197 5 MEMORANDUM TO: JACK MARSH FROM: RUSS ROURKE I discussed the Ft. Dix situation with Rep. Ed Forsythe again. As you may know, I reviewed the matter with Marty Hoffman at noon yesterday, and with Col. Kenneth Bailey several days ago. Actually, I exchanged intelligence information with him. Hoffman and Bailey advised me that no firm decision has as yet been made with regard to the retention of the training function at Dix. On Novem­ ber 5, Marty Hotfman will receive a briefing by Army staff on pos­ sible "back fill'' organizations that may be available to go to Dix in the event the training function moves out.
    [Show full text]
  • Nisqually Transmission Line Relocation Project
    Nisqually Transmission Line Relocation Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment Bonneville Power Administration Fort Lewis Military Reservation Nisqually Indian Tribe Bureau of Indian Affairs October 2004 Nisqually Transmission Line Relocation Project Responsible Agencies and Tribe: U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville); U.S. Department of Defense, Fort Lewis Military Reservation (Fort Lewis); the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); and the Nisqually Indian Tribe (Tribe). Name of Proposed Project: Nisqually Transmission Line Relocation Project Abstract: Bonneville proposes to remove and reroute two parallel transmission lines that cross the Nisqually Indian Reservation in Thurston County, Washington. Bonneville’s easement across the Reservation for a portion of the Olympia-Grand Coulee line has expired. Though Bonneville has a perpetual easement for the Olympia-South Tacoma line across the Reservation, the Tribe has asked Bonneville to remove both lines so the Tribe can eventually develop the land for its community. The land fronts State Route 510 and is across the highway from the Tribe’s Red Wind Casino. In addition, the Tribe would like Bonneville to remove the two lines from a parcel next to the Reservation that Fort Lewis owns. The Tribe is working with Fort Lewis to obtain this parcel, which also has frontage on SR 510. Bonneville is proposing to remove the portions of these lines on the Reservation and on the Fort-owned parcel and rebuild them south of SR 510 on Fort Lewis property. Fort Lewis is willing to have these lines on their federal property, in exchange for other in-holdings currently owned by Thurston County that the Tribe would purchase and turn over to Fort Lewis.
    [Show full text]
  • Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment August 2004
    Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment August 2004 Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment – August 2004 Acknowledgements Pierce County Planning and Land Services Department-Advance Planning Division Katherine Brooks, Senior Planner Karen Trueman, GIS Specialist Chip Vincent, Principal Planner Pierce County Executive’s Office Debby Hyde, Special Projects Coordinator Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife John Jacobson, Senior GIS Analyst, Habitat Program Marc McCalmon, Landscape Conservation Analyst, Habitat Program Erik Neatherlin, Landscape Conservation Planner, Habitat Program Michelle Tirhi, Urban Biologist-South Puget Sound Region University of Washington, Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Unit Karen Dvornich, Public Education and Outreach Coordinator, NatureMapping Program and Washington GAP Analysis Project Assistant Chris Grue, Principal Investigator and Leader, WACFWRU Metro Parks Tacoma John Garner, Education Coordinator Tahoma Audubon Society Bryan Flint, Conservation Coordinator Puyallup River Watershed Council Dave Seabrook TerraLogic GIS Chris Hansen, Principal Levon Yengoyan, Principal Authors Katherine Brooks, Pierce County Planning and Land Services Karen Dvornich, University of Washington Michelle Tirhi, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Erik Neatherlin, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Marc McCalmon, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife John Jacobson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Reference Citation Brooks, K., K.M. Dvornich, M. Tirhi, E. Neatherlin, M. McCalmon, and
    [Show full text]
  • The Foreign Military Presence in the Horn of Africa Region
    SIPRI Background Paper April 2019 THE FOREIGN MILITARY SUMMARY w The Horn of Africa is PRESENCE IN THE HORN OF undergoing far-reaching changes in its external security AFRICA REGION environment. A wide variety of international security actors— from Europe, the United States, neil melvin the Middle East, the Gulf, and Asia—are currently operating I. Introduction in the region. As a result, the Horn of Africa has experienced The Horn of Africa region has experienced a substantial increase in the a proliferation of foreign number and size of foreign military deployments since 2001, especially in the military bases and a build-up of 1 past decade (see annexes 1 and 2 for an overview). A wide range of regional naval forces. The external and international security actors are currently operating in the Horn and the militarization of the Horn poses foreign military installations include land-based facilities (e.g. bases, ports, major questions for the future airstrips, training camps, semi-permanent facilities and logistics hubs) and security and stability of the naval forces on permanent or regular deployment.2 The most visible aspect region. of this presence is the proliferation of military facilities in littoral areas along This SIPRI Background the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa.3 However, there has also been a build-up Paper is the first of three papers of naval forces, notably around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, at the entrance to devoted to the new external the Red Sea and in the Gulf of Aden. security politics of the Horn of This SIPRI Background Paper maps the foreign military presence in the Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Djibouti: Z Z Z Z Summary Points Z Z Z Z Renewal Ofdomesticpoliticallegitimacy
    briefing paper page 1 Djibouti: Changing Influence in the Horn’s Strategic Hub David Styan Africa Programme | April 2013 | AFP BP 2013/01 Summary points zz Change in Djibouti’s economic and strategic options has been driven by four factors: the Ethiopian–Eritrean war of 1998–2000, the impact of Ethiopia’s economic transformation and growth upon trade; shifts in US strategy since 9/11, and the upsurge in piracy along the Gulf of Aden and Somali coasts. zz With the expansion of the US AFRICOM base, the reconfiguration of France’s military presence and the establishment of Japanese and other military facilities, Djibouti has become an international maritime and military laboratory where new forms of cooperation are being developed. zz Djibouti has accelerated plans for regional economic integration. Building on close ties with Ethiopia, existing port upgrades and electricity grid integration will be enhanced by the development of the northern port of Tadjourah. zz These strategic and economic shifts have yet to be matched by internal political reforms, and growth needs to be linked to strategies for job creation and a renewal of domestic political legitimacy. www.chathamhouse.org Djibouti: Changing Influence in the Horn’s Strategic Hub page 2 Djibouti 0 25 50 km 0 10 20 30 mi Red Sea National capital District capital Ras Doumeira Town, village B Airport, airstrip a b Wadis ERITREA a l- M International boundary a n d District boundary a b Main road Railway Moussa Ali ETHIOPIA OBOCK N11 N11 To Elidar Balho Obock N14 TADJOURA N11 N14 Gulf of Aden Tadjoura N9 Galafi Lac Assal Golfe de Tadjoura N1 N9 N9 Doraleh DJIBOUTI N1 Ghoubbet Arta N9 El Kharab DJIBOUTI N9 N1 DIKHIL N5 N1 N1 ALI SABIEH N5 N5 Abhe Bad N1 (Lac Abhe) Ali Sabieh DJIBOUTI Dikhil N5 To Dire Dawa SOMALIA/ ETHIOPIA SOMALILAND Source: United Nations Department of Field Support, Cartographic Section, Djibouti Map No.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Sam Houston METC
    Military & Government Quiet® Success Story Project: ® Fort Sam Houston - Medical Edu- PABCO Gypsum Helps Create Quiet cation Training Campus Housing Barracks for Historical Military Base LEED NC v. 2.2 Silver Certified QuietRock selected for strict STC compliance with U.S. Army Corps of Location: San Antonio, Texas Engineering standards - lends hand toward LEED certification. www.samhouston.army.mil Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas is the world's largest military medical training facility. More than 27,000 military and civilian personnel work at this U.S. Army post, and funding for construction projects on post average $30 million annually. A National Historic Landmark, and one of the Army's oldest installations, Fort Sam Houston boasts the largest collection of historic structures – more than 900 buildings. The post's different sections represent different eras of historical construction and protect Army concepts in planning and design. Careful preservation of these areas allows the post to live with its history, surrounded by traditions of excellence established when the first soldier arrived there in 1845. Create Quiet Living Quarters With an eye to keeping the historical integrity of the post intact, the first of four new construction projects using PABCO Gypsum's innovative acoustical products that will make up the majority of the post’s new METC (Medical Education Training Campus) dormitories. These units will house up to 2,400 military medical personnel for short-term training and education. Additionally, construction is scheduled for 1,200 apartments over the course of the next year. Construction of the 682 modular sections that comprise the METC dormitories were completed offsite using PABCO Gypsum’s QuietRock sound reducing drywall.
    [Show full text]
  • The Closing of Military Bases in New England: Does the Military Ever Really Leave?
    John Mullin, et al., Int. J. of Herit. Archit., Vol. 2, No. 3 (2018) 425–433 THE CLOSING OF MILITARY BASES IN NEW ENGLAND: DOES THE MILITARY EVER REALLY LEAVE? JOHN MULLIN1, ZEENAT KOTVAL-K2 & ZENIA KOTVAL2 1University of Massachusetts, USA. 2Michigan State University, USA. ABSTRACT The physical and cultural patinas of military places are so fixed in the collective memories of New Eng- landers that well after closure, they remain part of our culture. At times, it may be that some military reserve functions remain, some military research is ongoing, or simply that the land, long ago con- taminated by fuel or the debris of weapons firing, is permanently off-limits. Other times, it may be the rigid precise layout of the barracks square, solidly built structures, or the placement of historic objects. The fact remains that military bases remain military in the region’s collective memory well after active forces have left. The paper begins with our examination of how New England military installations have been transformed since World War II. There are tens of installations that have been closed or dramati- cally changed since that time. We then determine, analyse and explain the characteristics that resulted in their having a continued military presence. Finally, we summarize our results to date. Keywords: base closings, military legacy, repurposing military bases. 1 INTRODUCTION Over the past 20 years, we have been involved, as academic researchers and planning consult- ants, in analysing the impacts of actual and potential military base closings throughout New England. At times, this work was simply to assess property records for the Boston Navy Yard, Massachusetts; undertake citizen participation exercises for the Portsmouth’s Naval Ship- yard, Kittery, Maine; prepare a master plan for Camp Edwards, Cape Cod, Massachusetts; analyse the market potential for development at Quonset Point, Rhode Island or determine fiscal impacts for development at Fort Devens, Massachusetts.
    [Show full text]
  • Fact Sheet for the NPDES Permit for the JBLM Solo Point WWTP
    Permit No.: WA-002195-4 Fort Lewis - Solo Point WWTP Fact Sheet NPDES Permit Number: WA-002195-4 Technical Contact: Tonya Lane 1-800-424-4372 (within Region 10) Email: [email protected] The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Plans To Reissue A Wastewater Discharge Permit To: Solo Point Wastewater Treatment Plant U.S. Department of Defense Department of the Army Joint Base Lewis McChord, WA 98433-5000 and The State of Washington Proposes to Certify the Permit and Issue a Consistency Determination EPA Proposes NPDES Permit Reissuance. EPA proposes to reissue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit to the Solo Point Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) at the Fort Lewis Army Base. The permit sets conditions on the discharge--or release--of pollutants from the Solo Point WWTP to the Puget Sound. In order to ensure protection of water quality and human health, the permit places limits on the types and amounts of pollutants that can be discharged. This Fact Sheet includes: - information on public comment, public hearing, and appeal procedures - a description of the current discharge and current biosolids practices - a listing of past and proposed effluent limitations, and other conditions - a map and description of the discharge location - detailed technical material supporting the conditions in the permit The State of Washington Proposes Certification and Consistency Determination. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) intends to certify the NPDES permit for the Solo Point WWTP under section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Page 1 of 49 Permit No.: WA-002195-4 Fort Lewis - Solo Point WWTP Public Comment.
    [Show full text]
  • 89 STAT. 546 PUBLIC LAW 94-107—OCT. 7, 1975 Public Law 94-107 94Th Congress an Act Uct
    89 STAT. 546 PUBLIC LAW 94-107—OCT. 7, 1975 Public Law 94-107 94th Congress An Act Uct. /, 1975^ rpQ authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes. [S. 1247] Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the Military United States of America in Congress assenibled^ construction and guard and reserve TITLE I—ARMY forces facilities authorization acts, 1976. SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop mili­ Military tary installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, converting, Construction rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, Authorization including land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, Act, 1976. and equipment for the following acquisition and construction: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND Defense Support Activity (Fargo Building), Boston, Massachu­ setts, $8,000,000. Fort Bragg, North Carolina. $13,214,000. Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $13,680,000. Fort Carson, Colorado, $10,732,000. Fort Hood, Texas, $46,281,000. Fort Sam Houston, Texas, $870,000. Fort Lewis, Washington, $31,861,000. Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, $2,892,000. Fort Ord, California, $32,209,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, $54,361,000. Fort Richardson, Alaska, $1,685,000. Fort Riley, Kansas, $14,879,000. Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia, $39,480,000. UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND Fort Benning, Georgia, $44,212,000. Fort Eustis, Virginia, $633,000. Fort Gordon, Georgia, $6,945,000. Fort Jackson, South Carolina, $14,546,000. Fort Knox, Kentucky, $42,898,000. Fort Lee, Virginia, $719,000. Fort McClellan, Alabama, $41,090,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Restructuring the US Military Bases in Germany Scope, Impacts, and Opportunities
    B.I.C.C BONN INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR CONVERSION . INTERNATIONALES KONVERSIONSZENTRUM BONN report4 Restructuring the US Military Bases in Germany Scope, Impacts, and Opportunities june 95 Introduction 4 In 1996 the United States will complete its dramatic post-Cold US Forces in Germany 8 War military restructuring in ● Military Infrastructure in Germany: From Occupation to Cooperation 10 Germany. The results are stag- ● Sharing the Burden of Defense: gering. In a six-year period the A Survey of the US Bases in United States will have closed or Germany During the Cold War 12 reduced almost 90 percent of its ● After the Cold War: bases, withdrawn more than contents Restructuring the US Presence 150,000 US military personnel, in Germany 17 and returned enough combined ● Map: US Base-Closures land to create a new federal state. 1990-1996 19 ● Endstate: The Emerging US The withdrawal will have a serious Base Structure in Germany 23 affect on many of the communi- ties that hosted US bases. The US Impact on the German Economy 26 military’syearly demand for goods and services in Germany has fal- ● The Economic Impact 28 len by more than US $3 billion, ● Impact on the Real Estate and more than 70,000 Germans Market 36 have lost their jobs through direct and indirect effects. Closing, Returning, and Converting US Bases 42 Local officials’ ability to replace those jobs by converting closed ● The Decision Process 44 bases will depend on several key ● Post-Closure US-German factors. The condition, location, Negotiations 45 and type of facility will frequently ● The German Base Disposal dictate the possible conversion Process 47 options.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Use of U.S. Military Bases to House Immigrants and Refugees
    CRS INSIGHT History of Use of U.S. Military Bases to House Immigrants and Refugees July 26, 2018 (IN10937) | Related Authors Lawrence Kapp Barbara Salazar Torreon | Lawrence Kapp, Specialist in Military Manpower Policy ([email protected], 7-7609) Barbara Salazar Torreon, Senior Research Librarian ([email protected], 7-8996) Background On June 20, 2018, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that states "It is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources" and that directs the Secretary of Defense to "take all legally available measures to provide to the Secretary [of Homeland Security], upon request, any existing facilities available for the housing and care of alien families, and shall construct such facilities if necessary and consistent with law." On June 24, Secretary of Defense James Mattis confirmed that Goodfellow Air Force Base and Fort Bliss, both in Texas, would be used to "provide whatever support the Department of Homeland Security needs to house the people that they have under their custody." Statutory Authority and Policy Documents Statutes that authorize the Department of Defense to provide support other federal agencies include: Section 1535 of Title 31 (the "Economy Act"), which authorizes an agency to place an order with another agency to obtain supplies or services from that agency. Chapter 15 of Title 10, governing military support for civilian law enforcement agencies, and particularly 10 U.S.C. 272, which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to make DOD equipment and facilities available to federal, state and local law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes .
    [Show full text]
  • Power Begins at Home: Assured Energy for U.S. Military Bases
    Power Begins at Home: Assured Energy for U.S. Military Bases Power Begins at Home: 1 Assured Energy for U.S. Military Bases Power Begins at Home: Assured Energy for U.S. Military Bases Commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts January 12, 2017 By Jeffrey Marqusee, Craig Schultz and Dorothy Robyn Power Begins at Home: 2 Assured Energy for U.S. Military Bases Table of Contents List of Figures .....................................................................................................................ii List of Tables ......................................................................................................................iii List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... v Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................vi I Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 II Challenges ............................................................................................................... 3 II.1 Vulnerability of Defense Installations .........................................................................................................4 II.2 Data on DoD Power Outages ..................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]