DOCSLIB.ORG

COVID-19 Travel Restrictions Installation Status Update, June 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
COVID-19 Travel Restrictions Installation Status Update, June 2 As of May 31, 2021 COVID-19 Travel Restrictions Installation Status Update Criteria for Lifting Travel Restrictions Step 1: Meet Installation Criteria (No Travel Restrictions, HPCON below Charlie, Essential Services Available, Quality Assurance in place for Movers) Step 2: Director of Administration and Management (DA&M), the Secretary of a Military Department, or a Combatant Commander approve lifting travel restrictions for an installation Step 1 criteria must be met before travel restrictions can be lifted for an installation by the DA&M, the Secretary of a Military Department, or a Combatant Commander. If installation conditions are subsequently not met, the approval authority decides if travel restrictions should be reinstated. Unrestricted travel is allowed for Service members or civilians between installations that have met the criteria of the Secretary of Defense memorandum on the conditions- based approach to personnel movement and travel dated March 15, 2021. If either installation does not meet the criteria, an exemption or waiver would be required. Travel Restrictions LIFTED at 207 of 230 Installations (90%) (Met: Step 1 & Step 2) Of the 207 installations with lifted travel restrictions this week, 1 reinstated travel restrictions while 2 lifted restrictions. 1 of 8 As of May 31, 2021 Travel Installation Service Country/State Restrictions Lifted ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND Army USA - MD Yes ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT Army USA - AL Yes BAUMHOLDER H.D.SMITH BRCKS Army Germany Yes CAMP CASEY TONGDUCHON Army South Korea Yes CAMP DODGE Army USA - IA Yes CAMP HENRY Army South Korea Yes CAMP HUMPHREYS Army South Korea Yes CAMP ZAMA TOKYO Army Japan Yes CARLISLE BARRACKS Army USA - PA Yes DETROIT ARSENAL Army USA - MI No FORT BELVOIR Army USA - VA Yes FORT BENNING Army USA - GA Yes FORT BLISS Army USA - TX No FORT BRAGG Army USA - NC Yes FORT CAMPBELL Army USA - KY Yes FORT CARSON Army USA - CO Yes FORT CUSTER TRNG CTR Army USA - MI Yes FORT DETRICK Army USA - MD Yes FORT DRUM Army USA - NY Yes FORT GEORGE G. MEADE Army USA - MD Yes FORT GORDON Army USA - GA Yes FORT HAMILTON Army USA - NY Yes FORT HOOD Army USA - TX Yes FORT HUACHUCA Army USA - AZ No FORT IRWIN Army USA - CA Yes FORT JACKSON Army USA - SC Yes FORT KNOX Army USA - KY Yes FORT LEAVENWORTH Army USA - KS Yes FORT LEE Army USA - VA Yes FORT LEONARD WOOD Army USA - MO Yes FORT MCCOY Army USA - WI Yes FORT POLK Army USA - LA Yes FORT RILEY Army USA - KS Yes FORT RUCKER Army USA - AL No FORT SILL Army USA - OK Yes FORT STEWART Army USA - GA Yes FORT WILLIAM H. HARRISON Army USA - MT Yes GRAFENWOHR GERMANY Army Germany Yes 2 of 8 As of May 31, 2021 Travel Installation Service Country/State Restrictions Lifted HOHENFELS GERMANY Army Germany Yes JOINT BASE LEWIS MCCHORD Army USA - WA Yes JOINT BASE MYER HENDERSON HALL Army USA - DC Yes KAISERSLAUTERN Army Germany Yes LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT Army USA - PA Yes LEXINGTON BLUE GRASS DEPOT Army USA - KY Yes LOS ALAMITOS AFRC Army USA - CA Yes MCALESTER ARMY AMMO PLANT Army USA - OK Yes PICATINNY ARSENAL Army USA - NJ Yes PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY Army USA - CA Yes RED RIVER DEPOT Army USA - TX Yes REDSTONE ARSENAL Army USA - AL Yes ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL Army USA - IL Yes SAN JUAN FORT BUCHANAN Army Puerto Rico Yes SCHOFIELD BARRACKS Army USA - HI Yes SIERRA ARMY DEPOT Army USA - CA Yes STUTTGART GERMANY Army Germany Yes TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT Army USA - PA Yes US ARMY GARRISON ALASKA Army USA - AK No US ARMY GARRISON HAWAII Army USA - HI Yes US ARMY GARRISON MIAMI Army USA - FL No USA NATICK RSCH & DEV CTR Army USA - MA Yes VICENZA ITALY Army Italy Yes VILSECK Army Germany Yes WATERVLIET ARSENAL Army USA - NY Yes WEST POINT MILRES Army USA - NY Yes WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE Army USA - NM Yes WIESBADEN GERMANY Army Germany Yes YONGSAN KOREA Army South Korea Yes YUMA PROVING GROUND Army USA - AZ Yes DFAS CLEVELAND CENTER DA&M USA - OH Yes DFAS COLUMBUS CENTER DA&M USA - OH Yes DFAS HEADQUARTERS DA&M USA - IN Yes PENTAGON BUILDING SITE DA&M USA - VA Yes ANNAPOLIS NS(INCL USNA) Navy USA - MD Yes CBC GULFPORT MS Navy USA - MS Yes CHINA LAKE NAVWEAPCEN Navy USA - CA Yes COMFLEACT OKINAWA JA Navy Japan No 3 of 8 As of May 31, 2021 Travel Installation Service Country/State Restrictions Lifted CORONADO NAV AMPHIB BASE Navy USA - CA Yes CORPUS CHRISTI NAS Navy USA - TX Yes CRANE NAVWEAPSUPPCEN Navy USA - IN Yes FALLON NAS Navy USA - NV Yes FLEET ACTIVITIES CHINHAE KS Navy South Korea Yes FLEET ACTIVITIES SASEBO Navy Japan No INDIAN HEAD NAV ORD STA Navy USA - MD Yes JACKSONVILLE NAS Navy USA - FL Yes JBPHH PEARL HARBOR HAWAII Navy USA - HI Yes KEY WEST NAS Navy USA - FL Yes KINGS BAY NAVSUBBASE Navy USA - GA Yes LEMOORE NAS Navy USA - CA Yes LITTLE CREEK NAV AMPHIB BASE Navy USA - VA Yes MAYPORT NAVSTA Navy USA - FL Yes MERIDIAN NAS Navy USA - MS Yes NAF ATSUGI JA Navy Japan No NAF MISAWA JA Navy Japan No NAS JRB FT WORTH TX Navy USA - TX Yes NAS KINGSVILLE TX Navy USA - TX Yes NAS SIGONELLA SICILY Navy Italy No NAVAL BASE KITSAP-BREMERTON Navy USA - WA Yes NAVAL STATION EVERETT Navy USA - WA Yes NAVAL STATION GREAT LAKES Navy USA - IL Yes NAVAL STATION GUAM Navy Guam No NAVAL STATION NEWPORT Navy USA - RI Yes NAVAL STATION ROTA SPAIN Navy Spain Yes NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY MID-SOU Navy USA - TN Yes NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY MONTEREY CA Navy USA - CA Yes NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY WASH Navy USA - DC Yes NAVAL SUPPORT ACTY PANAMA CITY Navy USA - FL Yes NAVAL TRAINING CTR ORLANDO Navy USA - FL Yes NAVBASE POINT LOMA Navy USA - CA Yes NAVBASE SAN DIEGO CA Navy USA - CA Yes NAVBASE VENTURA CTY Navy USA - CA Yes NAVMAG INDIAN ISLAND Navy USA - WA Yes NAVSTA GUANTANAMO BAY Navy Cuba No NAVSUPPACT BETHESDA MD Navy USA - MD Yes NAVSUPPACT HAMPTON ROADS VA Navy USA - VA Yes 4 of 8 As of May 31, 2021 Travel Installation Service Country/State Restrictions Lifted NAVSUPPACT MECHANICSBURG PA Navy USA - PA Yes NAVSUPPACT NAPLES IT Navy Italy No NAVSUPPFAC BEAUFORT SC Navy USA - SC Yes NEW LONDON NAVSUBBASE Navy USA - CT Yes NEW ORLEANS NAS JRB Navy USA - LA Yes NORFOLK NAV SHIPYD Navy USA - VA Yes NORFOLK NAVAL BASE Navy USA - VA Yes NSA ANDERSEN Navy Guam No NSA BAHRAIN Navy Bahrain No NSA SARATOGA SPRINGS NY Navy USA - NY Yes NSD YOKOSUKA JAPAN Navy Japan No NSY PORTSMOUTH Navy USA - NH Yes NWS EARLE NJ Navy USA - NJ Yes OCEANA NAS Navy USA - VA Yes PATUXENT RIVER NAS Navy USA - MD Yes PENSACOLA NAS Navy USA - FL Yes SEAL BEACH NAVWEAPSTA Navy USA - CA Yes WHIDBEY ISLAND NAS Navy USA - WA Yes WHITING FIELD NAS Navy USA - FL Yes YORKTOWN NAVWEAPSTA Navy USA - VA Yes ALTUS AFB USAF USA - OK Yes AVIANO AB USAF Italy Yes BARKSDALE AFB USAF USA - LA Yes BEALE AFB USAF USA - CA Yes BUCKLEY AFB USAF USA - CO Yes CANNON AFB USAF USA - NM Yes COLUMBUS AFB USAF USA - MS Yes DAVIS-MONTHAN AFB USAF USA - AZ Yes DOBBINS ARB USAF USA - GA Yes DOVER AFB USAF USA - DE Yes DYESS AFB USAF USA - TX Yes EDWARDS AFB USAF USA - CA Yes EGLIN AFB USAF USA - FL Yes EIELSON AFB USAF USA - AK Yes ELLSWORTH AFB USAF USA - SD Yes F E WARREN AFB USAF USA - WY Yes FAIRCHILD AFB USAF USA - WA Yes GOODFELLOW AFB USAF USA - TX Yes 5 of 8 As of May 31, 2021 Travel Installation Service Country/State Restrictions Lifted GRAND FORKS AFB USAF USA - ND Yes GRISSOM AFB USAF USA - IN Yes HANSCOM AFB USAF USA - MA Yes HILL AFB USAF USA - UT Yes HOLLOMAN AFB USAF USA - NM Yes HOMESTEAD AFB USAF USA - FL Yes HURLBURT FIELD USAF USA - FL Yes INCIRLIK AB SITE 1 USAF Turkey Yes JB ANACOSTIA-BOLLING USAF USA - DC Yes JB ANDREWS USAF USA - MD Yes JB CHARLESTON USAF USA - SC Yes JB ELMENDORF RICHARDSON USAF USA - AK Yes JB LANGLEY-EUSTIS USAF USA - VA Yes JB MCGUIRE DIX LAKEHURST USAF USA - NJ Yes JB SAN ANTONIO USAF USA - TX Yes KADENA AB USAF Japan No KEESLER AFB USAF USA - MS Yes KIRTLAND AFB USAF USA - NM Yes KUNSAN AB USAF South Korea Yes LAUGHLIN AFB USAF USA - TX Yes LITTLE ROCK AFB USAF USA - AR Yes LOS ANGELES AFB USAF USA - CA Yes LUKE AFB USAF USA - AZ Yes MACDILL AFB USAF USA - FL Yes MALMSTROM AFB USAF USA - MT Yes MARCH AFB USAF USA - CA Yes MAXWELL AFB (INCL. GUNTER) USAF USA - AL Yes MCCONNELL AFB USAF USA - KS Yes MINN ST PAUL ARS USAF USA - MN Yes MINOT AFB USAF USA - ND Yes MISAWA AB USAF Japan No MOODY AFB USAF USA - GA Yes MOUNTAIN HOME AFB USAF USA - ID Yes NELLIS AFB USAF USA - NV Yes NIAGARA FALLS ARS USAF USA - NY Yes OFFUTT AFB USAF USA - NE Yes OSAN AIR BASE USAF South Korea Yes PATRICK AFB USAF USA - FL Yes 6 of 8 As of May 31, 2021 Travel Installation Service Country/State Restrictions Lifted PETERSON-SCHRIEVER GARRISON USAF USA - CO Yes PITTSBURGH ANG USAF USA - PA Yes PITTSBURGH ARS USAF USA - PA Yes RAF LAKENHEATH USAF United Kingdom Yes RAF MILDENHALL USAF United Kingdom Yes RAMSTEIN FRG USAF Germany No ROBINS AFB USAF USA - GA Yes SCOTT AFB USAF USA - IL Yes SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB USAF USA - NC Yes SHAW AFB USAF USA - SC Yes SHEPPARD AFB USAF USA - TX Yes SPANGDAHLEM AB USAF Germany No TINKER AFB USAF USA - OK Yes TRAVIS AFB USAF USA - CA Yes TYNDALL AFB USAF USA - FL Yes USAF ACADEMY USAF USA - CO Yes VANCE AFB USAF USA - OK Yes VANDENBERG AFB USAF USA - CA Yes WESTOVER ARB AFB USAF USA - MA No WHITEMAN AFB USAF USA - MO Yes WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB USAF USA - OH Yes YOKOTA AB USAF Japan No YOUNGSTOWN JOINT AIR RESERVE USAF USA - OH Yes STATION CHERRY POINT MCAS USMC USA - NC Yes MAKIMINATO OKINAWA CP BUTLER USMC Japan Yes MARINE BARRACKS WASH D.C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • November 25, 1974 3:20 P
    File scanned from the National Security Adviser's Memoranda of Conversation Collection at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library ,I} \ > MEMORANDUM THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON ~ /SENSITIVE/XGDS MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION PARTICIPANTS: President Ford James R. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense Lt. General Brent Scowcroft, Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs DATE AND TIME: Monday, November 25, 1974 3:20 p. m. PLACE: The Oval Office The White House SUBJECTS: Vladivostok SALT Accord: Base Closings Schlesinger: The Soviets have met their match. They are night people and they usually wear Americans out. You can keep up with them. President: I think we had a good serious meeting and I think the results are such that we can ••• Schlesinger: Your accomplishments on this one are phenomenal. President: I am glad to hear it. If we are criticized I think it will be by the left. The figures are higher than we would like, but it puts a rigid ceiling and makes them modify their program and gives us flexibility. For launchers it is a limit of 2,400; for MIRV'd launchers it is 1,320. There will be no new sites. Missiles on bombers, if they have a range of over 600 kilometers, are counted as launchers. That is it. DEClASSIFIED E.O. 12958 (as amended) SEC 3.3 Schlesinger: Is there freedom to mix? MR# -'1,8-",' • leo t>5b~ 1.R:tlorr,· "A..u.... .3lniloi Iliftk ~ ":10"0 President: Yes. 8v ~.JtARA. Date 10 Is-I, 0 S~SENsrrIVE/XGDS SEC RET - X,-,J3 (.) o .~LASSIEJED> BY; HENRY A.
    [Show full text]
  • Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg
    Letterkenny_FINAL.qxp_REPORT_1 7/18/18 11:04 AM Page 1 PENNSYLVANIA MILITARY INSTALLATIONS // IMPACTS J LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT Letterkenny_FINAL.qxp_REPORT_1 7/18/18 11:04 AM Page 2 This report was produced by the University of Pittsburgh Center for Social and Urban Research (UCSUR) and financed by a grant from the Pennsylvania Military Community Enhancement Commission, Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, with additional funding support from Team PA. June 2018 Letterkenny_FINAL.qxp_REPORT_1 7/18/18 11:04 AM Page 3 LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT This report is part of the Pennsylvania Military Community Enhancement Commission-sponsored study of the economic impacts of Pennsylvania’s military and defense installations. The aim of the project is to aid the Commis- sion and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in understanding the economic and strategic value of its major military installations regionally and nationally, as well as their ties to surrounding communities and Pennsylvania industry. s Letterkenny Army Depot celebrates its 2. “Reset” of weapon systems — quicker and less 75th anniversary, its primary purpose comprehensive repairs but still returning a system or remains vital to the U.S. military: to vehicle to serviceable condition, and maintain the skills and facilities necessary A for a wartime surge. The depot is located 3. The development of new weapon systems on 18,668 acres adjacent to the Borough of Chambers - The depot currently supports the following burg and encompasses parts of Greene, Hamilton, and weapon systems: Patriot, Avenger, RG-31, and Force Letterkenny townships in Franklin County. The depot Provider. Additionally, the depot performs various employs over 3,000 people, including government engineering tasks and provides inventory and storage employees, military personnel, and private contractors.
    [Show full text]
  • GGD-97-86S World Wide Web Sites: Reported by 42 Federal
    United States General Accounting Office GAO Supplement June 1997 World Wide Web Sites Reported by Federal Organizations GAO/GGD-97-86S Preface This publication supplements our report entitled Internet and Electronic Dial-Up Bulletin Boards: Information Reported by Federal Organizations (GAO/GGD-97-86, June 16, 1997). It contains a listing of approximately 4,300 World Wide Web (WWW) sites that 42 federal organizations reported to us. The definition of a WWW site can vary. Because we were requested by the Chairmen of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs to identify the number of distinct WWW sites and to encourage consistent reporting, we defined a WWW site as a file or group of files organized under a homepage, that is accessible on the Internet using web browser software. A WWW site’s homepage is typically the index, welcome, or menu page for a distinct WWW activity or service. As expected, federal organizations reported a large number of WWW sites that reflect the large number of activities within the federal government. Although we contacted federal organizations where we had questions concerning whether they understood our definition of a WWW site, due to the large number of reported WWW sites, we could not verify that all federal organizations used our definition. Furthermore, some federal organizations reported that the list they provided of their WWW sites was not in accordance with our definition or was not complete. Some reported that they do not track this type of information and to obtain these data would have involved a major data collection effort.
    [Show full text]
  • Authorized Abbreviations, Brevity Codes, and Acronyms
    Army Regulation 310–50 Military Publications Authorized Abbreviations, Brevity Codes, and Acronyms Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC 15 November 1985 Unclassified USAPA EPS - * FORMAL * TF 2.45 05-21-98 07:23:12 PN 1 FILE: r130.fil SUMMARY of CHANGE AR 310–50 Authorized Abbreviations, Brevity Codes, and Acronyms This revision-- o Contains new and revised abbreviations, brevity codes , and acronyms. o Incorporates chapter 4, sections I and II of the previous regulation into chapters 2 and 3. o Redesignates chapter 5 of the previous regulation as chapter 4. USAPA EPS - * FORMAL * TF 2.45 05-21-98 07:23:13 PN 2 FILE: r130.fil Headquarters Army Regulation 310–50 Department of the Army Washington, DC 15 November 1985 Effective 15 November 1985 Military Publications Authorized Abbreviations, Brevity Codes, and Acronyms has been made to highlight changes from the a p p r o v a l f r o m H Q D A ( D A A G – A M S – P ) , earlier regulation dated 15February 1984. ALEX, VA 22331–0301. Summary. This regulation governs Depart- m e n t o f t h e A r m y a b b r e v i a t i o n s , b r e v i t y Interim changes. Interim changes to this codes, and acronyms. regulation are not official unless they are au- thenticated by The Adjutant General. Users Applicability. This regulation applies to el- will destroy interim changes on their expira- ements of the Active Army, Army National Guard, and U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Letterkenny Army Depot Means Business
    http://w3.nexis.com/new/delivery/PrintDoc.do?fromCart=false&dnldFil... 5 of 5 DOCUMENTS Quad -- State Business Journal February 2009 Letterkenny Army Depot Means Business BYLINE: Pfoutz, Yvonne SECTION: Pg. 15 Vol. 20 No. 4 LENGTH: 1405 words ABSTRACT Lockheed Martin's TADS/ PNVS (targeting and night vision systems used on Apache helicopters) are also being overhauled in partnership with Letterkenny. "Lockheed currently does this work in several locations but we think they will consolidate here," says [Steven Shapiro]. "For three years, Lockheed Martin has occupied a building here and employed 12 people, half of them Letterkenny employees and half Lockheed. ABSTRACT Letterkenny has been maintaining Patriot missile delivery systems for over 20 years, with 500 employees who remanufacture the Patriot missile vehicles and launch equipment of one battalion (500-600 soldiers) per year. [...] this year, however, repairs and upgrades to the Patriot missile itself were done at the Red River Army Depot in-Texas. FULL TEXT Every business likes to hear from satisfied customers, but few receive feedback as dramatic as Letterkenny Army Depot. "A soldier in Iraq wrote on the side of an MRAP [mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicle], 'This vehicle saved my life and five others,' took a picture and sent it to us," says Col. Steven Shapiro, commander of the depot near Chambersburg. "We get letters from soldiers in vehicles hit by IEDs [improvised explosive devices] and photos of PvHINOs [a device suspended in front of a vehicle to pre-detonate IEDs] with holes in them. "A marine saved by his GMV [ground mobility vehicle, a modified HMMWV (humvee) used by special forces] came here to say thank you to the people who work on the GMV line.
    [Show full text]
  • US Army Organizational Codes
    Incident Qualification and Certification System Agency Hierarchy Agency: ARMY0 Lvl Org Code and Description 1 USARMY United States Army 2 0100000 IMCOM Pacific Regional Office 3 01AK001 Fort Greely 4 01AK001FES Fort Greely FES 4 01AK001NR Fort Greely NR 3 01AK002 Fort Wainwright 4 01AK002FES Fort Wainwright FES 4 01AK002NR Fort Wainwright NR 3 01HI001 USAG Schofield 4 01HI001FES USAG Schofield FES 4 01HI001NR USAG Schofield NR 3 01HI002 USAG Hawaii PTA 4 01HI002FES USAG Hawaii PTA FES 4 01HI002NR USAG Hawaii PTA NR 2 0200000 IMCOM West Regional Office 3 02AZ001 Ft. Huachuca 4 02AZ001FES Ft. Huachuca FES 4 02AZ001NR Ft. Huachuca NR 3 02AZ002 Yuma Proving Ground 4 02AZ002FES Yuma Proving Ground FES 4 02AZ002NR Yuma Proving Ground NR 3 02CA001 Camp Parks 4 02CA001FES Camp Parks FES 4 02CA001NR Camp Parks NR 3 02CA002 Ft. Hunter Liggett 4 02CA002FES Ft. Hunter Liggett FES 4 02CA002NR Ft. Hunter Liggett NR 3 02CA003 Ft. Irwin 4 02CA003FES Ft. Irwin FES 4 02CA003NR Ft. Irwin NR 3 02CA004 Persidio Mont. 4 02CA004FES Persidio Mont. FES 4 02CA004NR Persidio Mont. NR 3 02CA005 Shape Army Depot 4 02CA005FES Shape Army Depot FES 4 02CA005NR Shape Army Depot NR 3 02CA006 Military Ocean Terminal Concord 4 02CA006FES Military Ocean Terminal Concord FES 4 02CA006NR Military Ocean Terminal Concord NR 3 02CA007 Sierra Army Depot 4 02CA007FES Sierra Army Depot FES 4 02CA007NR Sierra Army Depot NR 3 02NV001 Hawthorne Army Depot 4 02NV001FES Hawthorne Army Depot FES 4 02NV001NR Hawthorne Army Depot NR 3 02UT001 Dugway Proving Ground 4 02UT001FES Dugway Proving
    [Show full text]
  • 93 Stat. 928 Public Law 96-125—Nov
    93 STAT. 928 PUBLIC LAW 96-125—NOV. 26, 1979 Public Law 96-125 96th Congress An Act Nov. 26,1979 rS 13191 "^^ authorize certain construction at military installations for fiscal year 1980, and '• • for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Military United States of America in Congress assembled. That this Act may be Construction gited as the "MiUtary Construction Authorization Act, 1980". AuthorizatioAct, 1980. n *' 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, $1,250,000. Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $18,200,000. Fort Drum, New York, $690,000. Fort Greely, Alaska, $820,000. Fort Hood, Texas, $13,650,000. Fort Hunter Liggett, California, $2,900,000. Fort Lewis, Washington, $7,400,000. Fort Meade, Maryland, $18,500,000. Fort Ord, California, $17,380,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, $26,810,000. Fort Richardson, Alaska, $5,250,000. Fort Riley, Kansas, $28,350,000. Fort Sheridan, Illinois, $1,200,000. Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, $2,750,000. Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Air Field, Georgia, $39,900,000. Yakima Firing Center, Washington, $1,100,000. UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND Camp Perry, Ohio, $1,000,000. Fort Belvoir, Virginia, $2,420,000. Fort Benning, Georgia, $12,800,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Letterkenny Army Depot …………………
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………….. i List of Tables & Figures …………………………………………………………………... ii Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………….. iii Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………... 1 A. Overview of Franklin County and Letterkenny Army Depot ………………….. 2 Letterkenny Army Depot and Responses to Realignment ………………… 2 Population Trends ………………………………………………………….. 6 Population and Population Growth …………………………………. 6 Age Composition of Franklin County Population ………………….. 6 Employment, Commuting, and Unemployment …………………………… 10 Total Employment and Employment Change ………………………. 10 Relationship of Employment to Population ………………………… 12 Employment and Commuting ………………………………………. 14 Unemployment ……………………………………………………… 15 Employment Composition ………………………………………………….. 17 Employment by Major Industry …………………………………….. 17 Industrial Composition ……………………………………………… 17 Employment Change: A Dynamic Shift-Share Analysis …………… 18 Income, Wages, and Earnings ……………………………………………... 23 Per Capita Personal Income ………………………………………… 23 Wages per Job ………………………………………………………. 27 Earnings by Employment and Industrial Sector ……………………. 31 Regional Context Summary and Implications …………………………….. 32 B. Modeling the Economic Impact of BRAC on Franklin County ………………... 34 Method …………………………………………………………………….... 34 Data Considerations ………………………………………………… 35 Estimated Impacts of Closure ……………………………………………… 35 Employment Impacts ……………………………………………….. 36 Gross Regional Product Impacts …………………………………… 36 Personal Income Impacts …………………………………………… 38 Demographic
    [Show full text]
  • Unit Identifier Guide: Data Report
    A Publication of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group Unit Identifier Guide: Data Report PMS 931 - Published Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 Sponsored for NWCG publication by the NWCG Data Management Committee. Prepared and maintained by the Unit Identifier Unit. Questions regarding the content of this product should be directed to the NWCG Unit Identifier Unit (UIU), National Interagency Fire Center, 3833 S Development Avenue, Boise ID 83705, or to the UIU members listed on the NWCG Web site at http://www.nwcg.gov. Questions and comments may also be emailed to [email protected]. This product is available electronically on the NWCG Web site at http://www.nwcg.gov. Previous editions: none. The National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) has approved the contents of this product for the guidance of its member agencies and is not responsible for the interpretation or use of this information by anyone else. NWCG’s intent is to specifically identify all copyrighted content used in NWCG products. All other NWCG information is in the public domain. Use of public domain information, including copying, is permitted. Use of NWCG information within another document is permitted, if NWCG information is accurately credited to the NWCG. The NWCG logo may not be used except on NWCG authorized information. “National Wildfire Coordinating Group”, “NWCG”, and the NWCG logo are trademarks of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names or trademarks in this product is for the information and convenience of the reader and does not constitute an endorsement by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group or its member agencies of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Land Use Study Letterkenny Army Depot
    JOINT LAND USE STUDY LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT Franklin County, Pennsylvania MARCH, 2005 Prepared by: martin and martin, incorporated 37 South Main Street, Suite A Chambersburg, PA 17201-2251 Phone: 717-264-6759 Fax: 717-264-7339 email: [email protected] for LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT JLUS Committee EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Joint Land Use Study for the Letterkenny Army Depot is prepared in the context of the recognized need to provide coordinated land use planning policies between the adjacent, or impacted, civilian community and U.S. military installations The objective of the JLUS program is twofold: 1) Encourage cooperative land use planning between military installations and the surrounding communities so that further community growth and development are compatible with the training or operational missions of the installation. 2) Seek ways to reduce the operational impacts on adjacent land. The JLUS program should encourage communities and the neighboring military installation to study the issues of incompatibility in an open forum, taking into consideration both community and military viewpoints. It is intended that the recommendations in this study be used to guide local jurisdictions in the development and implementation of appropriate land use controls. Such controls should ensure that future development around LEAD will be compatible with both the military mission and the development needs of its host community. Project Structure The project has been facilitated through a close working relationship that exists among the Project Sponsor, the Policy Committee and the Grant Administration, and that encompasses the subject geographic areas. The composition of these groups is as follows: Grantee and Project Sponsor: Franklin County Board of Commissioners Policy Committee: L.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 Travel Restrictions Installation Status Update
    As of August 30, 2021 COVID-19 Travel Restrictions Installation Status Update Criteria for Lifting Travel Restrictions Step 1: Meet Installation Criteria (No Travel Restrictions, HPCON below Charlie, Essential Services Available, Quality Assurance in place for Movers) Step 2: Director of Administration and Management (DA&M), the Secretary of a Military Department, or a Combatant Commander approve lifting travel restrictions for an installation Step 1 criteria must be met before travel restrictions can be lifted for an installation by the DA&M, the Secretary of a Military Department, or a Combatant Commander. If installation conditions are subsequently not met, the approval authority decides if travel restrictions should be reinstated. Unrestricted travel is allowed for Service members or civilians between installations that have met the criteria of the Secretary of Defense memorandum on the conditions- based approach to personnel movement and travel dated March 15, 2021. If either installation does not meet the criteria, an exemption or waiver would be required. Travel Restrictions LIFTED at 183 of 230 Installations (80%) (Met: Step 1 & Step 2) Of the 183 installations with lifted travel restrictions this week, 7 reinstated travel restrictions while 0 lifted restrictions. 1 of 8 As of August 30, 2021 Travel Installation Service Country/State Restrictions Lifted ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND Army USA - MD Yes ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT Army USA - AL Yes BAUMHOLDER H.D.SMITH BRCKS Army Germany Yes CAMP CASEY TONGDUCHON Army South Korea Yes CAMP DODGE Army USA - IA Yes CAMP HENRY Army South Korea Yes CAMP HUMPHREYS Army South Korea Yes CAMP ZAMA TOKYO Army Japan Yes CARLISLE BARRACKS Army USA - PA Yes DETROIT ARSENAL Army USA - MI Yes FORT BELVOIR Army USA - VA Yes FORT BENNING Army USA - GA Yes FORT BLISS Army USA - TX Yes FORT BRAGG Army USA - NC Yes FORT CAMPBELL Army USA - KY Yes FORT CARSON Army USA - CO Yes FORT CUSTER TRNG CTR Army USA - MI Yes FORT DETRICK Army USA - MD Yes FORT DRUM Army USA - NY Yes FORT GEORGE G.
    [Show full text]
  • Five Year Review Process and Was Recorded in the Franklin County Courthouse in Chambersburg on April 15, 2008
    A A I C N I A R Y T V M O L R E P A E Y S M D E N A Y H M N E T F R A P F O D N E F E O S D L L ' E E W T S I H T , 1775 T Y N G N E A N R T FINAL E M U S K T B R R June 2008 D E S A T R P T E E D E E IT L B UN CHAM Baltimore, Maryland Army Corps of Engineers U.S. SOUTHEASTERN AREA Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste Branch Radioactive Waste Hazardous, Toxic, LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITE NATIONAL CHAMBERSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA CHAMBERSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT 07P-0022 A A I C N I A Y R SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT M OT V L R E P A E Y M E D S N A Y H N M E T F R LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT P A O U.S. Army Corps of Engineers F D N E F O E D S L L ' E E W T S I Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste Branch June 2008 H T 1775 , T Y N SOUTHEASTERN AREA FINAL N G E A N R T E M Baltimore, Maryland U S K T B R R D E S A NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITE T P R T E E D E E T L B NI M U CHAMBERSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA CHA Second Five-Year Review (SE Area) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United States (U.S.) Army, with review and input from the U.S.
    [Show full text]