DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix a Field Logs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix a Field Logs APPENDIX A FIELD LOGS APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-1 Test Pit- 141EP001 – Orientated: West - East Length – 13 ft; Width – 3 ft; Depth – 9 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-2 Test Pit- 141EP002 – Debris in Bottom and sidewalls. Orientation: West - East Length – 35 ft; Width – 10 ft; Depth – 15 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-3 Test Pit-141EP002 – Encountered debris included glass bottles, burned paper and wood, rusted metal, decomposing aluminum, wire, ceramics, brick, plastic, ash, and pipes. Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-4 Test Pit- 141EP003 – Orientation: West - East Length – 60 ft; Width – 5 ft; Depth – 15 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-5 Test Pit- 141EP003 – Encountered debris included glass bottles and jars, metal wire, construction debris, burned wood, plastic bread wrappers. Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-6 Test Pit- 141EP004 – Debris in bottom and sidewalls Orientation: South - North Length – 25 ft; Width – 6 ft; Depth – 13 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-7 Test Pit-141EP004 – Encountered debris included glass bottles, broken glass, rusted metal, wire, burned paper and wood, and plastic. Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-8 Test Pit-141EP005 – No debris, waste, or contamination observed. Orientation: West - East Length – 12 ft; Width – 3 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-9 Test Pit-141EP006 – No debris, waste, or contamination observed. Orientation: East - West Length – 13 ft; Width – 4 ft; Depth – 10 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph – B-10 Test Pit-141EP007 – Surface debris and staining in sidewalls. Orientation: East - West Length – 13 ft; Width – 3 ft; Depth – 8 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-11 Test Pit-141EP007 – Encountered abundant surface debris and a dark grayish brown stained zone in sidewall intermixed with asphalt chunks. Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-12 Test Pit- 141EP008 – Debris in bottom and sidewalls Orientation: East - West Length – 54 ft; Width – 10 ft; Depth – 13 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-13 Test Pit-141EP008 – Encountered debris included glass bottles, rusted metal, wire, ash, ceramics, wood, pipe, radio tubes, and decomposing aluminum. Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-14 Test Pit- 141EP009 – No debris, waste, or contamination observed. Orientation: South - North Length – 15 ft; Width – 3 ft; Depth – 9 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-15 Test Pit- 141EP010 – No debris, waste, or contamination observed. Orientation: East - West Length – 13 ft; Width – 4 ft; Depth – 8 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-16 Test Pit- 141EP011 – Debris in bottom and sidewalls Orientation: West - East Length – 50 ft; Width – 5 ft; Depth – 6.5 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-17 Test Pit- 141EP011 – Encountered debris included ash, burned wood, broken glass, glass bottles, steel metal, wire, insulation, tin cans, and rubber. Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-18 Test Pit- 141EP012 – Thin zone of debris in sidewall. Orientation: East - West Length – 40 ft; Width – 3 ft; Depth – 5 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-19 Test Pit- 141EP012 – Encountered debris included rusted metal, 35mm film, wood, Styrofoam, sandwich wrappers, wire, plastic bucket, automotive metal, melted rubber, foam insulation, and glass insulation. Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-20 Test Pit-141EP013 – No debris, waste, or contamination observed. Orientation: East - West Length – 12 ft; Width – 4.5 ft; Depth – 8 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-21 Test Pit-141EP014 – No debris, waste, or contamination observed. Orientation: West - East Length – 12 ft; Width – 4 ft; Depth – 5 ft Appendix B – Test pits Photograph B-22 Test Pit- 141EP015 – No debris, waste, or contamination observed. Orientation: East - West Length – 12 ft; Width – 3 ft; Depth – 9 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-23 Soil Boring- 041SB001 – 0 – 11 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-24 Soil Boring- 141SB001 – 11 – 15.5 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-25 Soil Boring- 141SB001 – 15.5 – 20 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-26 Soil Boring- 141SB001 – 20 – 24.5 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-27 Soil Boring- 141SB001 – 24.5 - 29 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-28 Soil Boring- 141SB001 – 29 – 30.5 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-29 Soil Boring- 141SB002 Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-30 Soil Boring- 141SB002 – 0 – 12 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-31 Soil Boring- 141SB002 – 12 – 16.5 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-32 Soil Boring- 141SB002 – 16.5 – 21 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-33 Soil Boring- 141SB002 –21 – 25.5 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-34 Soil Boring- 141SB002 –25.5 – 30 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-35 Soil Boring- 141SB002 –30 – 31.5 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-36 Soil Boring- 141SB002 –30 – 33 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-37 Soil Boring- 141SB003 –0 – 5 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-38 Soil Boring- 141SB003 –5 – 9.5 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-39 Soil Boring- 141SB003 –9.5 – 14 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-40 Soil Boring- 141SB003 –14 – 18.5 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-41 Soil Boring- 141SB003 –18.5 – 23 ft Appendix B – soil borings Photograph B-42 Soil Boring- 141SB003 –23 – 24.5 ft APPENDIX C ANALYTICAL DATA AND QUALITY CONTROL TABLES Final RCRA Facility Investigation Report for YPG-141 U.S. Army Garrison Yuma Proving Ground Revision 0, March 2013 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS C.1 PRECISION ................................................................................. C-1 C.1.1 Field Duplicates ................................................................ C-1 C.1.2 Matrix Spike Duplicates .................................................... C-2 C.2 ACCURACY ................................................................................ C-3 C.3 REPRESENTATION ................................................................... C-3 C.3.1 Holding Time ..................................................................... C-4 C.3.2 Field Blanks ...................................................................... C-4 C.4 ANALYTICAL COMPLETENESS ............................................... C-5 C.5 SUMMARY OF QUALIFIED RESULTS ...................................... C-5 C.5.1 Minor Data Quality Issues ................................................. C-5 C.5.2 Major Data Quality Issue - Acetone and Methyl Ethyl Ketone Results ................................................................. C-6 C.5.2.1 Introduction ....................................................... C-6 C.5.2.2 Methods ............................................................ C-8 C.5.2.3 Results .............................................................. C-9 C.5.2.4 Discussion ........................................................ C-9 C.6 DATA QUALITY CONCLUSIONS ............................................ C-10 LIST OF TABLES C.1 Analytical Data C.2 USEPA Flags for Analytical Data C.3 RFI Field Duplicate Results for Soil C.4 Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate Results C.5 Results Qualified Due to Field Blank Contamination C.6 Equipment Blank Detected Results i Final RCRA Facility Investigation Report for YPG-141 U.S. Army Garrison Yuma Proving Ground Revision 0, March 2013 APPENDIX C DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT The purpose of this section is to assess the analytical data quality for the soil samples collected in support of the YPG-141 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI). Site-specific quality control (QC) issues are discussed here in terms of precision, accuracy, representation, comparability, and completeness. Data, including data validation flags, are presented in Table C.1. Table C.2 contains explanatory information for Table C.1. QC data are presented beginning with Table C.3. C.1 PRECISION Precision is controlled through the use of field duplicates and matrix spike duplicates. C.1.1 Field Duplicates In accordance with Section A.3.5 of the QAPP (Appendix A of Parsons, 2010), field duplicates are required at a rate of one per 20 samples of the same matrix. Field duplicate frequency was measured program-wide and not per individual site. Thirty-two soil samples were collected at this site during the RFI. One field duplicate was collected associated with these samples. However, a total of 14 field duplicates were collected in association with 240 normal field samples collected program-wide at the inactive landfills and Muggins Mountain OB/OD sites. Therefore, overall field duplicate frequency was met for the RFI. Table C.3 presents the results of the field duplicate sample (141EP012) collected at this site. The field duplicate acceptance limit is defined as 35 Relative Percent Difference (RPD) for soil samples. If excessive exceedances of the RPD limit are identified, required action is to evaluate the sampling program to determine if field sampling protocols are being followed and implement corrective action if required. One hundred and fifty-nine distinct analytes were tested for in the one field duplicate, generating 168 duplicate pair results (the greater number of results comes from the same analytes being tested for in two methods). Soil test panels included: volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), explosives, and metals. The RPD is evaluated when C-1 Final RCRA Facility Investigation Report for YPG-141 U.S. Army Garrison Yuma Proving Ground Revision 0, March
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 3D Terrain Virtual Databases
    3D Terrain Virtual Databases MetaVR Continental US Plus Alaska and Hawaii (CONUS++) 3D Terrain MetaVR Africa, Asia, Australia & Oceania, Europe, North America, and South America 3D Terrain © 2018 MetaVR, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Virtual Reality Scene Generator, VRSG, and Metadesic are trademarks of MetaVR, Inc. Esri and ArcGIS are registered trademarks of Esri. Virtual Kismayo, Somalia Kismayo, Somalia Terrain Specifications Imagery coverage = 50 cm per-pixel Digital Globe (GeoEye-1) satellite imagery covering 1,017 sq km of the southern Somalia port city and are blended into 15 meters-per-pixel (mpp) natural view imagery Elevation coverage = SRTM void filled elevation source data. Cultural features MetaVR’s terrain is populated with hundreds of geographically specific culture models built from ground-level photographs taken on the streets of Kismayo. In addition to these geolocated and photographically specific models of buildings and other structures, several hundred other buildings were modeled by matching the structural footprints visible in the imagery as geographically typical models with culturally and architecturally accurate details. MetaVR’s virtual city contains varied terrain representative of important training environments, from a built-up port to dense urban streets to a sparsely populated outer region that includes a commercial airport. Virtual Afghanistan Village Imagery coverage The overall imagery resolution of the virtual terrain of the whole country is 2.5 meters per pixel. The terrain, built Cultural features with MetaVR’s Terrain Tools for Esri® ArcGIS®, includes an area of 1,120 sq. km of 60 cm Digital Globe commercial The village area has approximately 520 custom-built 3D structures that match the building satellite source imagery and 90 meter elevation posts.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 81 Monday, No. 142 July 25, 2016 Pages 48315–48686
    Vol. 81 Monday, No. 142 July 25, 2016 Pages 48315–48686 OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER VerDate Sep 11 2014 20:54 Jul 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\25JYWS.LOC 25JYWS asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER II Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2016 The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions: Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Email [email protected] Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the Phone 202–741–6000 issuing agency requests earlier filing.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Reuse in the West (2011)
    WATER REUSE IN THE WEST: STATE PROGRAMS AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES A Report Compiled by the Western States Water Council Nathan S. Bracken, Legal Counsel July 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction …………………………………………..………………………………........... 3 State Summaries ……………………………………………………….................................. 4 Alaska ………………………………………………………………………………... 4 Arizona ………………………………………………………………………............. 4 California ……………………………………………………………………………. 11 Colorado ……………………………………………………………………………... 16 Idaho …………………………………………………………………………………. 19 Kansas ……………………………………………………………………………….. 22 Montana ……………………………………………………………………………... 26 Nebraska …………………………………………………………………………….. 27 Nevada ……………………………………………………………………………….. 29 New Mexico ………………………………………………………………………….. 30 North Dakota ………………………………………………………………………... 34 Oklahoma ……………………………………………………………………………. 35 Oregon ……………………………………………………………………………….. 36 South Dakota ………………………………………………………………………... 44 Texas …………………………………………………………………………………. 46 Utah ………………………………………………………………………………….. 50 Washington ………………………………………………………………………….. 53 Wyoming …………………………………………………………………………….. 60 Conclusion ……………………………...……………………………………………………. 62 Appendix A – Table of State Legal and Regulatory Frameworks……………………...... 64 Appendix B – State Reuse Project Inventories...……………………..………………….... 72 Arizona……………………………………………………………………………….. 73 California…………………………………………………………………………….. 80 Colorado……………………………………………………………………………… 81 Idaho………………………………………………………………………………….. 82 Nevada………………………………………………………………………………... 85 New Mexico…………………………………………………………………………..
    [Show full text]
  • Closure of Jefferson Proving Ground, Indiana, and Realignment to Yuma
    ___ - CLOSURE OF JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND INDIANA AND REALIGNMENT TO YUMA PROVING GROUND ARIZONA li 'J.fI..,o. Pre.1. VOLUME 1 OF 2 *YE=. GI.".] Pre.1. TEXT G,...d Final ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT . I STATEMENT September 1991 - . CLOSURE OF JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND, INDIANA AND REALIGNMENT TO WMA PROVING GROUND, ARIZONA Prepared by: Reviewed by: Louisville District U.S. Amy U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Materiel Command yy\C .- David E. Peixotto William 8. McCrath Colonel, Corps of Engineers Major General, US. Army Commander Chief of Staff Recommended for Approval by: Department of the Army Office of the Chief of Staff William A. Stofft Mabr General, General Staff Director of Management Approved by: Office of the Secretary of the Amy & 6,D& Lewis D. Walker Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Amy (Environment, Safety and Occupational Health) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CLOSURE OF JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND, INDlANA AND REALlGNMENT TO Wh4A PROVING GROUND, ARIZONA LEAD AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S.Amy Materiel Command (AMC); TITLE OFTHE PROPOSED ACTION Closure of Jefferson Proving Ground, Indiana and Realignment to Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona AFFECTED JURISDICTION: Jefferson Proving Ground: Jefferson, Jennings and 1Zipk-y Counties, Indiana. Yuma Proving Ground: Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona PREPARED BY David E. Peixotto, Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Commander, US. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District, P.O. Box 59, Louisville, KY 40201-0059 REVIEWED BY: William 8. McCrath, Major General, Chief of Staff, US. Army Matericl Command RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY Williim A. Stofft, Major General, General Staff, Director of Management, Office of the Chief of Staff, Department of the Army APPROVED BY Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Yuma Proving Ground HAER No. Klr-3 Yuma County HA£Lpv Arizona
    Yuma Proving Ground HAER No. klr-3 Yuma County HA£LPv Arizona * WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA Historic American Engineering Record National Park Service Departmentt of the Interior Washington',' DC 20013-7127 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD Yuma Proving Ground AZ-5 Location: In southwestern Arizona in Yuma County/ east of the Colorado River. Date of Construction: Established in 1942. Owner: Department of the Army Significance: Yuma Proving Ground was established during World War II by the Corps of Engineers for the testing of a new floating bridge. In 1951, the facility shifted in emphasis to become a testing center for many types of Army equipment, from tanks to water purification units, Historical Report Prepared by: William Brenner, 1984 Prepared for Transmittal by: Robie S. Lange, HABS/HAER, 1985. Yuma Proving Grounds HAER No. A2-5 page 5, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Yuma Proving Ground, part of the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, occupies 838,174 acres in southwestern Arizona. The installation conducts artillery, aircraft, and desert mobility tests, as well as various environmental tests. It contains a highly instrumented multipurpose aircraft armament testing range, vehicular test courses, amphibious testing areas, and a large gunnery range. The origins of the proving ground date from 1942, when the land it now occupies was included in Maneuver Area B of General George S. Patton's Desert Training Center, renamed the California-Arizona Maneuver Area in 1943. One of the training center's six temporary division tent camps, Camp Laguna, was located on the site of the present Mobility Test Area. In early 1943, the Army Corps of Engineers began testing a new floating bridge on the Colorado River below Imperial Dam, several miles northwest of Camp Laguna.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Military Regional Compatibility Project Policy
    This study was prepared under contract with the Arizona Department of Commerce with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. Policy Guidebook Arizona military regional compatibility project July 2006 Prepared for: Prepared by: This document was prepared under contract with the Arizona Department of Commerce with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................1-1 2. OVERVIEW OF ARIZONA’S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS .....................................................................2-1 3. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY...............................................3-1 4. REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE .................................................................................4-1 5. TRENDS AND ISSUES ...........................................................5-1 6. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR COMPATIBLE LAND USE..................................................................... 6-1 On behalf of the Arizona Department of Commerce, sincere appreciation is extended to the dedicated staff from communities, counties and military installations across the state of Arizona who participated in the development and research of
    [Show full text]
  • KODY LOTNISK ICAO Niniejsze Zestawienie Zawiera 8372 Kody Lotnisk
    KODY LOTNISK ICAO Niniejsze zestawienie zawiera 8372 kody lotnisk. Zestawienie uszeregowano: Kod ICAO = Nazwa portu lotniczego = Lokalizacja portu lotniczego AGAF=Afutara Airport=Afutara AGAR=Ulawa Airport=Arona, Ulawa Island AGAT=Uru Harbour=Atoifi, Malaita AGBA=Barakoma Airport=Barakoma AGBT=Batuna Airport=Batuna AGEV=Geva Airport=Geva AGGA=Auki Airport=Auki AGGB=Bellona/Anua Airport=Bellona/Anua AGGC=Choiseul Bay Airport=Choiseul Bay, Taro Island AGGD=Mbambanakira Airport=Mbambanakira AGGE=Balalae Airport=Shortland Island AGGF=Fera/Maringe Airport=Fera Island, Santa Isabel Island AGGG=Honiara FIR=Honiara, Guadalcanal AGGH=Honiara International Airport=Honiara, Guadalcanal AGGI=Babanakira Airport=Babanakira AGGJ=Avu Avu Airport=Avu Avu AGGK=Kirakira Airport=Kirakira AGGL=Santa Cruz/Graciosa Bay/Luova Airport=Santa Cruz/Graciosa Bay/Luova, Santa Cruz Island AGGM=Munda Airport=Munda, New Georgia Island AGGN=Nusatupe Airport=Gizo Island AGGO=Mono Airport=Mono Island AGGP=Marau Sound Airport=Marau Sound AGGQ=Ontong Java Airport=Ontong Java AGGR=Rennell/Tingoa Airport=Rennell/Tingoa, Rennell Island AGGS=Seghe Airport=Seghe AGGT=Santa Anna Airport=Santa Anna AGGU=Marau Airport=Marau AGGV=Suavanao Airport=Suavanao AGGY=Yandina Airport=Yandina AGIN=Isuna Heliport=Isuna AGKG=Kaghau Airport=Kaghau AGKU=Kukudu Airport=Kukudu AGOK=Gatokae Aerodrome=Gatokae AGRC=Ringi Cove Airport=Ringi Cove AGRM=Ramata Airport=Ramata ANYN=Nauru International Airport=Yaren (ICAO code formerly ANAU) AYBK=Buka Airport=Buka AYCH=Chimbu Airport=Kundiawa AYDU=Daru Airport=Daru
    [Show full text]
  • YPG Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) 2017
    -+ INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN U.S. ARMY YUMA PROVING GROUND YUMA AND LA PAZ COUNTIES, ARIZONA Update for: Fiscal Years 2017-2022 September 2017 Prepared by U.S. Army Garrison Yuma Proving Ground Environmental Sciences Division 301 C Street Yuma Proving Ground Yuma, Arizona Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN U.S. Army Garrison Yuma Proving Ground Update for: FY 2017–2022 Reviewed by: Reviewed by: Digitally signed by GLOVER.JOHN.A.1284210391 Digitally signed by GLOVER.JOHN.A.1 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, DRISCOLL.PATRICK. DRISCOLL.PATRICK.JOSEPH.1231990557 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, ou=USA, cn=GLOVER.JOHN.A.1284210391 cn=DRISCOLL.PATRICK.JOSEPH.1231990557 284210391 Date: 2017.08.09 14:50:51 -07'00' JOSEPH.1231990557 Date: 2017.08.15 15:09:26 -07'00' JOHN GLOVER PATRICK J. DRIS&OLL Acting Chief, Environmental Director, Public Works Sciences Division Reviewed by: Reviewed by: Digitally signed by Digitally signed by GONZALES.FRANCISCO.E.JR.1155703560 GONZALES.FRANCIS DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, HALLAHAN.ROBER HALLAHAN.ROBERT.J.1229262730 cn=GONZALES.FRANCISCO.E.JR.1155703560 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, CO.E.JR.1155703560 Date: 2017.08.17 11:34:42 -07'00' ou=USA, cn=HALLAHAN.ROBERT.J.1229262730 T.J.1229262730 Date: 2017.08.22 09:26:13 -07'00' FRANCISCO E. GONZALES, JR. ROBERT J. HALLAHAN Attorney Advisor, Office of Installation OPSEC Officer Command Judge Advocate Approved By: Digitally signed by ROGERS.GORDON.
    [Show full text]
  • PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT for AVIATION SUPPORT SERVICES U.S. ARMY YUMA PROVING GROUND, ARIZONA CONTRACT: W9124R-13-C-0004 (Revi
    PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT FOR AVIATION SUPPORT SERVICES U.S. ARMY YUMA PROVING GROUND, ARIZONA CONTRACT: W9124R-13-C-0004 (Revision 08: 25 August 2015) Aviation Support Services Performance Work Statement TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page C.1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION ......................................................................................... 3 C.2.0 DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS ........................................................................... 23 C.3.0 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AND SERVICES........................................................ 30 C.4.0 CONTRACTOR FURNISHED PROPERTY............................................................... 31 C.5.0 REQUIREMENTS AND TASKS ................................................................................ 32 C.6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 37 C.7.0 TECHNICAL EXHIBITS ............................................................................................. 39 Technical Exhibit 1 – Ground and Flight Operations ......................................................... 39 Technical Exhibit 2 – Aviation Maintenance ..................................................................... 41 Technical Exhibit 3 – Airfield Services .............................................................................. 54 Technical Exhibit 4 – Deleted ............................................................................................. 65 Technical Exhibit 5 – DD Form 254 Department of Defense
    [Show full text]
  • IATA Airports
    IATA Codes for the United States of America N.B. To check the official, current database of IATA Codes see: http://www.iata.org/publications/Pages/code-search.aspx City State IATA Code Airport Name Web Address Aberdeen SD ABR Aberdeen Proving APG Phillips Army Air Field Grounds(Aberdeen) Abilene TX ABI Abilene DYS Dyess Air Force Base Abingdon VJI Virginia Highlands Ada ADT Ada Municipal Adak Island AK ADK Adrian ADG Lenawee County Afton AFO Afton Municipal Afton NRI Grand Lake Regional Aiken AIK Aiken Municipal Ainsworth ANW Ainsworth Municipal Akhiok AKK Akhiok Akiachak AK KKI Akiak AK AKI Akron AKC Akron Fulton International Akron AKO Colorado Plains Regional Akuton AK KQA City State IATA Code Airport Name Web Address Alakanuk AK AUK Alamogordo NM ALM Alamogordo HMN Holloman Air Force Base Alamosa CO ALS Albany OR CVO Albany NY ALB Albany OR QWY Albany GA NAB Albany NAS Albany ABY Southwest Georgia Regional Albert Lea AEL Albert Lea Municipal Albuquerque NM ABQ Aleknagik AK WKK Aleneva AED Aleneva Alexander City ALX Thomas C Russell Field Alexandria LA AEX Alexandria AXN Chandler Field Alexandria ESF Esler Regional Alexandria Bay AXB Maxson Airfield Algona AXG Algona Municipal Alice ALI Alice International Aliceville AIV George Downer Allakaket AK AET Alliance NE AIA Alma AMN Gratiot Community Alpena MI APN Alpine ALE Alpine Casparis 2 City State IATA Code Airport Name Web Address Municipal Alton/St Louis ALN St Louis Regional Altoona PA AOO Altoona–Blair County http://flyaltoona.com/ Airport Altus LTS Altus Air Force Base Altus AXS
    [Show full text]
  • Docket No. FAA-2016-7055; Airspace Docket No
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/25/2016 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-17558, and on FDsys.gov 4910-13 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7055; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-11] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Establishment of Restricted Area R-2306F; Yuma Proving Ground, AZ. AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish restricted area R-2306F in the vicinity of Laguna Army Airfield at Yuma Proving Ground, AZ. The proposed restricted area would allow the Department of the Army to maximize the existing fixed infrastructure to support hazardous test programs and segregate these activities from non-participating aircraft at Yuma Proving Ground (YPG). These programs include ground and airborne testing of non-eye-safe lasers, high energy radars and the development of unproven weapons systems. The restricted airspace would ensure the safe testing and evaluation of these programs without impacting non-participating aircraft and the general public. DATES: Comments must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 45 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12- 140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-7055 and Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-11, at the beginning of your comments.
    [Show full text]
  • 2003 Governor's Military Facilities Task Force Report
    The Report of the Governor’s Military Facilities Task Force Executive Order 2003-18 State of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano December 2003 The Report of the Governor’s Military Facilities Task Force FOREWORD The following final report of the Governor’s Military Facilities Task Force answers every element of Executive Order 2003-18, dated May 27, 2003. This report is the result of seven months of in-depth study, extensive research, and careful consideration of perspectives offered by many individuals and interest groups. The Task Force took special note of and reached out to local officials, installation commanders, land owners, and land developers. While not all recommendations offered to the Task Force were accepted, all received full consideration. The resulting specific recommendations reflect the following four themes: 1. Preserve and grow Arizona’s network of military installations to satisfy the long- term needs of the Department of Defense and maximize the benefit to Arizona’s economy. 2. Maximize actions at the local level. 3. Establish and sustain solid State and federal support. 4. Recognize and leverage existing statues, initiatives, and effective efforts. Although the 27 recommendations are presented in an action-oriented format, they should also be considered as offering solution sets based upon common themes. For example, recommendations numbered 2, 5, 7, 12, 26, and 27 taken together, represent a formidable set of tools to effectively deal with the private rights of landowners within the affected areas surrounding Arizona’s military installations. Absent implementation, these recommendations will be useless. Consequently, the Task Force has recommended the development of a Military Affairs Commission to aggressively pursue the full adoption of the Task Force’s recommendations.
    [Show full text]