DOCSLIB.ORG

Economic Impact Analysis of Delayed Military Base Reuse in California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Economic Impact Analysis of Delayed Military Base Reuse in California Economic & Planning Systems Real Estate Economics Regional Economics Public Finance Land Use Policy WHITE PAPER ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF DELAYED MILITARY BASE REUSE IN CALIFORNIA Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. January 2007 Update EPS #17002 B E R K E L E Y S A C R A M E N T O D E N V E R 2501 Ninth St., Suite 200 Phone: 510-841-9190 Phone: 916-649-8010 Phone: 303-623-3557 Berkeley, CA 94710-2515 Fax: 510-841-9208 Fax: 916-649-2070 Fax: 303-623-9049 www.epsys.com TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS...........................................................1 Summary of Findings...............................................................................................1 II. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF DELAYED REUSE ..................................................7 Economic Impact Analysis.......................................................................................8 Economic Development Impacts.......................................................................9 Fiscal Impacts....................................................................................................10 III. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................12 APPENDICES Appendix A: Economic Impact Analysis of Alameda Naval Air Station Appendix B: Economic Impact Analysis of Fort Ord Military Installation Appendix C: Economic Impact Analysis of Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard Appendix D: Economic Impact Analysis of Naval Station Treasure Island Appendix E: Economic Impact Analysis of George Air Force Base Appendix F: Economic Impact Analysis of McClellan Air Force Base LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1: California Major Military Base Closures..........................................................2 Table 1: Major Closure Decisions from Base Closure Rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995 and 2005 ...........................................................................................3 Table 2: Summary of Statewide Economic Impacts......................................................5 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) these closed military bases in California was retained to evaluate the impacts of and estimates the economic impacts on delays in the reuse of closed military the California economy of delayed bases on the California economy. This redevelopment and reuse. report has been updated from the original February 2005 version to reflect major changes in military base disposition and reuse activity. While specific assumptions and actual annual results will vary with economic cycles, this report provides a long‐term indication and an estimate of impacts associated with delayed military closures. Former Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard The State of California has experienced more base closures than any other state SUMMARY OF FINDINGS in the country under the Base Realignment and Closures Act (BRAC) 1. The 25 major bases closed in of 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005. The California over the last 18 years Department of Defense (DOD) closed 25 consisted of 86,000 acres of land, major military bases in California under and resulted in a total loss of the various rounds of BRAC with three approximately 46,700 civilian jobs additional bases scheduled to close and 82,600 military personnel (see during the next several years. The Table 1). The base closures also closures represent one‐third of the resulted in secondary economic California military base total and impacts on local communities approximately one‐fourth of the total including a loss of business activity, U.S. closures. These base closures have retail spending and tax revenues. resulted in significant civilian and The successful reuse of these bases military job losses and loss of economic presents one of the greatest urban productivity to the State. Figure 1 redevelopment and economic depicts a map of all major base closures development challenges faced by in California. California today. The closed bases are currently at various stages in the For many reasons, a number of closed reuse process. bases have not been redeveloped in accordance with the reuse goals of the 2. There are 32,200 acres of major local communities. In some cases, the closed military bases that remain to DOD has yet to convey portions of the be conveyed in California. bases to the relevant Local Although interim uses and long‐ Redevelopment Authorities (LRAs). term lease opportunities have been This report documents the status of the found for some of the unconveyed property transfer and redevelopment of 1 P:\17000s\17002Base\Report\17002rpt.doc Figure 1: California Major Military Base Closures Map_Num Facility Location 01 George Air Force Base Victorville 02 Norton Air Force Base San Bernadino 03 Fort Ord Marina 04 Hunter's Point Navel Facility San Francisco 05 Naval Electronic Systems Engineering San Diego 06 Mather Air Force Base Sacramento 07 Long Beach Naval Complex Long Beach 08 Naval Air Station Moffett Field Sunnyvale 09 Presidio of San Francisco San Francisco 10 Sacramento Army Depot Sacramento 11 Oakland Naval Supply Center Oakland 12 Castle Air Force Base Atwater 13 Oakland Army Base Oakland 14 Hamilton Army Air Field Novato 15 McClellan Air Force Base Sacramento 16 Oak Knoll Naval Hospital Oakland 17 Mare Island Naval Complex Vallejo 18 San Diego Training Center San Diego 19 Alameda Naval Complex Alameda 20 Treasure Island Naval Complex San Francisco 21 Pt. Molate Naval Fuel Depot Richmond 1515 22 Marine Corps Air Station El Toro Irvine 1010 23 Marine Corps Air Station Tustin Tustin 2121 0606 1414 1717 24 Ontario Intl Airport AGS Ontario 2020 25 Concord Naval Weapon Station Concord 20201313 2525 1111 0909 1616 1212 0404 1919 1212 0808 0303 0101 2424 0707 0202 2222 2323 2323 1818 0505 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 P:\14062base\maps\mapinfo\fig_01.wor Table 1 Major Closure Decisions From Base Closure Rounds 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005 Economic Impacts of Delayed Military Base Reuse in California; EPS #17002 Year Total Acreage Acreage Civilian Military Closed Location Name Type Acreage Disposed (1) to Dispose Jobs Lost Jobs Lost 1 1988 Victorville (San George Air Force Base Air Force 5,062 3,297 1,765 506 4,852 Bernardino Co.) 2 1988 San Bernardino Norton Air Force Base Air Force 2,221 2,163 58 2,133 4,520 3 1991 Marina Fort Ord (2) Army 27,848 15,032 12,816 2,835 13,619 4 1991 San Francisco Hunter's Point Naval Station (3) Navy 494 75 419 93 4,132 5 1991 San Diego Naval Electronic Systems Air Force 3 3 0 619 6 Engineering Center (NESEC) 6 1993 Sacramento Mather Air Force Base Air Force 5,716 1,525 4,191 1,012 1,988 7 1994 Long Beach Naval Station Long Beach (4) Navy 1,498 1,459 39 6,716 9,782 8 1994 Sunnyvale Moffett Field Naval Air Station Navy 3,097 3,097 0 633 3,359 9 1994 San Francisco Presidio Army 1,480 1,480 0 3,150 2,140 10 1995 Sacramento Sacramento Army Depot Army 485 485 0 3,164 334 11 1995 Oakland Fleet Industrial Supply Center Navy 1,089 1,048 41 276 140 12 1995 Atwater (Merced) Castle Air Force Base Air Force 2,777 2,777 0 1,149 5,239 13 1995 Oakland Oakland Army Base Army 425 425 0 1,749 0 14 1995 Novato Hamilton Army Air Field Army 1,672 1,672 0 3 26 15 1995 Sacramento McClellan Air Force Base Air Force 3,452 387 3,065 8,828 2,757 16 1996 Oakland Oak Knoll Naval Hospital Navy 183 183 0 809 1,472 17 1996 Vallejo Mare Island Naval Shipyard Navy 5,292 3,982 1,309 7,567 1,963 18 1997 San Diego Naval Training Center Navy 541 490 51 402 5,186 19 1997 Alameda Naval Air Station (5) Navy 2,676 80 2,596 3,228 10,962 20 1997 San Francisco Naval Station Treasure Island Navy 455 0 455 454 637 21 1998 Richmond Pt. Molate Naval Fuel Depot (6) Navy 413 372 41 17 86 22 1999 Irvine El Toro Marine Corps Air Station Navy 4,687 4,606 81 979 5,689 23 1999 Tustin Marine Corps Air Station Navy 1,602 1,453 149 348 3,757 2001 Ontario (L.A. Area) Ontario International Airport Air Air Force 12 12 0 n/a n/a 24 Guard Station 25 2005 Concord Naval Weapons Station Navy 12,800 5,170 5,170 n/a n/a TOTAL 85,980 51,273 32,246 46,670 82,646 2010 Riverbank Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant Army 173 0 173 146 89 2011 Long Beach USARC Long Beach Army 5 0 5 5 5 2011 Sunnyvale Onizuka AFS Army 140 0 140 171 107 TOTAL (6) 318 0 318 322 201 (1) This number represents the total number of acres disposed to all eligible agencies, including other federal agencies. (2) 811 acres have been retained by the Army. (3) 494 represents the usable number of acres at Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard; hundreds of acres are submerged and unusable. (4) Includes Long Beach Naval Shipyard. (5) Includes Naval Aviation Depot, Alameda. (6) Includes major bases only. Sources: Civilian Job Losses from GAO. Military Bases: Status of Prior Base Realignment and Closure Rounds. Dec 1998 (unless otherwise noted) Military Job Losses from California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. California Military Base Closures: Current Status of Reuse Efforts. Dec 1994 (unless otherwise noted) Report of the California Military Base Reuse Task Force to Governor Pete Wilson, A Strategic Response to Base Reuse Opportunities. Jan 1994. (Map) Department of Defense. Report Required by Section 2912 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, March 2004. Air Force Acreage Information from Gary Kuwabara, Air Force Real Property Agency. Fort Ord Information from www.fortordcleanup.com, 1/13/07. Navy Information from Web site www.navfac.navy.mil/brc/cf-bin/aboutus/acres.cfm. Navy Facilities Engineering Command Base Realignment and Closure; Disposed With Acres. Military Job Losses also from Office of Economic Adjustment. BRAC Commission 1995 Estimate of Jobs Gains/ Losses. Interviews with the City officials. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.1/30/2007 3 P:\17000s\17002Base\Model\basedata_2007 White Paper Economic Impact Analysis of Delayed Military Base Reuse in California January 29, 2007 property, many of the bases are still California based on their reuse far from realizing their ultimate potential at buildout.
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]
  • United States Air Force and Its Antecedents Published and Printed Unit Histories
    UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND ITS ANTECEDENTS PUBLISHED AND PRINTED UNIT HISTORIES A BIBLIOGRAPHY EXPANDED & REVISED EDITION compiled by James T. Controvich January 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS User's Guide................................................................................................................................1 I. Named Commands .......................................................................................................................4 II. Numbered Air Forces ................................................................................................................ 20 III. Numbered Commands .............................................................................................................. 41 IV. Air Divisions ............................................................................................................................. 45 V. Wings ........................................................................................................................................ 49 VI. Groups ..................................................................................................................................... 69 VII. Squadrons..............................................................................................................................122 VIII. Aviation Engineers................................................................................................................ 179 IX. Womens Army Corps............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Air & Space Power Journal, July-August 2012, Volume 26, No. 4
    July–August 2012 Volume 26, No. 4 AFRP 10-1 International Feature Embracing the Moon in the Sky or Fishing the Moon in the Water? ❙ 4 Some Thoughts on Military Deterrence: Its Effectiveness and Limitations Sr Col Xu Weidi, Research Fellow, Institute for Strategic Studies, National Defense University, People’s Liberation Army, China Features Toward a Superior Promotion System ❙ 24 Maj Kyle Byard, USAF, Retired Ben Malisow Col Martin E. B. France, USAF KWar ❙ 45 Cyber and Epistemological Warfare—Winning the Knowledge War by Rethinking Command and Control Mark Ashley From the Air ❙ 61 Rediscovering Our Raison D’être Dr. Adam B. Lowther Dr. John F. Farrell Departments 103 ❙ Views The Importance of Airpower in Supporting Irregular Warfare in Afghanistan ....................................... 103 Col Bernie Willi, USAF Whither the Leading Expeditionary Western Air Powers in the Twenty-First Century? .................................. 118 Group Capt Tim D. Q. Below, Royal Air Force Exchanging Business Cards: The Impact of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 on Domestic Disaster Response ........ 124 Col John L. Conway III, USAF, Retired 129 ❙ Historical Highlight Air Officer’s Education Captain Robert O’Brien 149 ❙ Ricochets & Replies 161 ❙ Book Reviews Stopping Mass Killings in Africa: Genocide, Airpower, and Intervention . .161 Douglas C. Peifer, PhD, ed. Reviewer: 2d Lt Morgan Bennett Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster . 164 Allan J. McDonald with James R. Hansen Reviewer: Mel Staffeld Allies against the Rising Sun: The United States, the British Nations, and the Defeat of Imperial Japan . 165 Nicholas Evan Sarantakes Reviewer: Lt Col John L. Minney, Alabama Air National Guard Rivals: How the Power Struggle between China, India, and Japan Will Shape Our Next Decade .
    [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]
  • The Defense Base Closure Realignment Commission
    DCN 476 THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION CONGRESSIONAL HEARING WASHINGTON, DC MONDAY, JUNE 12,1995 ROOM 345 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ROOM 345 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING TABLE OF CONTENTS Monday, June 13,1995 Tiu3 1. 1LASTER SCHEDULE -.7 YEW ,tZEAYICO 3. SOUTH C.AROLIXA 8. COLORADO C w9*COh?YECTICuT 10. FLORIDA 12. GUAM 13. .ILLINOIS 16. MAINE 17. NEW HA,WSRIRE - ., 21- - , MINNESOTA THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMlSSlON 1700 NORTH MOORE STREET SUITE 1425 ARLINGTON, VA 22209 703-696-0504 ALAN J. DIXON, CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONERS: AL CORNELLA REBECCA COX GEN J. B. DAVIS, USAF (RET) S. LEE KLlNG RADM BENJAMIN F. MONTOYA, USN (RET) MG JOSUE ROBLES. JR., USA (RE-T) WEND1 LOUISE STEELE OPENING STATEMENT CHAIRMAN ALAN J. DIXON HEARING TO RECEIVE CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Washington, DC June 13,1995 GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND WELCOME TO TODAY'S HEARING OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION. MY NAME IS ALAN J. DIXON AND I AM CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION. WITH US TODAY ARE MY COLLEAGUES, COMMISSIONERS AL CORNELLA, REBECCA COX, S. LEE KLING, JOE ROBLES, AND WEND1 STEELE. OTHER COMMISSIONERS WILL BE COMING A LITTLE LATER AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, THIS COMMISSION IS HEADING INTO THE FINAL THREE WEEKS OF ITS DIFFICULT AND UNPLEASANT TASK OF ql RECOMMENDING TO THE PRESIDENT WHICH DOMESTIC MILITARY BASES SHOULD BE CLOSED OR REALIGNED. SINCE WE RECEIVED THE CLOSURE LIST FROM SECRETARY PERRY 15 WEEKS AGO, THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE HELD TEN HEARINGS HERE IN WASHINGTON, 16 REGIONAL HEARINGS AROUND THE COUNTRY, AND MADE ALMOST 200 VISITS TO SOME 75 MILITARY BASES.
    [Show full text]
  • HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES-Tuesday, August 7, 1984
    22660 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE August 7, 1984 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Tuesday, August 7, 1984 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. Fort Jackson, South Carolina, $35, 760,000. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 5604 Fort Knox, Kentucky, $13, 600, 000. Cold Regions Laboratory, New Hampshire, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, $11,000,000. $3,600,000. Pursuant to the order of Monday, Fort Lee, Virginia, $1,150,000. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM COMMAND August 6, Mr. PRICE submitted the fol­ Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, $6,450,000. lowing conference report and state­ Fort McClellan, Alabama, $6,300,000. Various locations, $12,800,000. ment on the bill <H.R. 5604) to author­ Fort Pickett, Virginia, $2,400,000. CLASSIFIED PROJECTS Fort Rucker, Alabama, $2,600,000. Various locations, $3,800,000. ize certain construction at military in­ Fort Sill, Oklahoma, $27,400,000. stallations for fiscal year 1985, and for Fort Story, Virginia, $6,100,000. OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES other purposes: MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON UNITED STATES ARMY, JAPAN CONFERENCE REPORT CH. REPT. No. 98-962) Fort Myer, Virginia, $700,000. Japan, $1,900,000. The committee of conference on the dis­ UNITED STATES ARMY MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT EIGHTH UNITED STATES ARMY agreeing votes of the two Houses on the AND READINESS COMMAND Korea, $115,840,000. amendment of the Senate to the bill <H.R. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, UNITED STATES ARMY, SOUTHERN COMMAND 5604) to authorize certain construction at $65,400,000. Military installations for fiscal year 1985, Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, Honduras, $4,300,000. and for other purposes, having met, after $4,500,000.
    [Show full text]
  • SOURCE LIST APPLICATION TO: (Enter Name & Address of Exchange Purchasing Activity) DATE
    ARMY & AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE SOURCE LIST APPLICATION TO: (enter name & address of Exchange purchasing activity) DATE INITIAL APPLICATION REVISED APPLICATION SECTION I - GENERAL This is an application to be added to the Exchange source file to provide the merchandise, food, supplies, equipment, services or construction indicated herein. Send an application to all Exchange activities where you desire to be included in the source file. The application must be signed by an officer of your firm. If you fail to respond to solicitations or presolicitation notices it will be understood by the Exchange to indicate lack of interest and concurrence in the removal of your name from the source files for the items/services concerned. SECTION II - SOURCE FILE DATA FIRM NAME & ADDRESS (enter complete address, including PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO COMMIT YOUR FIRM CONTRACTUALLY zip code, actual street address preferred) NAME TITLE EMAIL a. b. c. E-MAIL: (required) TIN NO. DUNS NO. TELEPHONE NO. FAX NO. TYPE OF ORGANIZATION TYPE OF BUSINESS INDIVIDUAL MANUFACTURER OR PRODUCER ADDRESS TO WHICH SOLICITATIONS ARE TO BE MAILED (If different from above) PARTNERSHIP REGULAR DEALER CORPORATION, INCORPORATION SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT IN THE STATE OR COUNTRY OF CONSTRUCTION FIRM OTHER (specify): OTHER (specify): TYPE OF OWNERSHIP: (check only where the contract is to be performed in the United States, its possessions and Puerto Rico) VETERAN-OWNED BUSINESS MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (see definition below & check appropriate box) WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS SMALL BUSINESS TOTAL SALES FOR LAST (see definition below) TWELVE MONTHS SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS YES NO (see definition below) OTHER SERVICE DISABLED VETERAN-OWNED BUSINESS INDICATE IF OWNER OR OFFICER IS ACTIVE The term "minority business" means a business concern (1) which is at least 51 percent YES NO MILITARY, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Extensions of Remarks E679 EXTENSIONS of REMARKS
    April 28, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Ð Extensions of Remarks E679 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS RECOGNIZING OCCUPATIONAL A TRIBUTE TO REDLANDS POLICE CELEBRATING THE 60TH BIRTH- THERAPY MONTH CHIEF, LEWIS NELSON DAY OF REVEREND NORMA JEAN PENDER HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN OF FLORIDA HON. JERRY LEWIS HON. DEBBIE STABENOW IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA OF MICHIGAN Tuesday, April 28, 1998 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, in honor Tuesday, April 28, 1998 Tuesday, April 28, 1998 of Occupational Therapy month, I would like to Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today recognize Occupational Therapists nationwide Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I to pay special tribute to Reverend Norma Jean for the wonderful work they do on a daily would like to bring to your attention today the Pender who is celebrating her 60th birthday. basis to help Americans regain their full phys- fine work and outstanding public service of my For thirty-five years, Ms. Pender has served ical capabilities. I would like to recognize Con- good friend, Lewis W. Nelson, the Chief of Po- the people of Michigan and has been a tire- tinued Care Corporation of Miami which will lice for the City of Redlands, California. After less leader for the community. Ms. Pender re- soon be celebrating the opening of its Reha- a long and distinguished career, Chief Nelson ceived her license to preach the Gospel in the bilitation Division and will become part of this is retiring and will be recognized for his many Christian Episcopal Church in 1974, and was wonderful network of occupational therapy years of service at a banquet in his honor on ordained in 1978 by the late Bishop E.P.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 42/Thursday, March 3, 2016
    11212 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2016 / Notices TABLE 2—CONCENTRATION LIMITS OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS THAT ARE HAZARDOUS AT LESS THAN 0.001 Mg/L— Continued Concentration Concentration Health based limit at the reduction Chemical constituent Waste code limit wellhead factor (mg/L) (mg/L) ) (Note 2) (C/C0 2-Methylpyridine ............................................. U191 ............................................................... 2.0 × 10¥3 1,000 2.0 × 10¥6 3-Methylpyridine ............................................. Note 2 ............................................................. 1.0 × 10¥6 1,000 1.0 × 10¥9 Nickel .............................................................. F006 ............................................................... 0.001 100 1.0 × 10¥5 Nicotinonitrile .................................................. Note 2 ............................................................. 6.0 × 10¥6 6,000 1.0 × 10¥9 Nitrilotiracetonitrile .......................................... Note 2 ............................................................. 1.0 × 10¥6 1,000 1.0 × 10¥9 Nitrobenzene .................................................. U169 ............................................................... 1.8 × 10¥2 100 1.8 × 10¥4 Oleic acid ........................................................ Note 2 ............................................................. 1.0 × 10¥6 1,000 1.0 × 10¥9 Oleoylsarconsinate ......................................... Note 2 ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Better to Give Than Throw Away Commissaries Pass 21M-Pound Mark in Donations to Local Food Banks by Deca Corporate Communications
    NEWS RELEASE Defense Commissary Agency Corporate Communications 1300 E Avenue, Fort Lee, VA 23801-1800 Tel: (804) 734-8000, Ext. 8-6105 DSN: 687-8000, Ext. 8-6105 FAX: (804) 734-8248 DSN: 687-8248 www.commissaries.com Release Number: 09-20 Date: January 23, 2020 Media Contact: Kevin L. Robinson, public affairs specialist Tel.: (804) 734-8000, Ext. 4-8773 E-mail: [email protected] Better to give than throw away Commissaries pass 21M-pound mark in donations to local food banks By DeCA Corporate Communications Note: Go to the DeCA website to view this news release online. FORT LEE, Va. – Military commissaries would rather fill a food bank than a landfill. That’s the mindset of the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) as it announces a new milestone in donations – 21 million pounds plus – to local food banks. DeCA reached this mark in donations over a five-year period; 5 million pounds of it coming in 2019 alone. The donated items are certified by food inspectors as being edible but unsellable, said Randy Eller, director of the agency’s logistics directorate. “Instead of edible food being discarded in trash bins, we’re using it to help feed the hungry,” Eller said. “I’m proud that we can connect with food banks to make that happen.” Although DeCA always had limited authority to request food bank approval to donate edible but unsaleable products, the agency’s formal food donation program emerged after the 2013 government shutdown. As the agency prepared to close its stateside commissaries on Oct. 2 of that year, they requested temporary approval from the Department of Defense (DOD) to donate edible food, especially perishables, to local food banks to avoid dumping it in the trash.
    [Show full text]
  • USAF MAJOR INSTALLATIONS BASE FACT SHEETS G.:F..He B*",*-..'T," DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE and REALIGNMENTCOMMISSIOP~ 1700 NORTH MOORE STREET SUITE 1425 2
    DCN 1117 USAF MAJOR INSTALLATIONS BASE FACT SHEETS g.:F..he b*",*-..'t," DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENTCOMMISSIOP~ 1700 NORTH MOORE STREET SUITE 1425 2 . 5 -'.. *.s ARLINGTON. VA 22209 +w-' lwy& 703-696-0504 &-L ", -e ',;, e n!er to this when wr~ty~~r~d%Qa_tctt\ February 13, 1995 ,----- Headquarters USAF/RT 1670 Air Force Pentagon Washington D.C. 20330-1670 Dear General Blume: To enhance the background knowledge of the Air Force Team members on the current Air Force hfhmwture, we request Base Fact Sheets on individual major installations located within the US.be fo'mded to the commission at your earliest convenience. These fact sheets are a standard product prepared by the Air Force's Bases and Units Division of the Directorate of Operations and are used by Air Force leaders and congressional representatives for information purposes. The fact sheets contain only current information pertaining to the bases, i.e., location, major units assigned, manpower authorizations, congressionally announced ehanges, and the most i cumnt MILCON programs as approved or submitted to Congress. The information will stbe 1 used as m@ed data in the analysis of the DOD closure and realignment recommendations to be ....... on March 1, 1995. \ Thank you for your support in this request. SZ&. F cis A. ~rillo. Air Force Team ~eader FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY USAF BASE FACT SHEET w ALTUS AIR FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA MAJCOM/LOCATION/SIZE: AETC base in Altus with 3,878 acres MAJOR UNITSIFORCE STRUCTURE: 97th Air Mobility Wing -- Provides formal airlift and tanker training -- 6 C-5A, 12 C-141B, and 24 KC-135R USAF MANPOWER AUTHORIZATIONS: (As of FY 9512) MILITARY--Am CIVILIAN TOTAL ANNOUNCED ACTIONS: The 97th Air Mobility Wing will lose 1 C-141B aircraft in midl-1995.
    [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]