The Cost of Supporting Military Bases

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Cost of Supporting Military Bases CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE The Cost of Supporting Military Bases NOVEMBER 2019 At a Glance The Department of Defense operates hundreds of military bases and similar installations that host military units and support their daily operations, provid- ing services such as housing, utilities, and grounds maintenance. This report analyzes the relationship between the cost of those services—also referred to as base operations support (BOS)—and specific characteristics of a base, such as its population and physical size. The key findings of the Congressional Budget Office include the following: • BOS costs are strongly related to the number of a base’s employees and its square footage of building space. • With other base characteristics unchanged, BOS costs associated with an increase in population were lower at larger bases than at smaller bases. For example, in 2016 BOS costs increased by $1,000 for each employee added to bases with 25,000 or more employees, but they increased by $14,000 at bases with 5,000 or fewer employees. That finding implies that it would be more cost-effective to expand the population at larger bases than at smaller ones, everything else being equal. • Other characteristics that affect BOS costs at a base are the branch of service that operates it, the mission of the units that it hosts, its location (inside or outside the United States), and its climate, although the effects of those characteristics are not as significant. www.cbo.gov/publication/55849 Contents Summary 1 What Data Did CBO Use to Analyze the Cost of Base Operations Support? 1 What Did CBO Find? 1 What Are Some Limitations of CBO’s Analysis? 1 BOX 1. WHAT IS BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT? 2 Background 2 Military Bases 2 DoD’s Budget and Its Spending on Base Operations Support 3 Bases CBO Analyzed 4 How CBO Analyzed Base Operations Support for Each Base 5 Characteristics CBO Analyzed 5 Characteristics CBO Did Not Analyze 7 Data and Sources 7 CBO’s Findings 8 How a Base’s Size Related to Its Support Costs 8 How Additional Personnel and Building Space Correlated With BOS Costs 10 How Other Characteristics Related to BOS Costs 10 Possible Uses of CBO’s Results 12 BOX 2. PERSONNEL AND BUILDING SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF ARMY BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS 14 Appendix A: CBO’s Statistical Model for Estimating the Costs of Base Operations Support 17 Appendix B: Estimated Change in Base Operations Support When Units Move Inside or Outside the United States 21 List of Tables and Figures 25 About This Document 26 Notes The years referred to in this report are federal fiscal years, which run from October 1 to September 30 and are designated by the calendar year in which they end. All costs are expressed in 2019 dollars and are adjusted for inflation using the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s gross domestic product price index. Numbers in the text, tables, and figures may not add up to totals because of rounding. On the cover: Upper left: Base honor guard airmen stand in front of a B-52 Stratofortress at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sergeant Bennie J. Davis III. Upper right: The Los Angeles-class fast-attack submarine USS Springfield makes its homecoming arrival at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Michael Zingaro. Lower right: Marines from Fox Company, 2nd Recruit Training Battalion, march across the parade deck during a graduation ceremony at Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego. Marine Corps photo by Lance Corporal Angelica I. Annastas. Bottom: Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Army Corps of Engineers photo by Jonas N. Jordan. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Army. The Cost of Supporting Military Bases Summary CBO found that, with other characteristics unchanged, The Department of Defense (DoD) operates hundreds of the increase in BOS costs associated with an increase in bases that support the daily operations of units in the Air population was smaller at larger bases than at smaller Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy, providing services bases. For example, the average BOS costs associated such as housing, utilities, and grounds maintenance, with adding an employee at extremely large bases much as might be found in a town or city (see Box 1 (25,000 or more employees) were $1,000; the cor- for a more detailed description of those services). In responding increase in BOS costs at very small bases 2016, $25 billion—about 4 percent of DoD’s budget— (5,000 or fewer employees) was $14,000. CBO also was allocated to the costs of such services, called base found that adding 1,000 square feet of building space operations support (BOS). The costs of providing such was, on average, associated with an increase of about support vary between bases, and the factors that affect $4,000 in annual BOS costs, regardless of a base’s size. those costs are not clearly understood. In this report, the Congressional Budget Office explores certain characteris- CBO’s results could be used to anticipate how BOS costs tics of bases, such as their size, geographic location, and would change if units were relocated between bases, the mission of the units they serve, and uses statistical new units were added, or existing units were disbanded. methods to assess the relationship between those charac- Because CBO’s analysis suggests that BOS costs would teristics and BOS costs. increase less if units were added to large bases rather than to smaller ones, relocating units from smaller bases What Data Did CBO Use to Analyze the Cost of Base to larger ones would reduce overall BOS costs in many Operations Support? cases. Conversely, relocating units from larger bases to CBO assembled 2016 data on more than 200 bases smaller ones would generally increase those costs, all (about 90 percent of active-duty bases) in all four other things being equal. (Creating a new unit and add- services. The characteristics CBO measured include the ing it to any base would, of course, increase overall BOS number of full-time DoD employees at a base, its build- costs.) ing space, and its land area. Other characteristics CBO considered include the base’s location (in the United What Are Some Limitations of CBO’s Analysis? States or overseas), the branch of service running it, the CBO’s analysis did not account for all base character- primary mission of the units it hosts, whether it hosts istics that were potentially relevant because sufficient a significant number of transient personnel, the local data for some characteristics were not available or were climate, and the local cost of living. difficult to measure. The omitted characteristics include the number of family members on the base; the age of What Did CBO Find? buildings and other infrastructure; the number and type After analyzing all of the characteristics it identified, of BOS services; the intensity of operations (intensity CBO found five that were clearly connected to a base’s is higher, for example, when units are mobilizing for BOS costs: its size, primary mission, branch of service, deployment); the portion of building space used for location, and the climate extremes that it experiences family housing (the cost to operate and maintain family (including precipitation and temperature). Of the five housing is funded through a separate appropriation); and characteristics, the one most strongly related to BOS the quality or standard of BOS services (higher standards costs is size, in terms of both the number of employees are expected to cost more). and the amount of building space a base has. 2 THE COST OF SUPPORTING MILITARY BASES NOVEMBER 2019 Box 1 . What Is Base Operations Support? Military bases and similar installations are an important part of ■ Mission Support. To support the operations of military the support infrastructure that enables combat and noncombat units they host, bases operate airfields, ports, and train- units to prepare for their missions. Although their physical ing ranges and provide other support to transient military size depends on the needs of the units they host, most bases aircraft and air crews. provide similar basic services, referred to as base operations ■ Administrative Services. This category of services sup- support (BOS). BOS services are funded through the Depart- ports the staff and personnel management of the hosted ment of Defense’s operation and maintenance appropriation. military units and other organizations on the base. Such BOS services support troops in a number of ways: services include public affairs, financial management, legal, contracting, and other administrative services. ■ Facility Services. Services include those a city might provide to its citizens, such as operations and maintenance ■ Other Support. Other services support workforce produc- of utility and sanitation systems, equipment maintenance, tivity, the distribution of goods and personnel, and security. fire protection, crash rescue, custodial services, refuse Such services include information technology, communi- collection and disposal, snow removal, street sweeping, cations (such as telephone service), and logistics (supply grounds maintenance, and insect control. BOS services in operations and shuttle buses, for example). this category also include engineering services, leases of Long-term capital expenditures to sustain, restore, and mod- real property, security such as physical barriers and police ernize facilities at bases are not included in BOS costs and are services, environmental conservation, and pollution preven- funded through a separate budget account. In addition, units’ tion programs. direct costs, such as the pay of military personnel and the ■ Personnel Support. These services support the daily life operation and maintenance of their weapon systems, are not of service members and their families. They include dining included in BOS costs.
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]
  • Major Commands and Air National Guard
    2019 USAF ALMANAC MAJOR COMMANDS AND AIR NATIONAL GUARD Pilots from the 388th Fighter Wing’s, 4th Fighter Squadron prepare to lead Red Flag 19-1, the Air Force’s premier combat exercise, at Nellis AFB, Nev. Photo: R. Nial Bradshaw/USAF R.Photo: Nial The Air Force has 10 major commands and two Air Reserve Components. (Air Force Reserve Command is both a majcom and an ARC.) ACRONYMS AA active associate: CFACC combined force air evasion, resistance, and NOSS network operations security ANG/AFRC owned aircraft component commander escape specialists) squadron AATTC Advanced Airlift Tactics CRF centralized repair facility GEODSS Ground-based Electro- PARCS Perimeter Acquisition Training Center CRG contingency response group Optical Deep Space Radar Attack AEHF Advanced Extremely High CRTC Combat Readiness Training Surveillance system Characterization System Frequency Center GPS Global Positioning System RAOC regional Air Operations Center AFS Air Force Station CSO combat systems officer GSSAP Geosynchronous Space ROTC Reserve Officer Training Corps ALCF airlift control flight CW combat weather Situational Awareness SBIRS Space Based Infrared System AOC/G/S air and space operations DCGS Distributed Common Program SCMS supply chain management center/group/squadron Ground Station ISR intelligence, surveillance, squadron ARB Air Reserve Base DMSP Defense Meteorological and reconnaissance SBSS Space Based Surveillance ATCS air traffic control squadron Satellite Program JB Joint Base System BM battle management DSCS Defense Satellite JBSA Joint Base
    [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]
  • COVID-19 Travel Restrictions Installation Status Update
    As of May 17, 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 202 of 230 Installations (88%) (Met: Step 1 & Step 2) Of the 202 installations with lifted travel restrictions this week, 0 reinstated travel restrictions while 6 lifted restrictions. 1 of 8 As of May 17, 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 No 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.
    [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]
  • Use Case Analysis: Military Installations Prepared for the U.S
    MICROREACTORS IN ALASKA Use Case Analysis: Military Installations Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. 221330 Prepared by The University of Alaska Center for Economic Development October 2020 ua-ced.org Table of Contents Alaskan Defense Installations Customer Analysis ......................................................................................................2 Population and Demographics ...............................................................................................................................3 Current Energy Systems .........................................................................................................................................4 Investigating Alternatives .......................................................................................................................................5 Microreactor Themes and Perspectives .................................................................................................................6 Use Case: A Hypothetical Military Installation ...........................................................................................................7 Region and Climate .................................................................................................................................................7 Energy System ........................................................................................................................................................7 Energy Technology Market Drivers ........................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to the Pentagon • 2021 Foreward 2021 Orientation and Guide
    WELCOME TO THE PENTAGON • 2021 FOREWARD 2021 ORIENTATION AND GUIDE PENTAGON RESERVATION COVID-19 OPERATIONS Right now, the Pentagon is operating in a unique COVID-19 environment. The Department of Defense (DoD) implemented precautionary measures when the COVID-19 pandemic began and continues to monitor and assess the situation carefully with the assistance of expert guidance from the Centers for Disease Control, and local, state, and federal authorities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Pentagon Reservation adopted the Department’s Health Protection Condition framework known as HPCON levels. They range from Alpha to Delta, and each one has specific guidelines for employees to follow. You will find a detailed list of these guidelines on the Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) website: www.WHS.mil. Hours of operation and Operating Status for certain services on the Pentagon Reservation are subject to change. Log on to www.whs.mil/ coronavius for most up to date information. Stay safe, stay healthy and welcome to the Pentagon. 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS PENTAGON RESERVATION COVID-19 OPERATIONS 3 THE PENTAGON RESERVATION 9 TRANSPORTATION 11 METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT OPTIONS ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................11 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES TRANSPORTAION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OFFICE (WHS TMPO) .......................................................................................11
    [Show full text]