DOCSLIB.ORG

Capabilities Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Capabilities Statement CAPABILITIES STATEMENT 201 N. Church Street, Suite 300 Las Cruces, New Mexico 88001 Phone (575) 532‐ 1526 Fax (575) 532‐ 1587 Quality Commitment Service Mission Statement We are a technical services firm, dedicated to providing cost-effective, responsive, technical engineering, environmental consulting and facilities support services. It is who we are and what we do! Corporate Motto Quality – Commitment – Service … Success Introduction to Zia Environmental Compliance Air Emissions Inventories and Permitting Zia is a broad spectrum engineering and environmental Asbestos, Lead, Radon Studies services firm, providing quality solutions to commercial, Brownfields / Site Redevelopment industrial, and government clients at the local, state, and GIS Mapping federal level. Hazardous Materials Surveys Hazardous Waste Management Our firm, established in 2000, is headquartered in Litigation Support Las Cruces, New Mexico. We have offices across the states Clean Air Act Compliance and Permitting with over 50 professionals with significant technical diversity. Clean Water Act Compliance and Permitting Due Diligence Services for Property Transfers Zia operates on an established Quality Management System Environmental Due Diligence Audits (EDDA) (QMS) based on ISO9001:2008 standards and we have Hazardous Spill Response Prevention Plans (SPCC), international service experience and capability Planning and Training (Mexico and Canada). Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments Mold and Biological Contaminants Studies / Cleanup Zia believes a good relationship with customers, joined with Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments our commitment to quality service, reduces project risks and Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study results in successful projects. We are your trusted advisor in Remedial System Designs, Installation, Operations and meeting critical project needs. Maintenance Risk Assessments Spill Response Soil, Water and Wastewater Sampling Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) Example Projects . Asbestos Inspection and O&M Planning – USFWS Wildlife Refuges, NM, AZ, and TX . Downtown Brownfield Investigations – Waterloo, IA . Environmental Base Operations Support – White Sands Missile Range, NM; Yuma Proving Ground, Yuma, AZ; and Ft. Huachuca, AZ . Environmental Compliance and Engineering Support – Playas Training Center, NM . FAA Aerial Tramway Replacement Environmental Due Diligence Audits – El Paso, TX . Hearst Mill Site, Brownfields Project – Silver City, NM . Crude Storage and Blending Facility Remediation – Client Confidential, ND . Peru Hill Mill, Brownfield Site – Deming, NM Water Resources / Wastewater Our Clients 40‐Year Water Planning Zia has an established track record of rapid and flexible Annual Consumer Confidence Reports response to requirements and on time, on budget Baseline Monitoring Reports performance to our clients. We would like to introduce you to a small sample of our clients. Grants Funding Support Hydrologic Analysis Federal government clients enjoy the benefit of being able Industrial Pre‐treatment Programs Sampling and Reporting to obtain Zia’s services while receiving small business award credit under a variety of flexible and in place nationwide Industrial Wastewater Permitting and Treatment GWAC contract vehicles including: Irrigation System Designs The GSA 00CORP Professional Services – Life‐cycle and Cost Analysis and Estimating Environmental Services (SINs 899‐1; 899‐7; 899‐8) Network Analysis for Water Distribution Systems SeaPort‐e (all Zones nationwide) Preliminary Engineering Reports Master Planning 8(a) STARS II Information Technology (provides for sole source awards) Slug Control Plans System Rate Studies DHS TABSS Solvent Management Plans Our federal client list includes: Water Rights Multiple major Department of Defense installations: Water and Wastewater Systems Design and Permitting White Sands Missile Range, NM Fort Bliss, TX Water and Wastewater Monitoring, Laboratory Analysis, and Fort Huachuca, AZ Patrick AFB, FL Reporting Yuma Proving Ground, AZ Fort Benning, GA Example Projects Other federal clients include Bureau of Land . 40‐year Water Resources Master Plan – Chaparral, NM Management , US Forest Service, and US Bureau of . Industrial Pre‐treatment Programs Sampling, Various Locations, NM Reclamation . Lower Rio Grande Water Users Association Regional 40‐year Water Plan – State and local governments include: Southern Doña Ana County . Playas Training Center Wastewater Lagoon’s Improvements – Playas, NM New Mexico Spaceport Authority . Potable Water Sampling – Fort Huachuca, AZ and Playas, NM City of Las Cruces . Septic Regulations Development – Luna County, NM New Mexico Department of Transportation . Wastewater System Upgrades, BECC – Bisbee, AZ Commercial clients Include: . Wastewater Sampling – Fort Bliss, TX and Fort Huachuca, AZ Industrial clients Include: CVS Pharmacies . Wastewater Upgrades, BECC/EPA – Nogales, AZ and Mexico Walmart Vepica . Water and Wastewater Master Plan – Fort Bliss, TX CertainTeed Cre‐Med . West Pipeline Project, Feasibility Study – Del Rey to El Paso TX AT&T Olam Quality Performance National Environmental Many of our clients have benefitted from our services over NEPA Experience with Various Federal the years. Here are some comments about our performance: Policy Act and State Agencies • Federal Aviation Administration Categorical Exclusions • Federal Emergency Management I have worked with Zia Engineering for the last six years on numerous Environmental Assessments Agency Robert Pofahl, CEO projects both completed and current. They are very capable and • US Housing and Urban Development CBI Holdings, Inc. offer a diverse array of services with staff that are well trained for Environmental Impact Statements • their various specialties. I would highly recommend Zia Engineering. Environmental Impact Document Bureau of Land Management • US Department of Agriculture May be included in above documents. • US Army Corps of Engineers Thank you for the work that you did to accomplish the cleanup and • Federal Communications closure of the Gibson Fryburg site! This was a major project that Air Quality Studies Commission presented a number of surprises during excavation, and your on‐site Biological Resources Surveys • Bureau of Indian Affairs Bridget Sedlak crew did a phenomenal job of dealing with and adapting to each new Clean Water Act 404/401 Permitting Gibson Energy, Inc. challenge. I'm certain that their cooperation and flexibility were due • New Mexico Department of in large part to your guidance and instruction, and I thank you for Cultural Resources Surveys Transportation your part in ensuring that the project kept moving forward, rather Fatal Flaw Analysis • New Mexico Environment than stalling at each unexpected turn of events. GIS analysis and mapping Department Hazardous Materials Surveys • New Mexico Mortgage and Finance Authority Zia is professional and timely on all projects that we have worked HUD Noise Studies with them on. They are quick to respond, to any questions or Matt Loevenguth comments and stick to the project timelines. We appreciate their Mitigation, Monitoring, Planning and Implementation Galloway, Inc. positive attitude and will continue to keep working with them in the NEPA compliance and efficiency solutions future. Paleontology Surveys Public Consultation Efforts: Notices, Meetings, etc. Zia Environmental navigated an extremely contentious project with us. They not only proved to be responsive, professional, and Public Involvement and Context Sensitive Solutions Plan knowledgeable in their area of expertise, but they also always took Section 7 Endangered Species Act Consultations Greg Menke, PG the time to thoroughly explain pertinent information and address Enterprises, LLC Section 106 Reviews the opposing parties (baseless) concerns immediately. They are truly a joy to work with and we look forward to continuing our partnership State‐of‐the‐Environment/Sustainability Reports on future projects Social and Economic Evaluation Reports Water Quality/Resource Studies Zia provided an excellent response to a major request for proposal Andrew "JR" Gomolak, issued on behalf of my Cultural Resources/Natural Resources/NEPA Example Projects 49 Civil Engineer program at Holloman Air Force Base. Their response demonstrated Squadron, that they thoroughly considered our data and resource management . City of Las Cruces Safety Complex and Recreation Facility Environmental Holloman AFB needs. Then, with comprehensive, timely and expert fieldwork, Assessment, Biological, Cultural, and Paleontological Surveys, Phase 1 reporting and document preparation, Zia delivered excellent results that answered our needs. I am well pleased with their work. Environmental Site Assessment, Public Coordination, and Cultural Sites Mitigation – Las Cruces, NM Recommendations are expressions of past experience, business . FAA Aerial Tramway Replacement Environmental Assessment – El Paso, TX relationships, performance, competence, and the ability to work in a team environment. Our company has many years of working with . Alamogordo Wastewater Treatment Facility Environmental Information Document, Phillip Custer Zia Engineering on multi‐tasked projects from land planning, Biological and Cultural Resources Surveys, and Public Coordination – Vice President civil engineering, utilities, traffic analysis to conception Alamogordo, NM Alameda Land and development. Zia
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Economic Impact of Arizona's Principal Military Operations
    Economic Impact Of Arizona’s Principal Military Operations 2008 Prepared by In collaboration with Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter One INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND STUDY 1 METHODOLOGY Chapter Two DESCRIPTIONS OF ARIZONA’S PRINCIPAL 11 MILITARY OPERATIONS Chapter Three EMPLOYMENT AND SPENDING AT ARIZONA’S 27 PRINCIPAL MILITARY OPERATIONS Chapter Four ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ARIZONA’S PRINCIPAL 32 MILITARY OPERATIONS Chapter Five STATE AND LOCAL TAX REVENUES DERIVED FROM 36 ARIZONA’S PRINCIPAL MILITARY OPERATIONS Chapter Six COMPARISONS TO THE MILITARY INDUSTRY IN 38 ARIZONA Chapter Seven COMPARISONS OF THE MILITARY INDUSTRY IN FY 43 2000 AND FY 2005 APPENDICES Appendix One HOW IMPLAN WORKS A-1 Appendix Two RETIREE METHODOLOGY A-6 Appendix Three ECONOMETRIC MODEL INPUTS A-7 Appendix Four DETAILED STATEWIDE MODEL OUTPUT A-19 Appendix Five REGIONAL IMPACT INFORMATION A-22 The Maguire Company ESI Corporation LIST OF TABLES Page Table 3-1 Summary of Basic Personnel Statistics 27 Arizona’s Major Military Operations Table 3-2 Summary of Military Retiree Statistics 28 Arizona Principal Military Operations Table 3-3 Summary of Payroll and Retirement Benefits 30 Arizona’s Major Military Operations Table 3-4 Summary of Spending Statistics 31 Arizona’s Major Military Operations Table 4-1 Summary of Statewide Economic Impacts 34 Arizona’s Major Military Operations Table 5-1 Summary of Statewide Fiscal Impacts 37 Arizona’s Military Industry Table 5-2 Statewide Fiscal Impacts 37 Arizona’s Military Industry Table 6-1 Comparison of Major Industries / Employers in Arizona 41 Table 7-1 Comparison of Military Industry Employment in 43 FY 2000 and FY 2005 Table 7-2 Comparison of Military Industry Economic Output in 43 FY 2000 and FY 2005 The Maguire Company ESI Corporation Arizona’s Principal Military Operations Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge and thank the leadership and personnel of the various military operations included within this study.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona
    United States Department of the Interior Fish and ,Vildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 In reply refer to: AESO/SE 22410-2006-F-0459 April 13, 2016 Memorandum To: Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico (ARD-ES) (Attn: Michelle Shaughnessy) Chief, Arizona Branch, Re.. gul 7/to . D'vision, Army Corps of Engineers, Phoenix, Arizona From: Acting Field Supervisor~ Subject: Biological and Conference Opinion on the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona This biological and conference opinion (BCO) responds to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requirement for intra-Service consultation on the proposed issuance of a section lO(a)(l)(B) incidental take permit (TE-84356A-O) to Pima County and Pima County Regional Flood Control District (both herein referenced as Pima County), pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (ESA), authorizing the incidental take of 44 species (4 plants, 7 mammals, 8 birds, 5 fishes, 2 amphibians, 6 reptiles, and 12 invertebrates). Along with the permit application, Pima County submitted a draft Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). On June 10, 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) requested programmatic section 7 consultation for actions under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CW A), including two Regional General Permits and 16 Nationwide Permits, that are also covered activities in the MSCP. This is an action under section 7 of the ESA that is separate from the section 10 permit issuance to Pima Couny.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Department of Veterans' Services DIRECTORY
    Arizona Department of Veterans’ Services DIRECTORY November 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS INFORMATION UPDATE FORM FOR VETERANS’ ORGANIZATIONS………. 3 ARIZONA VETERANS’ SERVICE ADVISORY COMMISSION…………………. 4 MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPENTS ― ARIZONA…………………………………….. 5 NATIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS ― ARIZONA……………………………………… 7 AZDVS VETERAN BENEFITS COUNSELORS (VBC’s)………………………… 9 VETERAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS; ARIZONA SERVICE OFFICERS…. 10 OTHER VETERANS’ SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS……………………….…… 21 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS………………………………..... 33 ARIZONA VA MEDICAL CENTERS………………………………………………. 33 COMMUNITY BASED OUTPATIENT CLINICS (CBOC’s)……………………… 34 VETERAN CENTERS; VA CEMETERY ― ARIZONA….………………………... 37 OTHER FEDERAL/STATE AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS ― AZ……..… 37 ARIZONA MILITARY INSTALLATIONS…………………………………………... 44 MILITARY DEPT. OF FINANCE & RETIREE ASSISTANCE…………………… 47 ARIZONA U.S. CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION……………………………... 49 ARIZONA EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS………………………………………………. 52 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DIRECTORS OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS (NASDVA)…………………………………………………… 54 STATE VETERAN HOMES WITHIN THE U.S…………………………………… 63 2 INFORMATION UPDATE FORM FOR VETERANS’ ORGANIZATIONS When there are changes or corrections required, organizations should complete this form and submit it to the following address: Mail to: Arizona Dept. of Veterans’ Services Corrections or Updates: ATTN: Office of the Director Information may be phoned in: 3839 North 3rd Street, Suite 200 Telephone: (602) 234-8406 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Facsimile: (602) 255-1038 E-mail to: [email protected] FROM: ORGANIZATION
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 104 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 104 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 141 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 1995 No. 98 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. and was The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Fowler Kildee Neal Fox Kim Nethercutt called to order by the Speaker pro tem- question is on the Chair's approval of Frank (MA) King Neumann pore [Mr. TORKILDSEN]. the Journal. Franks (CT) Kingston Ney f The question was taken; and the Franks (NJ) Klink Norwood Speaker pro tempore announced that Frelinghuysen Klug Nussle DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO Frisa Knollenberg Obey the ayes appeared to have it. Frost Kolbe Olver TEMPORE Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, I object Furse LaHood Ortiz The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- to the vote on the ground that a Gallegly Lantos Orton fore the House the following commu- quorum is not present and make the Ganske Largent Owens Gejdenson Latham Oxley nication from the Speaker: point of order that a quorum is not Gekas LaTourette Packard WASHINGTON, DC, present. Gilchrest Laughlin Pallone June 15, 1995. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evi- Gilman Lazio Parker I hereby designate the Honorable PETER G. dently a quorum is not present. Gonzalez Lewis (CA) Pastor Goodlatte Lewis (KY) Paxon TORKILDSEN to act as Speaker pro tempore The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab- Goodling Lightfoot Payne (NJ) on this day. sent Members. Gordon Lincoln Payne (VA) NEWT GINGRICH, Goss Linder Pelosi Speaker of the House of Representatives. The vote was taken by electronic de- vice, and there wereÐyeas 356, nays 49, Graham Lipinski Peterson (FL) f Green Livingston Peterson (MN) answered ``present'' 2, not voting 27, as Greenwood LoBiondo Petri PRAYER follows: Gunderson Lofgren Porter [Roll No.
    [Show full text]
  • Desert Training Center Collection
    TITLE: United States Army Desert Training Center Collection DATE RANGE: 1938 - 2010 CALL NUMBER: Y-MS 20 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: 6 boxes (3 linear feet) PROVENANCE: Collection materials have been donated by an assortment of individuals associated with the center. COPYRIGHT: Unknown RESTRICTIONS: This collection is unrestricted. CREDIT LINE: United States Army Desert Training Center Collection, Y-MS 20, Arizona Historical Society-Rio Colorado Division, Yuma PROCESSED BY: Benjamin Findley, 2014 HISTORICAL NOTE: The Desert Training Center was established in 1942 to provide training in desert warfare for troops slated to be deployed to the African theatre of World War II. Major General George S. Patton Jr. was tasked with setting up the Center and was designated its first Commanding General. A large tract of land approximately 10,000 square miles was chosen along the California-Arizona border and the southern tip of Nevada. This area was chosen because it included variety of desert terrains and had no large population centers. Operations began in April, 1942. This allowed the U. S. Army to test standard army equipment against the harsh environment and to develop a desert tactical doctrine. The supply officers contended with maintaining supply routes without access to railroad lines. Many of the initial training exercises resulted in high casualty rates due to restrictions on water rations. In July, 1942 Patton was abruptly re-assigned to the North African Campaign leaving Major General Alvan Gillem in command. The success of the North African Campaign by late 1942 meant that the Army no longer needed troops trained for desert combat. The Army increased the size of the area to approximately 87,000 square miles and changed its name from the Desert Training Center to the California- Arizona Maneuver Area.
    [Show full text]
  • S County Profile
    S COUNTY PROFILE YUMA COUNTY, ARIZONA EST:1864 History Yuma’s first settlers were the Native American Tribes whose descendants continue to occupy the Cocopah Reservation in Yuma County, and the nearby Quechan Reservation. Yuma’s first recorded historic event was in 1540 when Spanish explorer Hernando de Alarcon became the first European to see the area of the City and County of Yuma. It was clear that Yuma was a great natural crossing of the Colorado River and an ideal location for a city. In 1701, Father Eusebio Francisco Kino was the first person to recognize the Yuma Crossing as a gateway to California. About a hundred years later, Father Francisco Garces led Juan Bautista de Anza and his pioneering expedition to the Yuma Crossing in their search for a land route to California. Garces founded two missions at the Crossing in 1779, but was killed in the last major Indian uprising shortly after. Kit Carson rediscovered the Yuma Crossing in the 1850’s when Yuma became the major river crossing for California gold‐seekers. From 1540 to 1854 Yuma was under Spanish and Mexican control. Through the Gadsden Purchase in 1854, Yuma became a territorial possession of the United States. Yuma County became one of the original four counties in the State of Arizona when it was created in 1864. In these early years, the City of Yuma held several different names. From 1854 through 1858 Yuma was known as Colorado City. From 1858 to 1873 it was named Arizona City. Finally in 1873 the Territorial Legislature settled on Yuma.
    [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 Grounds Collection
    TITLE: Yuma Proving Grounds Collection DATE RANGE: 1943 - 2012 CALL NUMBER: Y-MS 21 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: 11 boxes (10 linear feet) PROVENANCE: Various sources COPYRIGHT: Unknown RESTRICTIONS: This collection is unrestricted. CREDIT LINE: Yuma Proving Grounds Collection, Y-MS 21, Arizona Historical Society-Rio Colorado Division, Yuma PROCESSED BY: John Irwin and Benjamin Findley, 2014 HISTORICAL NOTE: Yuma Proving Grounds is a military testing area for new technologies. It began in 1943 as the Special Bridge Test Section to assist in the development of floating bridges by testing them in the swiftly flowing Colorado River. The bridge tests were also used to train engineering troops in using the finalized bridges in the European theatre of WWII. In 1944, due to lack of man power, the testing was carried out by volunteer Italian Prisoner of War troops. Near the end of the war testing was also done on placing roads across rice paddies in preparation for invading Japan. After the war ended it was decided to place a permanent test section, called the Yuma Test Branch, in the area with the intent of testing army equipment against desert conditions. The test section would also continue various river testing activities. However in 1949, damage to the Gila sluice basin brought a halt to the major tests in the area. Repairs were planned but were delayed for various reasons, and in October, 1949 the Yuma Test Branch was shut down. In 1951 the Army decided to create another testing area in Yuma and created the Yuma Test Station. The station was used by a variety of different Army branches for testing including the Ordnance, Signal, Quartermaster and Chemical Divisions.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Military Affairs Commission
    ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ARIZONA’S PRINCIPAL MILITARY OPERATIONS Military Affairs Commission PREPARED BY The Maguire Company 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND STUDY METHODOLOGY 1 CHAPTER TWO: DESCRIPTIONS OF ARIZONA’S PRINCIPAL MILITARY OPERATIONS 9 CHAPTER THREE: EMPLOYMENT AND SPENDING BY ARIZONA’S PRINCIPAL MILITARY OPERATIONS 28 CHAPTER FOUR: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ARIZONA’S PRINCIPAL MILITARY OPERATIONS 32 CHAPTER FIVE: STATE AND LOCAL TAX REVENUES DERIVED FROM ARIZONA’S PRINCIPAL MILITARY OPERATIONS 35 CHAPTER SIX: COMPARISONS TO THE MILITARY INDUSTRY IN ARIZONA 37 CHAPTER SEVEN: COMPARISONS OF THE MILITARY INDUSTRY OVER TIME 41 APPENDICES APPENDIX ONE: HOW IMPLAN WORKS A-1 APPENDIX TWO: RETIREE METHODOLOGY A-5 APPENDIX THREE: ECONOMETRIC MODEL INPUTS A-6 APPENDIX FOUR: DETAILED STATEWIDE MODEL OUTPUT A-14 APPENDIX FIVE: REGIONAL IMPACT INFORMATION A-15 ARIZONA’S PRINCIPAL MILITARY OPERATIONS The Maguire Company LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3-1: SUMMARY OF BASIC PERSONNEL STATISTICS 28 Arizona’s Principal Military Operations TABLE 3-2: SUMMARY OF MILITARY RETIREE STATISTICS 29 Arizona’s Principal Military Operations TABLE 3-3: SUMMARY OF PAYROLL AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS 30 Arizona’s Principal Military Operations TABLE 3-4: SUMMARY OF SPENDING STATISTICS 31 Arizona’s Principal Military Operations TABLE 4-1: SUMMARY OF STATEWIDE ECONOMIC IMPACTS 33 Arizona’s Principal Military Operations TABLE 5-1: SUMMARY OF STATEWIDE FISCAL IMPACTS 35 Arizona’s Military Industry TABLE 5-2: STATEWIDE FISCAL IMPACTS 36 Arizona’s Military Industry TABLE 6-1: COMPARISON OF MAJOR INDUSTRIES/ EMPLOYERS IN ARIZONA 39 TABLE 7-1: COMPARISON OF MILITARY INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT IN FY 2000, FY 2005, AND FY 2014 41 TABLE 7-2: COMPARISON OF MILITARY INDUSTRY ECONOMIC OUTPUT IN FY 2000, FY 2005, AND FY 2014 41 ARIZONA’S PRINCIPAL MILITARY OPERATIONS The Maguire Company ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wish to acknowledge and thank the leadership and personnel of the various military operations included within this study.
    [Show full text]
  • US/US Territories Army
    DCN 3343 Operations & Training Facilities Area Department Owned US/US Territories Army - Active 18,590 Army - Guard 2,503 Army - Reserve 1,819 Navy - Active 10,320 Navy - Reserve 380 Air Force - Active 12,631 Air Force - Guard 2,799 Air Force - Reserve 626 Marine Corps - Active 2,110 Marine Corps - Reserve 12 DLA 235 TMA 117 WHS 22 Other 9,398 US/US Territories Total 61,562 Non-US Army - Active 4,017 Navy - Active 1,681 Air Force - Active 4,123 Marine Corps - Active 644 TMA 17 Other 557 Non-US Total 11,039 Operations & Training Total 72,601 DCN 3343 Maintenance & Production Facilities Area Department Owned US/US Territories Army - Active 11,154 Army - Guard 640 Army - Reserve 584 Navy - Active 4,389 Navy - Reserve 187 Air Force - Active 4,293 Air Force - Guard 1,125 Air Force - Reserve 169 Marine Corps - Active 868 Marine Corps - Reserve 3 DLA 81 TMA 38 Other 3,263 US/US Territories Total 26,794 Non-US Army - Active 1,161 Navy - Active 526 Air Force - Active 773 Marine Corps - Active 205 DoDEA 1 TMA 2 Other 41 Non-US Total 2,709 Maintenance & Production Total 29,503 DCN 3343 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Facilities Area Department Owned US/US Territories Army - Active 2,813 Army - Guard 3 Army - Reserve 12 Navy - Active 2,655 Air Force - Active 1,556 Marine Corps - Active 30 TMA 44 Other 1,191 US/US Territories Total 8,304 Non-US Army - Active 133 Navy - Active 35 Air Force - Active 38 TMA 8 Other 27 Non-US Total 241 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Total 8,545 DCN 3343 Supply Facilities Area Department Owned
    [Show full text]
  • Leatherneckww.Mca-Marines.Org/Leatherneck
    MAGAZINE OF THE MARINES L 2020 JANUARY eatherneck wwww.mca-marines.org/leatherneckww.mca-marines.org/leatherneck Flag Raiser’s Identity: Technology, Evidence Renders New Verdict International Students Bring Global Perspective To Marine Corps University Battle of Midway— Researchers Locate Enemy Shipwrecks Contents LEATHERNECK—MAGAZINE OF THE MARINES JANUARY 2020 VOL. 103, No. 1 Features 16 Midway Discovery: Underwater Researchers 36 “In Fairness to All Parties” The Marine Corps Locate World War II Japanese Aircraft Carriers Corrects the Historical Record By Nancy S. Lichtman The Japanese aircraft carriers, Akagi By Col Keil R. Gentry, USMC (Ret) This article is a and Kaga, two of the ships sunk during the Battle of Midway, condensed version of Chapter 13 from the Marine Corps were recently discovered 17,000 feet below the surface of the History Division’s “Investigating Iwo: The Flag Raising in P a c i fi c O c e a n . Myth, Memory, & Esprit de Corps” and discusses the latest correction to the identities of the Iwo Jima fl ag raisers. 22 Million Dollar Flight By GySgt Bruce Martin, USMC This article from the Leatherneck archives explains how the 54 Forgotten Battalion By Sgt Bill Miller, USMC Air Force, thanks to the effi ciency of their medical evacuation In this article from the Leatherneck archives, “The Forgotten fl ights, was responsible for saving the lives and limbs Battalion” rated fi ve battle stars and two unit citations after of thousands of Americans wounded on the battlefi elds of fi ghting on Tulagi, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan and Guam in Vietnam.
    [Show full text]
  • Desert Training Center Collection
    TITLE: United States Army Desert Training Center Collection DATE RANGE: 1938 - 2010 CALL NUMBER: Y-MS 20 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: 6 boxes (3 linear feet) PROVENANCE: Collection materials have been donated by an assortment of individuals associated with the center. COPYRIGHT: Unknown RESTRICTIONS: This collection is unrestricted. CREDIT LINE: United States Army Desert Training Center Collection, Y-MS 20, Yuma County Library District PROCESSED BY: Benjamin Findley, 2014 HISTORICAL NOTE: The Desert Training Center was established in 1942 to provide training in desert warfare for troops slated to be deployed to the African theatre of World War II. Major General George S. Patton Jr. was tasked with setting up the Center and was designated its first Commanding General. A large tract of land approximately 10,000 square miles was chosen along the California-Arizona border and the southern tip of Nevada. This area was chosen because it included variety of desert terrains and had no large population centers. Operations began in April, 1942. This allowed the U. S. Army to test standard army equipment against the harsh environment and to develop a desert tactical doctrine. The supply officers contended with maintaining supply routes without access to railroad lines. Many of the initial training exercises resulted in high casualty rates due to restrictions on water rations. In July, 1942 Patton was abruptly re-assigned to the North African Campaign leaving Major General Alvan Gillem in command. The success of the North African Campaign by late 1942 meant that the Army no longer needed troops trained for desert combat. The Army increased the size of the area to approximately 87,000 square miles and changed its name from the Desert Training Center to the California- Arizona Maneuver Area.
    [Show full text]