State of California et al v. Trump et al

Filing 220

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Re Section 2808 and NEPA filed by Commonwealth of Virginia, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Hawaii, State of Maryland, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of Oregon, State of Wisconsin. Motion Hearing set for 11/20/2019 10:00 AM in Oakland, Courtroom 2, 4th Floor before Judge Haywood S Gilliam Jr.. Responses due by 10/25/2019. Replies due by 11/1/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix of Declarations re: Environmental Harms, # 2 Declaration of Colonel William Green, # 3 Declaration of Alison Lynn Reaser, # 4 Declaration of Heather Leslie, # 5 Request for Judicial Notice ISO Mot for Partial Summary Judgment Re Section 2808 and NEPA, # 6 Proposed Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 7 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Leslie, Heather) (Filed on 10/11/2019)

1

XAVIER BECERRA

Attorney General of California
2

3

ROBERT W. BYRNE
SALLY MAGNANI
MICHAEL L. NEWMAN

Senior Assistant Attorneys General
4

5

MICHAELP. CAYABAN .
CHRISTINE CHUANG
EDWARD H. OCHOA

Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
6
7
8

9
10
11
12
13

BRIAN J. BILFORD
SPARSHS. KHANDESHI
LEE I. SHERMAN
JANELLE M. SMITH
JAMES F. ZAHRADKA II
HEATHER C. LESLIE (SBN 305095)

Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 305095
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] ,
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California

14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

OAKLAND DIVISION

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25
26

Case No. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG

STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al.;

v.

Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT REGARDING SECTION
2808 AND.NEPA

November 20, 2019
10:00 am
Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr.
None Set
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity Trial Date:
as President of the United States of America Action Filed: February 18, 2019
et al.;
Date:
Time:
Judge:

Defendants.

27
28
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. re Section 2808 and NEPA (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1
2
3

Plaintiffs hereby respectfully request, pmsuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, that this
Court take judicial notice of the following documents.
1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a press release from the

4

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management regarding the

5

Secretary of the Interior's transfer of the jurisdiction of land to the Department of the

6

Artny. As of October 7, 2019, this press release is posted on the Bureau of Land

7

Management's website, at https:Uwww.blm.gov/press-release/interior-secretary-

8

transfers-five-parcels-land-department-army.

9

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Department of Defense

10

(DoD) form 1391 for construction of the C-130J Flight Simulator Facility at the

11

Channel Islands Air National Guard Station in California. The Department of Defense

12

submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's request for funding for this

13

project.

14

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

15

construction of the Space Control Facility at the Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado.

16

The Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's

17

request for funding for this project.

18

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

19

construction of the Consolidated Training Facility ·at the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-

20

· Hickam in Hawaii. The Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in

21
22

support ofDoD's request for funding for this project.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

. 23

construction of security improvements at Mokapu Gate at Kaneohe Bay in Hawaii. The

24

Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support of DoD' s request for

25

funding for this project.

26
27

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for
construction of the Cantonment Area roads at Fort Meade in Maryland. The Department

28
1
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Su.mm. J. re Section 2808 and NEPA (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

l

of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's request for funding for

2

this project.

3

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

4

construction of the PAR Relocate Haz Cargo Pad and EOD Range at Joint Base

5

Andrews in Maryland. The Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in

6

support ofDoD's request for funding for this project.

7

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

8

construction of a child development center at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. The

9

Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's request for

10

11

funding for this project.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

12

construction of the MQ-9 FfU Ops Facility at Holloman Air Force Base in New

13

Mexico. The Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support of

14

DoD's request for funding for this project.

15

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

16

construction of the Information Systems Facility at White Sands in New Mexico. The

17

Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's request for

18

funding for this project.

19

11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

20

construction of the Engineering Center and Parking Structure at the U.S. Military

21

Academy in New York. The Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in

22

support ofDoD's request for funding for this project.

23

12. Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

24

construction of an indoor range at Klamath Falls International Airport. The Department

25

of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support of DoD' s request for funding for

26

this project.

27
28

13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for
construction of replacement fuel facilities at the Klamath Falls International Airport.
2
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. re Section 2808 and NEPA (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

The Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's

2

request for funding for this project.

3

14. Attached hereto as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

4

construction of a cyber ops facility at Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia. The

5

Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support of DoD' s request for

6

funding for this project.

7

15. Attached hereto as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

8

construction to replace a hazardous materials warehouse in Norfolk, Virginia. The

9

Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support of DoD' s request for

10

11

funding for this project.
16. Attached hereto as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

12

construction at the Pentagon Metro Entrance Facility at the Pentagon in Virginia. The

13

Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's request for

14

funding for this project.

15

17. Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

16 .

construction to replace a hazardous materials warehouse in Portsmouth, Virginia. The

17

Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's request for

18

funding for this project.

19

18. Attached hereto as Exhibit 18 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

20

construction of a ships maintenance facility in Portsmouth, Virginia. The Department of

21

Defense submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's request for funding for

22

this project.

23

19. Attached hereto as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

24

construction of a small arms range at Truax Field in Wisconsin. The Department of

25

Defense submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's request for funding for

26

this project.

27

20. Attached hereto as Exhibit 20 is a true and correct copy of the San Diego Air Pollution

28

Control District's Fugitive Dust Control Rule. As of October 8, 2019, this document is
3
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. re Section 2808 and NEPA (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

posted on the San Diego Air Pollution Control District's website at:

2

htt,ps://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Rules and Regulations/Prohibition

3

s/APCD R55.pdf.

4

21. Attached hereto as Exhibit 21 is a true and correct copy of the Congressional Research

5

Service's Report entitled "The Trump Administration's 'Zero Tolerance' Immigration

6

Enforcement Policy" dated July 20, 2018.

7

Each of these exhibits is a matter of public record and is therefore subject to judicial notice.

8

Fed. R. Evid. 20l(b); Lee v. City ofLos Angeles, 250 F.3d 668,689 (9th Cir. 2001) (a court may

9

judicially notice matters of public record unless the matter is a fact subject to reasonable dispute).

10

Exhibits 1-21 are judicially noticeable because government memoranda, bulletins, letters,

11

statements and opinions are matters of public record appropriate for judicial notice. See Brown v.

12

Valoff, 422 F.3d 926,933 n.9 (9th Cir. 2005) Gudicially noticing an administrative bulletin);

13

Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may take judicial

14

notice of records and reports of state administrative bodies), overruled on other grounds by

15

Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass 'n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 111 (1991); Interstate Nat. Gas. Co. v.

16

S. Cal. Gas. Co., 209 F.2d 380,385 (9th Cir. 1953) Gudicially noticing government agency

17

records and reports); Cnty. of Santa Clara v. Trump, 250 F. Supp. 3d 497,520 IllJ..5, 8, 11 (N.D.

18

Cal. 2017) (takingjudicial'notice of government memoranda and letters):

19

Exhibits 1 and 20 are judicially noticeable because they are posted on official government ·

20

websites. See Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass 'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2010) Gudicially

21

noticing information contained on a government website); Paralyzed Veterans ofAmerica v.

22

McPherson, No. C 06-4670 SBA, 2008 WL 4183981, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2008) (finding

23

that courts commonly take judicial notice of information and documents on government websites,

24

citing cases from various jurisdictions). Thus, the statements of government departments and

25

agencies contained within these exhibits are not subject to reasonable dispute, as the statements

26

"can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

27

questioned." Fed. R. Evid. § 201(b)(2).

28
4
Reg. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. re Section 2808 and NEPA (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 11, 2019

2

XAVIER BECERRA

3

Attorney General of California
ROBERT W. BYRNE

4

SALLY MAGNANI
MICHAEL L. NEWMAN

Senior Assistant Attorneys General

5

MICHAELP.CAYABAN
CHRISTINE CHUANG
EDWARD H. OCHOA

6

Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
7
Isl Heather Leslie
8

11

HEATHER C. LESLIE
BRIAN J. BILFORD
SPARSH S. KHANDESHI
LEE I. SHERMAN
JANELLE M. SMITH
JAMES F. ZAHRADKA II

12

Deputy Attorneys General
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California

9
10

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. re Section 2808 and NEPA (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

XAVIER BECERRA

2

Attorney General of California
ROBERT'\V.BYRNE

3

SALLY MAGNANI
MICHAEL L. NEWMAN

Senior Assistant Attorneys General
4

5

MICHAEL P. CAYABAN
CHRISTINE CHUANG
EDWARD H. OCHOA

6

BRIAN J. BILFORD

7

SPARSH S. KIIA.NDESHI
LEEI.SHERMAN

Supervising Deputy Attorneys General

8
9

10

11
12
13

JANELLE M. SMITH
JAMES F. ZAHRADKA II
HEATHER C. LESLIE (SBN 305095)
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 305095
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Ca#fornia

14

·IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CAUFORNIA

16

OAKIAND DIVISION

17
18

STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al.;

19
20

Case No. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG
Plaintiffs,

v.

21
22
23
24
25
26

PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT REGARDING SECTION
2808 AND NEPA
Date:
Time:
Judge:

November 20, 2019
10:00 am
Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity Trial Date:
None Set
as President of the United States of America Action Filed: February 18, 2019
et al.;
Defendants.

27

28
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. re Section 2808 and NEPA (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1
2
3.

Plaintiffs hereby respectfully request, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, that this
Court take judicial notice of the following documents.
1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a press release from the

4

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management regarding the

5

Secretary of the Interior's transfer of the jurisdiction of land to the Department of the

6

Army. As of October 7, 2019, this press release is posted on the Bureau of Land

7

Management's website, at https://www.blm.gov/press-release/interior-secretary-

8

transfers-five-parcels-land-department-army.

9

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Department of Defense

10

(DoD) form 1391 for construction of the C-130J Flight Simulator Facility at the

11

Channel Islands Air National Guard Station in California. The Department of Defense

12

submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's request for funding for this

13

project.

14

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

15

construction of the Space Control Facility at the Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado.

16

The Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's

17

request for funding for this project.

18

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

19

construction of the Consolidated Training Facility at the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-

20

Hickman in Hawaii. The Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in

21

support ofDoD's request for funding for this project.

22

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

23

construction of security improvements at Mokapu Gate at Kaneohe Bay in Hawaii. The

24

Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support of DoD's request for

25

funding for this project.

26
27

6. Attached hereto ~s Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for
construction of the Cantonment Area roads at Fort Meade in Maryland. The Department

28

1
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. re Section 2808 and NEPA ( 4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

\

1

of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's request for funding for

2

this project.

3

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

4

construction of the PAR Relocate Haz Cargo Pad and EOD Range at Joint Base

5

Andrews in Maryland. The Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in ,

6

support ofDoD's request for funding for this project.

7

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

8

construction of a child development center' at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. The

9

Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support of DoD' s request for

10

11

funding for this project.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

12

construction of the MQ-9 FfU Ops Facility at Holloman Air Force Base in New

13

Mexico. The Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support of ·

14

DoD's request for funding for this project.

15

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

16

construction of the Information Systems Facility at White Sands in New Mexico. The

17

Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support of DoD' s request for

18

funding for this project.

19

11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

20

construction of the Engineering Center and Parking Structure at the U.S. Military

21

Academy in New York. The Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in

22

support ofDoD's request for funding for this project.

23

12. Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

24

construction of an indoor range at Klamath Falls International Airport. The Department

25

of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's request for funding for

26

this project.

27
28

13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for
construction of replacement fuel facilities at the Klamath Falls International Airport.
2
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. re Section 2808 and NEPA (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

/

1

The Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's

2

request for funding for this project.

3

14. Attached hereto as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form' 1391 for

4

construction of a cyber ops facility at Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia. The

5

Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support of DoD's request for

6

funding for this project.

7

15. Attached hereto as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

8

construction to replace a hazardous materials warehouse in Norfolk, Virginia. The

9

Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support of DoD' s request for

10

11

funding for this project.
16. Attached hereto as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

12

construction at the Pentagon Metro Entrance Facility at the Pentagon in Virginia. The

13

Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's request for

14

funding for this project.

15

17. Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

16

construction to replace a hazardous materials warehouse in Portsmouth, Virginia. The

17

Department of Defense submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's request for

18

funding for this project.

19

18. Attached hereto as Exhibit 18 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

20

construction of a ships maintenance facility in Portsmouth, Virginia. The Department of

21

. Defense submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's request for funding for

22

this project.

23

19. Attached hereto as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of the DoD form 1391 for

24

construction of a small arms range at Truax Field in Wisconsin. The Department of

25

Defense submitted this form to Congress in support ofDoD's request for funding for

26

this project.

27

20. Attached hereto as Exhibit 20 is a true and correct copy of the San Diego Air Pollution

28

Control District's Fugitive Dust Control Rule. As of October 8, 2019, this document is
3
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. re Section 2808 and NEPA (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

posted on the San Diego Air Pollution Control District's website at:

2

https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Rules and Regulations/Prohibition

3

s/APCD R55 .pdf.

4

21. Attached hereto as Exhibit 21 is a true and correct copy of the Congressional Research

5

Service's Report entitled "The Trump Administration's 'Zero Tolerance' Immigration

6

Enforcement Policy" dated July 20, 2018.

7

Each. of these exhibits is a matter of public record and is therefore subject to judicial notice.

8

Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Lee v. City ofLos Angeles, 250 F.3d 668,689 (9th Cir. 2001) (a court may

9

judicially notice matters of public record unless the matter is a fact subject to reasonable dispute).

10

Exhibits 1-21 are judicially noticeable because government memoranda, bulletins, letters,

11

statements and opinions are matters of public record appropriate for judicial n.otice. See Brown v.

12

Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 933 n.9 (9th Cir. 2005) Gudicially noticing an administrative bulletin);

13

Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may take judicial

14

notice of records and reports of state administrative bodies), overruled on other grounds by

15

Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass 'n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 111 (1991); Interstate Nat. Gas. Co. v.

16

S. Cal. Gas. Co., 209 F.2d 380,385 (9th Cir. 1953) Gudicially noticing government agency

17

records and reports); Cnty. of Santa Clara v. Trump, 250 F.Supp.3d 497, 520 nn.5, 8, 11 (N.D.

18

Cal. 2017) (taking judicial notice of government memoranda and letters).

19

Exhibits 1 and 20 are judicially noticeable because they are posted on official government

20

websites. See Daniels-Hall v. Nat'! Educ. Ass 'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2010) Gudicially

21

noticing information contained on a government website); Paralyzed Veterans ofAmerica v.

22

McPherson, No. C 0&-4670 SBA, 2008 WL 4183981, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2008) (finding

23

that courts commonly take judicial notice of information and documents on government websites,

24

citing cases from various jurisdictions). Thus, the statements of government departments and

25

agencies contained within these exhibits are not subject to reasonable dispute, as the statements

26

"can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

27

questioned." Fed. R. Evid. § 201(b)(2).

28
4
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. re Section 2808 and NEPA (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

Dated: October 11, 2019

Respectfully submitted,

2

XAVIER BECERRA

3

Attorney General of California
ROBERT W. BYRNE

4

SALLY MAGNANI
MICHAEL L. NEWMAN

Senior Assistant Attorneys General

5

MICHAEL P. CAYABAN
CHRISTINE CHUANG
EDWARD H. OCHOA

6

Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
7

Isl Heather Leslie
8

11

HEATHER C. LESLIE
BRIAN J. BILFORD
SPARSH S. KHANDESHI
LEE I. SHERMAN
JANELLE M. SMITH
JAMES F. ZAHRADKA II

12

Deputy Attorneys General Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California

9
10

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Swnm. J. re Section 2808 and NEPA (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

EXHIBIT 1

10/7/2019

Secretary of the Interior transfers jurisdiction of five parcels of land to the Department of the Army to secure the southwest border | Burea…

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

(/)

BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT (/)

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TRANSFERS
JURISDICTION OF FIVE PARCELS OF LAND
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY TO
SECURE THE SOUTHWEST BORDER
Transferred acreage will facilitate construction of border barriers

https://www.blm.gov/press-release/interior-secretary-transfers-five-parcels-land-department-army

1/5

10/7/2019

Secretary of the Interior transfers jurisdiction of five parcels of land to the Department of the Army to secure the southwest border | Burea…

WASHINGTON – Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt announced today
the transfer of administrative jurisdiction of approximately 560 acres of Federal
lands to the U.S. Department of the Army (Army) to build roughly 70 miles of
border barriers. This action comes in response to a series of applications for
Emergency Withdrawal as submitted by the Army for construction or
augmentation of barriers along the southern border. No national parks nor
segments from Indian country are included in the land transfer.
The Army submitted its requests following Presidential Proclamation 9844
(https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidentialproclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerning-southernborder-united-states/), issued by President Trump on February 15, 2019,
declaring a national emergency regarding the border security and humanitarian
crisis at our southern border. The requests follow the Defense Department
announcement
(https://www.defense.gov/explore/story/Article/1952013/dod-todivert-36-billion-to-fund-11-barrier-projects-at-southern-border/) on
September 4, 2019 to defer $3.6 billion to fund 11 barrier projects at our
southern border. In accordance with this proclamation, and as requested by the
Army, the land will be transferred to the Army for military construction projects
under 10 U.S.C. 2808.
“I’ve personally visited the sites that we are transferring to the Army, and there
is no question that we have a crisis at our southern border. Absent this action,
national security and natural resource values will be lost. The impacts of this
crisis are vast and must be aggressively addressed with extraordinary
measures,” said Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt. “The damages
to natural resource values are a byproduct of the serious national security, drug
enforcement, and other immigration challenges facing our dedicated staff along
the border. Construction of border barriers will help us maintain the character
of the lands and resources under our care and fulfill our mission to protect
them.”
“We made it a priority to work closely with the Departments of Homeland
Security and Defense, to protect the wildlife, natural, and cultural resources that
occur on these federal lands along the border. This work will provide the
necessary tools to enhance the safety of those that live, work and recreate in this
region,” said Casey Hammond, Acting Assistant Secretary for Land and
Minerals Management. “Through this collaboration we will maximize safety
and stewardship, benefitting all Americans in response to this crisis.”

https://www.blm.gov/press-release/interior-secretary-transfers-five-parcels-land-department-army

2/5

10/7/2019

Secretary of the Interior transfers jurisdiction of five parcels of land to the Department of the Army to secure the southwest border | Burea…

The lands requested for these projects include:
El Paso 2 (170 acres in Luna and Hidalgo counties, NM): Replacement
of existing vehicle barrier with pedestrian barrier.
El Paso 8 (43 acres in Hidalgo County, NM): Construction of new
primary and secondary pedestrian barriers.
San Diego 4 (43.77 acres in San Diego County, CA): Construction of new
primary bollard fence and secondary pedestrian barrier.
Yuma 3 (228 acres in Yuma County, AZ): Replacement of the existing
vehicle barrier adjacent to the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge
(CPNWR) with pedestrian barrier.
Yuma 6 (73.3 acres in Yuma County, AZ): Construction of both new
primary and secondary pedestrian barriers.
The Public Land Orders temporarily transferring jurisdiction of the land to the
Army will be for a period of three years for border security purposes.

https://www.blm.gov/press-release/interior-secretary-transfers-five-parcels-land-department-army

3/5

10/7/2019

Secretary of the Interior transfers jurisdiction of five parcels of land to the Department of the Army to secure the southwest border | Burea…

In addition to national security concerns, this act also responds to
environmental issues caused by unlawful border crossings. Wilderness areas,
wildlife refuges, as well as species and vegetation are adversely impacted by land
degradation and destruction caused by the creation of trails, the deposition of
trash, and unlawful fires, among other things. Construction of border barriers
will reduce or eliminate these impacts and preserve values that will otherwise be
lost.
The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land located primarily in
12 Western states, including Alaska. The BLM also administers 700 million acres
of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. Diverse activities authorized
on these lands generated $96 billion in sales of goods and services throughout the
American economy in fiscal year 2017. These activities supported more than
468,000 jobs.

MORE PRESS RELEASES

RELEASE DATE
Wednesday, September 18, 2019

ORGANIZATION
Bureau of Land Management

CONTACTS
Email:
[e-mail] (mailto:[e-mail])

RELATED CONTENT
Maps
PLO_APPLICATION FOR WITHDRAWAL EL PASO 2 MAP.PDF »
PLO_APPLICATION FOR WITHDRAWAL EL PASO PROJECT PRIORITY 8 MAP.PDF »
PLO_APPLICATION FOR WITHDRAWAL SAN DIEGO 4 MAP.PDF »
PLO_APPLICATION FOR WITHDRAWAL YUMA 3 MAP.PDF »

https://www.blm.gov/press-release/interior-secretary-transfers-five-parcels-land-department-army

4/5

10/7/2019

Secretary of the Interior transfers jurisdiction of five parcels of land to the Department of the Army to secure the southwest border | Burea…

PLO_APPLICATION FOR WITHDRAWAL YUMA PROJECT PRIORITY6.PDF »
Public Land Orders
PLO_EL PASO PROJECT 2.PDF »
PLO EL PASO PROJECT 8.PDF »
PLO SAN DIEGO PROJECT 4.PDF »
PLO YUMA PROJECT 3.PDF »
PLO YUMA PROJECT 6.PDF »

https://www.blm.gov/press-release/interior-secretary-transfers-five-parcels-land-department-army

5/5

EXHIBIT 2

CJ)
I. COMPONENT

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
(computer generated)

2. DATE

ANG
3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION

Feb 2018
4.
PROJECT TITLE
CONSTRUCT C-l30J FLIGHT
CHANNEL ISLANDS ANG STATION, CALIFORNIA
SIMULATOR FACILITY
5. PROGRAM ELEMENT 6. CATEGORY CODE 7. PROJECT NUMBER
8. PROJECT COST($000)
54332F

171-212

DJCFl49001

$8,000

9. COST ESTIMATES
ITEM
C-l30J FLIGHT SIMULATOR TRAINING FACILITY
CONSTRUCT FLIGHT SIMULATOR (171212)
SUPPORTING FACILITIES
UTILITIES
PAVEMENTS
SITE IMPROVEMENTS
COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT
FIRE PROTECTION SUPPORT
SEISMIC CONDITIONS
SUSTAINABILITY AND ENERGY MEAS URES
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (5%)
TOTAL CONTRACT COST
SUPERVISION, INSPECTION AND OVERHEAD (6%)
TOTAL REQUEST
TOTAL REQUEST (ROUNDED)

U/M QUANTTIY
SM
985
SM
985
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS

UNIT
COST
4,144

COST
($000)
4,082
( 4,082)
3,122
( 494)
( 336)
( 346)
( 99)
( 1,481)
( 247)
L..ll2)
7,204
_l@
7,564
~

8,017
8,000

10. Description of Proposed Construction: Construct a C-130-J Simulator Facility utilizing
conventional design and construction methods to accommodate the mission of the facility. Facility shall
be designed as permanent construction in accordance with the DoD Unified Facilities Criteria. The
facility should be compatible with applicable DoD, Air Force, and base design standards. In addition,
local materials and construction techniques shall be used where cost effective. This project will comply
with DoD antiterrorism/force protection requirements per unified facilities criteria. Special construction
requirements: Simulator will require high bay construction with specialized flooring. To the greatest
extent possible interior spaces shall be open office configuration with demountable pa1titions and
systems furniture/prew ired workstations. Exterior work includes: all necessary exterior utilities,
sidewalks, paved areas, fire protection, site work, communications support and parking area.
Air Conditioning: 350 KW.
11. REQUIREMENT: 985 SM ADEQUATE: 0 SM SUBSTANDARD: 0 SM
PROJECT: C- l 30J Flight Simulator Training Facility (New Mission)
REQUIREMENT: The installation requires a properly sited, adequately sized and appropriately
configured flight simulator facility house a six-axis flight simulator to train aircrews to fly the 8 PAA
C-130J aircraft assigned to the 146th Airlift Wing. Functional areas include a two-story high bay in
which to house flight simulator, briefing rooms, administrative areas for training and support staff,
equipment and maintenance rooms, storage spaces, communications room supporting simulator
operations, mechanical and electrical utility rooms and latrine facilities.
CURRENT SITUATION: Air Mobility Command is establishing C-I 30J Aircraft Flight Simulator
Training Program and selected Channel Islands Air National Guard Station to receive the equipment for
this function. The installation does not have a facility that can be modified to accommodate a flight
simulator. Crews currently perform training and meet qualification requirements by either flying
existing based aircraft or performing temporary duty at an installation that has an appropriate simulator
device.

DD FORM 1391 s, OCT 96

Previous editions are obsolete

Page No Il-3

I. COMPONENT

FY 2019 MJLITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
( computer generated)

ANG
3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION
CHANNEL ISLANDS ANG STATION, CALIFORNIA

2. DATE
Feb2018

5. PROJECT TITLE
CONSTRUCT C-l30J FLIGHT SIMULATOR FACILITY

7. PROJECT NUMBER
DJCFl49001

12.
a.

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA:
Estimated Design Data:

(l) Status:
(a) Date Design Started
(b) Parametric Cost Estimates used to develop costs
(c) Percent Complete as of Jan 2018
* (cl) Date 35% Designed
(e) Date Design Complete
(f) Type of Design Contract
(g) Energy Study/Life-Cycle analysis was/will be performed

DEC 2017
NO
6%
MAR 2018
JUL 2018
IDIQ
YES

(2) Basis:
(a) Standard or Definitive Design (b) Where Design \Vas Most Recently Used -

NO
NIA

(3) Total Cost (c) = (a)+ (b) or (d) + (e):
(a) Production of Plans and Specifications
(b) All Other Design Costs
(c) Total
(d) Contract
(e) In-House

($000)
370
180
550
550

(4) Contract Award (Month/Year)

DEC2018

(5) Construction Sta11

FEB 2019

(6) Construction Completion

JAN 2020

* Indicates completion of Project Definition with Parametric Cost Estimate which
is comparable to traditional 35% design to ensure valid scope and cost and executability.
b. Equipment associated with this project will be provided from other appropriations:

EQUIPMENT
NOMENCLATURE
C-130J Flight Simulator

PROCURING
APPROPRIATION
3010

FY
APPROPRIATED
OR REQUESTED
2018

YES

COST
($000)
30,000

POINT OF CONTACT: NGB I A4AD
(240) G12-8070

DD FORM 1391 C, OCT 96

Previous editions are obsolete

Page No 11-5

EXHIBIT 3

I. COMPONENT

FY 2018 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
(computer generated)

ANG
3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION

May 2017
4.

PETERSON AFB, COLORADO
5. PROGRAM ELEMENT 6. CATEGORY CODE
C5116F

2. DATE

PROJECT TITLE

SPACE CONTROL FACILITY
7. PROJECT NUMBER
8. PROJECT COST($000)

141-454

TDKAI69004

S8,000

9. COST ESTIMATES
ITEM
SPACE CONTROL FACILITY
OPERATIONAL AREA (141454)
HAZARDOUS STORAGE (442257)
SUPPORTING FACILITIES
UTILITIES
EQUIPMENT PAD
PAVEMENTS
SITE IMPROVEMENTS
COMM SUPPORT
SUSTAJNABILITY AND ENERGY MEASURES
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (5%)
TOTAL CONTRACT COST
SUPERVISION, INSPECTION AND OVERHEAD (6%)
TOTAL REQUEST
TOTAL REQUEST (ROUNDED)

(

(

U/M QUANTITY
1,124
SM
SM
1,096
SM
28
LS
LS
SM
2,090
SM
2,090
LS
LS
LS

UNIT
COST
4,822
2,465

172
110

COST
($000)
5,354
( 5,285)
( 69)
1,672
( 394)
( 359)
( 230)
( 525)
( 164)
196
7,222
___lfil
7,583
~

8,037
8,000

10. Description of Proposed Construction: Construct a Space Control Facility utilizing conventional
design and constmction methods. Facilities will be designed as permanent construction in accordance
with the DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200-0 l, General Building Requirements c\nd UFC 1200-02, High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements. This facility will be compatible
with applicable DoD, Air Force, and base design standards. In addition, local materials and
construction techniques shall be used where cost effective. This project will comply with DoD
antiterrorism/ force protection requirements per unified facilities criteria. Special Construction
Requirements: Provide for open floor plan with Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility
(SCIF) space capable of accommodating 88 personnel. Exterior site improvements, equipment pad,
utility services, roadways, sidewalks, parking lots, access pavements, drainage, fencing, and gates.
HAZMA T Storage to include space for fuel storage, used oil depositary and flammable storage locker.
Facility and equipment require Protection Level 3.
Air Conditioning: 175 KW.
1 I. REQUIREMENT: 1,124 SM ADEQUATE: 0 SM SUBSTAl\TDARD: 0 SM
PROJECT: Space Control Facility (New Mission)
REQUIREMENT: The Colorado Air National Guard requires adequately sized and properly
configured space to support a Space Control Squadron functions in accordance with force stmcture
changes identified by the FY18 Program Action Memorandum. The facility must provide adequate
space to support the squadron's operations, maintenance, security, command and administration, and
storage areas. Facility must have an unobstructed view of the southern horizon.
CURRENT SITUATION: A new Space Control Squadron will be created in Colorado, most likely at
Peterson AFB. The squadron does not currently existing and there arc no adequate facilities located at
either Peterson or Buckley AFBs for this space control squadron. The only solution that meets all
mission requirements is to construct a new facility on Peterson AFB.
IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED: Unable to beddown the space control mission and equipment, with
operational and strategic mission impacts due to inadequate facilities.

DD FORM 1391s, OCT 96

Previous editions are obsolete

Page No. 11-8

I. COMPONENT

2. DATE

FY 2018 MILITARY CONSTRUCTTON PROJECT DATA
ANG
( computer generated)
3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION

May 2017

PETERSON AFB, COLORADO

5. PROJECT TITLE

7. PROJECT NUMBER

SPACE CONTROL FACILITY

TDKAl69004

ADDITIONAL: Sustainable principles, to include Life Cycle cost effective practices, will be integrated
into the design, development, and construction of the project in accordance with Executive Order
13423, 10 USC 2802 (c) and other applicable laws and Executive Orders. An economic analysis is
being prepared comparing the alternatives of new construction, and status quo operation . Based on the
net present values and benefits of the respective alternatives, new construction will be the most cost
efficient alternative over the life of the project.

CatCode
141-454
132-1 33
852-262
852-261
442-257

(

SPECIAL OPERATIONS
EQUIPMENT PAD
NON-ORGANIZATIONAL VEHICLE PKN
OPERATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING
BASE HAZARDOUS STORAGE

OPERATIONAL AREA (141454)
HAZARDOUS STORAGE ( 442257)
EQUIPMENT PAD
PAVEMENTS

DD FORM 139J C, OCT 96

Requirement
1,096 SM
6,271 SM
1,923 SM
167 SM
28SM

Adequate
OSM
OSM
OSM
OSM
OSM

Substandard
OSM
OSM
OSM
OSM
OSM

1,096 SM= 11,800 SF
28 SM= 300 SF
2,090 SM = 2,500 SY
2,090 SM= 2,500 SY

Previous editions are obsolete

Page No. 11-9

l. COMPONENT

(

FY 2018 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
(computer generated)

ANG
3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION
PETERSON AFB, COLORADO

2. DATE
May 2017

5. PROJECT TITLE
SPACE CONTROL FACILITY

7. PROJECT NUMBER
TDKA169004

I 2.
a.

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA:
Estimated Design Data:
(I) Status:
(a) Date Des ign Started
(b) Parametric Cost Estimates used to develop costs
( c) Percent Complete as of Jan 2017
* (d) Date 35% Designed
(e) Date Design Complete
(f) Type of Design Contract
(g) Energy Study/Life-Cycle analysis was/will be performed

NOV 2016
No
10%
APR 2017
NOV 2017
ID!Q
No

(2) Basis:
(a) Standard or Definitive Design (b) Where Design \Vas Most Recently Used -

No

(3) Total Cost (c) =(a)+ (b) or (d) + (e):
(a) Production of Plans and Specifications
(b) All Other Design Costs
(c) Total
(d) Contract
(e) In-House

(SOOO)
240
480

720
720

(4) Contract A ward (Montli/Year)

MAR 2018

(5) Construction Start

JUN 2018

(6) Construction Completion

AUG2019

* Indicates completion of Project Definition with Parametric Cost Estimate which
is comparable to traditional 35% design to ensure valid scope and cost and executability.
b. Equipment associated with this project will be provided from other appropriations:

NIA

POINT OF CONTACT: NGH/A4AD
[phone]

DD FORM 1391C, OCT 96

Previous editions are obsolete

Page No. 11-10

EXHIBIT 4

(3)
I.
COMPONENT

AIR FORCE
RESERVE

2. DATE

FY 2018 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
MAY2017

3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-IDCKAM, H1
---==--.

4. PROJECT TLTLE

(

5. PROJECT NUi\lBER

_coNSOLI D~TED TRA_1__NING FACILIT~

KNMD624007

12. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA:

A. DESIGN DATA (Estimated)

l. STATUS
a. Date Design Slatted:

Scp2017

b. Parametric estimates have been used to develop project cost.
c. Percentage Complete as of January I, 2016

35%

d. Date Design 35% Complete

Dec 2017

e. Date Design Complete - (If design-build, construction complete)

Sep 2019

2. BASIS

(

a. Standard or Definitive Design - Yes_ No__K___.
b. Where Design Was Most Recently Used
NIA .

3. COST (Total ) = c =a+ b or d + e
a.
b.
c.
cl.
e.

Production of Plans and Specifications (35% design)
All Other Design Costs (Design-build)
Total
Contract (A-E)
In-house (management)

4. CONSTRUCTION A WARD /START/ COMPLETION

($495)
(294)
(20 1)
(495)
L_)
L_)

Aug 2018 / Sep 20 18 / Sep 2019

B. EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT WHICH WILL BE PROVIDED FROM OTHER APPROPRIATIONS:
Fiscal Year
Equipment
Procuring
Appropriated
Cost
Nomenclature
Appropriation
Or Requested
~
Furniture/ Storage Equipment
3740
FY 20 18
350
Interior Design Services
3740
FY 2018
200
Communications Equipment
3740
FY 2018
65

DD Form 1391c

Page No. 7

1.

2. DATE

COMPONENT
FY 2018 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
AlRFORCE
RESERVE
3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION

MAY 2017

JOINT BASE PEARL HAR130R-HICKAM, HL
11. PERSONNEL STRENGTH AS OF JAN 2017
PERMANENT (AH.Ts, AGRs, Non-ART Civilians)
TOTA
OFFICER
ENLISTED CIVILIAN
AUTHORIZE
D
ACTUAL

1

GUARD/RESERVE
TOTAL
OFFICER

ENLISTED

44

5

32

7

393

62

331

38

9

27

2

490

89

401

12. RESERVE UNIT DATA
STRENGTH
UNIT DESIGNATION

624 Aeromed STG Squadron
624 Civil Engineer Squadron
647 Security Forces Squadron
624 Regional Support Group
647 Force Suppo11 Squadron
70 I Combat Operations Squadron
713 Combat Operations Squadron

(

AUTHORIZED

81
139

15 Wing WG
AFR West Recruit Squadron
HQ AF Reserve/ PACAF
IR Read and lnteg Organization
48 Aerial Port Squadron

0

0

43
0

20
21

ACTUAL

97
129
6
51
4
15

19
27

3

3

I

53

4
Total

4

125
442

120
528

13. MAJOR EQUIPMENT AND AIRCRAFT
TYPE

AUTHORIZED

ASSIGNED

Non -Flying Unit - Civil Engineering, Aerial Port, and Medical
Support Unit

DD Form 1390 S/2

P:tge9

I. COMPONENT

AIR FORCE
RESERVE

2. DATE

FY 2018 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

MAY2017

3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION:
JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, HI
4.

PROJECT TITLE:
CONSOLIDATED TRAINING FACILITY

5. PROJECT NUMBER

1 KNl'vID624007
JOINT USE CERTIFICATION: This facility can be used by other components on an "as available" basis; however, the scope of
the project is based on Air Force Reserve requirements.

(

DD Form 1391, JUL 1999

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE

PAGE II

EXHIBIT 5

1. Component
NAVY

FY 2018 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

3. Installation(SA)& Location/UIC: M00318
MARINE CORPS BASE HAl'IAI I
KANEOHE BAY, HAWAII

2. Date
23 MAR 2018

4. Project Title
Mokapu Gate Entry Control AT/FP
Compliance

5 . Program Elementl6. Category Codel7. Project Number 8 . Project Cost ($000)
87210
P877
26,492
0216496M
9. COST ESTIMATES
Item
UM
Quantity
MOKAPU GATE ENTRY CONTROL AT/FP
LS
COMPLIANCE

Unit Cost

Cost ($000)
9,560

EA

1

1,353,295 . 69

(1,350)

rn2

40

30,846.43

(1,230)

PERIMETER GATE
rn2
GENERATOR/TOILET/COMM BLDG (430SF)
CC73025 (431SF)

40

28,529.6

(1,140)

ECP OVER WATCH TOWER CC73025
ECP GENERATOR/TOILET/COMM
BUILDING CC73025 (431SF)

ECP GATE HOUSE & GUARD BOOTH
CANOPY CC73025

EA

1

971,860.08

(970)

ECP GATE/CONTROLS HOUSE
CC73025 (118SF)

m2

11

58,406 . 09

(640)

PERIMETER GATE/CONTROLS HOUSE
CC73025 (118SF)

rn2

11

58,406.09

(640)

ECP POV SEARCH CANOPY CC73025

EA

1

625,411.07

(630)

ECP OVER WATCH STATION CC73025 EA

1

410,277.41

(410)

ECP GUARD BOOTH CC73025

EA

1

83,808.87

(80)

BUILT-IN EQUIPMENT

LS

(700)

SPECIAL COSTS

LS

(1,660)

LS

(110)

(

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE SUPP
INFO (OMSI)

14,190

SUPPORTING FACILITIES
SITE PREPARATIONS

LS

(1,860)

PAVING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS

LS

(3,190)

ANTI - TERRORISM/FORCE
PROTECTION

LS

(1,840)

ELECTRICAL UTILITIES

LS

(6,860)

MECHANICAL UTILITIES

LS

(430)

DEMOLITION

LS

SUBTOTAL

1,190

CONTINGENCY (5%)

24,940

TOTAL CONTRACT COST
SIOH

(10)
23,750

(6. 2%)

1,550

SUBTOTAL

26,490

TOTAL REQUEST ROUNDED

26,490

DD

Form

1 Dec 76

1391

AS ENACTED by Public Law :

Page No . 75

Auth: PL 115-91 (12 Dec 17); Approp: PL 115-141 (23 Mar 18)

1. Component
NAVY

(

FY 2018 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

3. Installation(SA) & Location/DIC: M00318
MARINE CORPS BASE HAWAII
KANEOHE BAY, HAl'IAI I

2. Date
23 MAR 2018

4. Project Title
Mokapu Gate Entry Control AT/FP
Compliance

5. Program Element 6. Category Codel7. Project Number 8. Project Cost ($000)
0216496M
87210
P877
26,492
Site preparation includes site clearing and grubbing work and earthwork for
the project.
Paving and site improvements include asphalt - concr ete roadways and parking
area (approximatel y 15 stalls), concrete roadway crossing, concrete
sidewalks and ramps, landscaping, chain - link fence and gates, and site
demolition.
Anti-Terrorism/Force Pr otection (Outside) improvements include mechanical
vehicle barriers, a POV search pad, earth berms at the POV search are a,
vehicle barrier curbs, bollards, and movable barriers for the center
separation wall .
Electrical utilities include primary electrical distribution, secondary
electrical distribution, transformer, area lighting, and exterior
telecommunications infrastructure.
Mechanical utilities include potable water and fire protection water
distribution systems, gravity sanitary sewer systems, and a sanitary sewer
pump station and force main.
Demolition includes restroom/equipment room Building #1188 (10.87 M2) and
gate control Building #886 (5.02 M2) to be demolished after the new
gate/control s house at the perimeter gate is completed.
Facilities wi l l be designed to meet or exceed the useful service life
specified in DoD Unified Facility Criteria.
Facilities will incorporate
feature s that provide the lowest practical life cycle cost solutions
satisfying the facility requirements with the goal of maximizing energy
efficiency.
11. Requirement:
PROJECT:

Adequate:

Substandard:

Construct entry control point, per imeter gate improvements, and supporting
facilities to comply with current AT/FP standards.
The entry control point facilities will include a new gate/control house
with canopy, over watch tower, generator/toilet/communications building,
privately-owned - vehicle (POV) inspection area with canopy, and over watch
station.
(Current Mission)

DD Form

1 Dec 76

1391C

AS ENACTED by Public Law:

Page No. 77

Auth: PL 115-91 (12 Dec 17); Approp: PL 115-141 (23 Mar 18)

1. Component
NAVY

FY 2018 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

3. Installation(SA)& Location/DIC: M00318
MARINE CORPS BASE HAWAII
KANEOHE BAY, HAWAII

2. Date
23 MAR 2018

4. Project Title
Mokapu Gate Entry Control AT/FP
Compliance

5. Program Element 6. Category Codel7. Project Numberl8. Project Cost ($000)
0216496M
87210
P877
26,492
Date 35% Design or Parametric Cost Estimate complete
03/2017
Date design completed
09/2017
(D) Percent completed as of September 2016
15%
(E) Percent completed as of January 2017
15%
(F} Type of design contract
Design Bid Build
(G} Parametric Estimate used to develop cost
Yes
(H} Energy Study/Life Cycle Analysis performed
Yes
2 . Basis :
(A} Standar d or Definitive Design
No
(B) Wher e design was previously used
No
3. Total Cost (C} = (A} + (B) = (D) + (E) :
(A} Production of plans and specifications
$1,320
(B) All other design costs
$944
(C} Total
$2,264
(D} Contract
$1,848
(E} In-house
$416
4. Contract award:
08/2018
5 . Construction start:
09/2018
6. Construction complete:
03/2020
B . Equipment associated with this project which will be provided from
other appropriations :
(B)

(C)

(

Equipment
Procuring FY AQQrOQ
Nomenclature
Approp or Requested Cost (~000)
C4I, IT
O&MMC
2020
172
PSE
O&MMC
2020
212
Smart Grid Equipment
PMC
2020
30
JOINT USE CERTIFICATION:
The Director Land Use and Military Construction Branch, Installations and
Logistics Department, Headqua r ters Marine Corps certifies that this project
has been considered for joint use potential. Unilateral Constr uction is
recommended . This is an installation utility/infrastructure project and
does not qualify for joint use at this location, however, all tenants on
this installation will benefit from this project.
~ctivity POC: Project Development Lead

DD

Form

1 Dec 76

1391C

Phone No: (808} 257 - 3687

AS ENACTED by Public Law:

Page No. 79

Auth: PL 115-91 (12 Dec 17); Approp: PL 115-141 (23 Mar 18)

EXHIBIT 6

1.

co:,!PO!IEIIT

2. DATE

FY 202 1 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

1 3 APR 2018
02 SEP 2014

Army
3. Il1STALLATIOII AND LOCATIOII

4. PROJECT TITLE

Fort George G Meade
Maryland
5. PROGRAM ELEMENT

Cantonment Area Roads
6. CATEGORY CODE

7. PROJECT !!UMBER

851 10

8 . PROJECT COST ($000)

86767

16,500

9. COST ESTIMATES

ITEM
PRI MARY FACILITY
Road s, Surfaced
Sustai nabi lity/Energy M
easures
Ant i ter r orism Measures

80,643
---

SUPPORTING FACILI TI ES
Electric Servi ce
Paving, Walks, Curbs An d Gutters
Storm Drainage
Site Imp(816) Demo (290)

(

SY
LS
LS

LS
LS
LS
LS

-----

UM

QUANTITY

UIIIT COST

COST ($000)

118. 28
---

4 , 986
(680)
(974)
(2,226)
(1,106)

-----

ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST
CONTINGENCY (5.00%)
SUBTOTAL
SUPERVISION, I NSPECTION & OVERHEAD (5 . 70%)
TOTAL REQUEST
TOTAL REQUEST (ROUNDED)
I NSTALLED EQT- OTH ER APPRO PRIATIONS
10.

9,99 4
(9 , 539)
(260)
(195)

14,980
749
15,729
897
1 6,626
1 6,500
(0)

Description of Proposed Construction

Construct additional road surface by wi den ing the travel lanes of Cooper Avenue
from Rockenbach Road to Mapes Road. Increase transit lanes f rom t wo to fou r l anes.
Similarly widen Reece Road from Cooper Avenue to the point east of Rose Street to
adj oin the new four l ane road from the Access Con trol Poi n t at the Reece gate .
Increase the travel lanes of Rose Street from two t o fou r lanes . Facil it i es wi ll
be des i g n ed to a mi n i mum l ife o f 40 years i n accordance with DoD ' s Un i fi e d
Facilities Criteria (UFC 1 -2 0 0-02) inclu d ing energy efficien c i es , bui ldin g
envelope a n d i n tegrated bui l d ing systems performa n ce.
11. REQ : 1 , 504 , 240 SY

ADQT:

827 , 410 SY

SUBSTD :

551,608 SY

PROJECT:
W den existing two lan e roadways to four lanes and mod ify e x isting inter sections
i
to establi sh cont i nuity of travel.
REQU I REMENT:
I mprove t he timely, effici e n t and safe transit wi thi n t he cantonment area .
Con nect the three primary east-west roads on t h e instal l at i on wi t h a primary
route , of similar capacity, to mai nt a in traffic flow.
CURRENT SITUATION:
Daily traffic counts measured at t he ACPs can e xceed 53,000 vehic l es.
DD FORJ.! 1391, JUL 1999

PREVIOUS EDITI ON IS OBSOLETE

Traffic
PAGE 110.

EXHIBIT 7

@
(

2 . DATE

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

1. COMPONENT

(computer generated)

AIR FORCE
3. INSTALLATION, SITE AND LOCATION

4. PROJECT TITLE

JOINT BASE ANDREWS-NAVAL AIR FACILITY WASHINGTON

PAR RELOCATE HAZ CARGO PAD AND EOD RANGE

ANDREWS SITE# 1
MARYLAND
5. PROGRAM ELEMENT

6. CATEGORY CODE

1377 /AJXF163002

112-211

41319

8 . PROJECT COST ($000)

7. RPSUID/PROJECT NUMBER

9.

COST

37,000

ESTIMATES
UNIT
U/M

ITEM

QUANTITY

COST
($000)
12,704

PRIMARY FACILITIES
28,533

SM

ACCESS TAXIWAY (112-211)
HAZARDOUS CARGO PAD (116-662)

SM I

HCP /TAXIl'IAY PAVED SHOULDERS (116-642)

SM

EOD PROFICIENCY RANGE (831-173)

I

SM I
LS

SUSTAINABLITY/ENERGY MEASURES

232

(

6,620 )

7,791

232

(

1,808 )

24,682

156

(

37

5,310

196 )

(

I I

SUPPORTING FACILITIES

3,850 )
(

230 )

20,476
90,630

(

181)

(

759)

ACTIVE/PASSIVE BARRIERS

LS

LIGHTING

LS

ACCESS ROAD

LS

UTILITIES

LS

(

SITE PREPARATION

(

EA

PERIMETER FENCING

LS

(15,339)

2

1,314)
(

766)

2,117)

33,180

SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY

(

1,659

(5.0%)

34,839

TOTAL CONTRACT COST
SUPERVISION, INSPECTION AND OVERHEAD

(5.7%)

1,986

TOTAL REQUEST

36,825

TOTAL REQUEST (ROUNDED)

37,000

10. Description of Proposed Construction: Construct a Hazardous Cargo Pad (HCP)
and Access Taxiway that complies with Airfield and Explosive Safety criteria .
Construct Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) proficiency range and supporting
infrastructure in compliance with AF standards for safe training of EOD technicians
and maintaining EOD qualifications. Add to and alter base perimeter fencing and
install security/traffic control barriers. HCP consists of a concrete aircraft
parking apron, asphalt shoulders, aircra ft grounding syst em, and aircraft tie down
points. HCP also requires a concrete access taxiway with asphalt shoulders. Project
also includes site preparation, airfield taxiway and HCP lighting and markings, HCP
and EOD range access roads, site improvements, necessary utilities rerouting and
installation, airfield storm drainage features, required demolition, and all other
necessary work. All work will utilize economical design and construction methods to
acconunodate the mission of the faciliti es and will be compatible with applicable
DoD, Air Force, and base design standards . Facilities will be designed as p ermanent
construction in accordance with DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) l-200-01,
General Building Requirements and UFC 1-200-02, High Performance and Sustainable
Building Requirements. This project will comply with DoD antiterrorism/force
protection requirements per UFC 4-010-01 .
DD FORM 1391, DEC 99

Previous editions are obsolete.

54
FEBRUARY 2018

1, COMPONENT

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

2 . DATE

(computer generated)

AIR FORCE
3. INSTALLATION, SITE AND LOCATION

4. PROJECT TITLE

JOINT BASE ANDREWS-NAVAL AIR FACILITY WASHINGTON
ANDREWS SITE I# 1
MARYLAND

PAR RELOCATE HAZ CARGO PAD AND EOD RANGE

5 . PROGRAM ELEMENT

6 . CATEGORY CODE

41319

112-211

11. Requirement: 7791 SM
PROJECT:

7. RPSUID/PROJECT NUJ.ffiER

8 . PROJECT COST ($000)

1377 /AJXF163002

Adequate: 0 SM

37,000

Substandard: 0 SM

Relocate Hazardous Cargo Pad and Explosive Ordnance Disposal Proficie ncy

Range
REQUIREMENT A hazardous cargo pad is required to load/unload explosives or other
dangerous materials on cargo aircraft . This mission requires a location that meets
both Airfield and Explosive Safety requirements. The pad will be sited to
accommodate 30,000 pounds of net explosive weight (NEW). The taxiway provides
aircraft access to the cargo pad. Pavement will be medium load with tie down anchors
and grounding points. Maintaining qualified EOD technicians necessitates
construction of an appropriately sited proficiency range.
CURRENT SITUATION:

The Sec retary of the Air Force approved basing the PAR program at

Joint Base Andrews (JBA), MD pending National Environmental Policy Act analysis. As a
direct result of this bed down, the existing HCP and JADOC Satellite sites at JBA
were displaced to allow construction of the new PAR Complex . The JADOC Satellite site
construction caused relocation of the EOD Proficiency Range site. Siting the EOD
range next to the HCP and the new Munitions Storage Area (MSA) makes the most
functional sense as it allows for overlap of the explosive quantity-distance arcs
associated with those facilities.

(

IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED: A temporary HCP will provided
during the construction of the new HCP (limited to 450
required 30,000 pound NEW). Failing to replace the HCP
enduring systemic weaknesses in its ability to support
Lack of an BOD proficiency range will adversely impact
training to be accomplished at an off-base location at

on taxiway Charlie for use
pound NEW, far below the
will cause JBA to have
required military activities.
EOD training and force
an increased cost .

ADDITIONAL: This project meets the criteria/scope specified in Air Force Handbook
32-1084, Facility Requirements, UFC 3-260-01, Airfield and Heliport Planning and
Design . An analysis of reasonable options for accomplishing this project indicates
construction of the HCP on the selected southeast corner of the airfield will
economically meet mission needs. The economic analysis of reasonable options for this
project (status quo, and various new construction options) indicated new construction
is required to meet mission needs . The analysis concluded that construction on the
south east side of the airfield provided the greatest cost benefit without adversely
impacting airfield safety . This option requires land acquisition and restrictive
easements included in an FY18 MILCON, AJXF163002A - PAR Land Acquisition/Easement.
Significant supporting facility costs are associated with development of off base
land .

Base Civil Engineer (11 CES/CC) : 301-981-7281.
Access Taxiway 28,533 SM equals 307 , 015 SF
Pa ed Shoulders 24,682 SM equals 265,578 SF
EOD Range 37 SM equals 398 SF

DD FORM 1391, DEC 99

Previous editions are obsolete.

FEBRUARY 2018

55

1. COMPONENT

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

AIR FORCE

2. DATE

(computer generated)

3. INSTALLATION, SITE AND LOCATION

4. PROJECT TITLE

JOINT BASE ANDREWS-NAVAL AIR FACILITY WASHINGTON
ANDREWS SITE II 1
MARYLAND

PAR RELOCATE HAZ CARGO PAD AND EOD RANGE

5. PROGRAM ELEMENT
41319

6. CATEGORY CODE
112-211

7. RPSUID/PROJECT NUMBER
1377 /AJXF163002

8. PROJECT COST ($000)
37,000

This design shall conform to criteria established in the Air Force Corporate
Facilities Standards (AFCFS), the Installation Facilities Standards (IFS) [if
available], but will not employ a standard facility design because there is no
applicable standard facility design for this project and there is no applicable
standard design from AFCEC.
Sustainable principles, to include Life Cycle cost-effective practices, will be
integrated into the design, development, and construction of the project and will
follow the guidance detailed in the AF Sustainable Design and Development
Implementing Guidance Memorandum (dated June 2, 2011) in accordance with
applicable laws and Executive
Orders. 11th Wing Base Civil Engineer: Comm:. 301-981-7281.

JOINT USE CERTIFICATION: This facility can be used by other components on an as
available basis; however, the scope of the project is based on Air Force
requirements.

(

DD FORM 1391, DEC 99

Previous editions are obsolete.

56

FEBRUARY 2018

1. COMPONENT

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

AIR FORCE

2. DATE

(computer generated)

3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION

4. PROJECT TITLE

JOINT BASE ANDREWS-NAVAL AIR FACILITY
WASHINGTON
ANDREWS SITE# 1
MARYLAND

PAR RELOCATE HAZ CARGO PAD AND
EOD RANGE

5. PROGRAM ELEMENT

6 . CATEGORY CODE

7. PROJECT NUMBER

112-211

1377/AJXF163002

41319

8. PROJECT COST ($000)
37,000

12. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA : This design shall conf orm to criteria established in the
Air Force Corporate Facilities Standards (AFCFS), the Installation
Facilities Standards (IFS) [if available), but will not employ a standard
facility design because there i s no AF standard facility design for this
project and there is no applicable standard design from AFCEC.
a. Estimated Design Data:
(1) Status :
(a) Date Design Started
(b) Parametric Cost Estimates used to develop costs
* (c) Percent Complete as of 01 JAN 2018
* (d) Date 35% Designed
(e) Date Design Complete
(fl Energy Study/Life-Cycle analys is was/will be performed

Ol-NOV - 17
YES
15 %
30-MAR-18
03-SEP-18
NO

(2) Basis:
(a) Standard or Definitive Design (bl Where Design Was Most Recently Used -

(

NO

(3) Total Cost (c) = (a) + (b) or (d) + (el:
(a) Production of Plans and Specifications
(b) All Other Design Costs
(c) Total
(d) Contract
(e) In-house

($000)
2,220
1,110
3,330
2,775
555

(4) Construction Contract Award

19 SEP

(5) Construction Start

19 OCT

(6) Construction Completion

21 OCT

* Indicates completion of Project Definition with Parametric Cost Estimate
which is comparable to traditional 35% design to ensure valid scope,
cost and executability.

b . Equipment associated with this project provided from other appropriations:
N/A

DD FORM 1391, DEC 99

Previous editions are obsolete.

FEBRUARY 2018

57

EXHIBIT 8

( '! )
1. COMPONENT

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

AIR FORCE

2. DATE

(computer generated)

3. INSTALLATION, SITE AND LOCATION

4. PROJECT TITLE

JOINT BASE ANDREWS-NAVAL AIR FACILITY WASHINGTON
ANDREWS SITE# 1
MARYLAND

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER

5. PROGRAM ELEMENT

6. CATEGORY CODE

41976

7. RPSUID/PROJECT NUMBER

740-884

8. PROJECT COST ($000)

1377/AJXF093005
9.

COST

13 , 000

ESTIMATES
UNIT

ITEM

U/M

COST
($000)

QUANTITY

PRIMARY FACILITIES

7,466

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER

SM

2,711

SUSTAINABILITY AND ENERGY MEASURES

LS

(

UTILITIES

LS

(

PAVEMENTS

LS

( 700 )

SITE IMPROVEMENTS

LS

( 800 )

COMMUNICATION SUPPORT

LS

(

275

PLAYGROUND AREA

LS

(

650 )

DEMOLITION

SM

(

723 )

STORM WATER MANAGEMENT

LS

(

230 l

UTILITIES CONNECTION FEE

LS

( 250 l

CAMERA/SECURITY SYSTEM

LS

(

2,700

(

SUPPORTING FACILITIES

(

146)
4,328

2,065

350

SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY

7,320)

500 )

)

200 )

11,794
(5.0%)

590

TOTAL CONTRACT COST

12,384

SUPERVISION, INSPECTION AND OVERHEAD

(5. 7%)

706

TOTAL REQUEST

13,089

TOTAL REQUEST (ROUNDED)

13,000

EQUIPMENT FROM OTHER APPROPRIATIONS (NON-ADD)

(

1,550.0l

10. Description of Proposed Construction: Construct a Child Development Center
(CDC) utilizing economical design and construction methods in accordance with Joint
Base Andrews' (JBA) Architectural Compatibility Plan to accommodate the mission of
the facility . The facility should be compatible with applicable DoD , Air Force, and
base design standards to include UFC 4-740-14, Design: Child Development Centers
and Section 01 10 10, Design Requirements For A Child Development Center . In
addition, local materials and construction techniques shall be used where cost
effective . Includes pick-up/drop-off area, reception area, lobby area, multipurpose rooms, administrative space, access road , parking, outdoor fenced
playground areas, restrooms, storage rooms, kitchen and equipment, space for walkin freezer and refrigeration units, camera/security system, utility spaces,
utilities, site preparation, landscaping, storm water management, electrical,
communications, gas, water and sewer utilities and connection fees, fire detection
& suppression systems and all other associated support necessary to provide a
complete and useful facility. Integrates facility space to accomodate the Family
Childcare Center. Demolishes existing CDC facility (building 4575) totaling 2065
SM . Facilities will be designed as permanent construction in accordance with the
DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200-01, General Building Requirements and
UFC 1-200-02, High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements. This project
DD FORl4 1391, DEC 99

Previous editions are obsolete.

March 201 8

Page No.

19

1 . COHPONENT

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

AIR FORCE

2 . DATE

(computer generated)

3. INSTALLATION, SITE AND LOCATION

4, PROJECT TITLE

JOINT BASE ANDREWS-NAVAL AIR FACILITY WASHINGTON
ANDREWS SITE# 1
MARYLAND

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER

5. PROGRAM ELEMENT
41976

6. CATEGORY CODE
740-884

7. RPSUID/PROJECT NUMBER
1377/AJXF093005

8 . PROJECT COST ($000)
13,000

Base Civil Engineer: Comm 301- 981-7281.
Child Development Center: 2,711 SM= 29,181 SF
Demo 2,065 SM Child Development Center= 22,227 SF
JOINT USE CERTIFICATION: This facility can be used for other components on an "as
available" basis; however, the scope of the project is based on Air Force
requirements.

(

DD F0Rl1 1391, DEC 99

Previous editions are obsolete.
Ma rch 2 01 8

Page No .
21

EXHIBIT 9

1. COMPONENT

2. DATE (YYYMMDD)

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

AIR FORCE

3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION

201'/1219

4. COMMAND

HOLLO:·!Nl l\IR FORCE I3ASE
NE\-/ MEXI CO

5. AREA CONSTRUCTION
COST INDEX

AIR co:-1BAT co:.::-wm

(1) PERMANENT

6. PERSONNEL

0 . 99

(2) STUDENTS

(3) SUPPORTED

TOTAL

CHICER

Et:USTEO

CMLWI

OFFICER

Ell LISTED

CMLWI

OFFICER

EtlUSTEO

CMllAU

30- Sep-17

333

2741

522

0

60

0

96

359

226

4,337

2020

a. AS OF

322

24 95

4 64

0

60

0

96

359

226

4,022

b. END FY

7. INVENTORY DATA 1$0001
a. TOTAL ACREAGE
58 , 723
30-Sep-17
b. INVENTORY TOTAL AS OF
c. AUTHORIZATION NOT YET IN INVENTORY
cl. AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED IN THIS PROGRAM (FY 20171
e. PLANNED IN NEXT FOUR PROGRAM YEARS (FY 2018-2021)
f. REMAINING DEFICIENCY
g. GRAND TOTAL
8. PROJECTS REQUESTED IN THIS PROGRAM (FY 2017)
a. CATEGORY
C1l CODE
(2) PROJECT TITLE
1 4 9511

4 ,001,838
45 , 050
85 , 000
0
213 , 250

4,345 , 138
b. COST
($000)

(3) SCOPE

1·:Q- 9 FTU OPS F'l\CI LITY

19, 702 SM

TOTAL

85,000

c. DESIGN STATUS
(1)START
(2) COMPLETE
01/19

03/21

85,000

9. FUTURE PROJECTS IN NEXT FOUR PROGRAM YEARS
FUTURE PROJECTS TOTAL

R&M UNFUNDED REQUIREMENT ($Ml
10. MISSION OR MAJOR FUNCTIONS

TOTAL

0

29.4

AIR co:-!BAT CO:·~·IAND INSTALLATION SUPPORTitlG T- 38 TALON DEPOT MAINTEt!ANCE ; 1-:Q-l PREDATOR AflD l-:Q-9 REAPER FORJ.IAL
TRAINING UNITS ; F-1 6 FORMAL TRAINitlG UNIT; GERJ.IAN AIR FORCE TORNADO FIGHTER SQUADRON ; QF-4/QF-16 FULL SCALE AERIAL
TARGETS MISSION; 10- MILE TEST TRACK (Afl.:C) , ARMY AIR rum THE \·/AR RESERVE MATERIAL (\·/RH) BARE I3ASE SUPPORT GROUP .

11. OUTSTANDING POLLUTION AND SAFETY DEFICIENCIES (FY 2017-2021)
a. Air Pollution
b. Water Pollution

c. Occupational Safety and

Health

cl. Other Environmental
OUTSTANDING DEFICIENCIES TOTAL

DD Form 1390, JUL 1999

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE.

0

FEBRUARY 2018
1. COMPONENT

AIR FORCE

2. DATE

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

3 . INSTALLATION ANO LOCATION

HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, HOLLOMAN SITE # I NEW MEXICO
4. PROJECT TITLE

5. l'ROJECT N UMBER

MQ-9 ITU OPS FACILITY

2352/K WRD 163000

Squadrons (6th, 9th and 29th) to each have five FGCS, six simulators, four classified training classrooms, twenty classified brieli'debricf
rooms, a secure server room, classified student study/mission planning rooms ruul adequate space for squadron administrative functions for
120 personnel and 32 contractors. Additionally, 16th Training Squadron, 429th Air Combat Training Squadron and support contractors must
be collocated with the Attack Squadrons to maximize efficiencies throughout the full duration of the syllabus.

(

CURRENT SITUATION: The 2008 RPA beddo1111 hinged on use of vacant facilities at the time in order meet CSAF-dirccted aircrew
production. 8302, a 1943-vintage Sqd Ops, was used to house the MQ-1 Predator ITU (6 RS) with only minor modifications. ·m e 6th ATKS
is now transitioning to the MQ-9 without facility modifications. 8302 is in a severe state of disrepair, including bat infestation, sink holes and
is only partially covered by functional fire alanns. ll1c SO-person ACMU currently operates out ofB303 (2,727 sf) maintaining all mobile
(current) and fixed (future) GCS equipment. ll1e space in 8318 reno1·atcd during the beddo1111 to house the 9th and 29th Attack Squadrons,
while in good physical condition, has become extremely limited in mission capability by the stru1d-up ofan infonnat "International
Schoolhouse", focused on training aircrews from partner nations, such as: Italy, UK and France. Expansion capability adjacent to 0 318 is not
possible in the near future due to environmental contamination present on the site. MQ-9 fomml training sorties are currently 1101111 from
Mobile Ground Control Stations (MGCS) located within a fenced compound, but will transition to FGCS equipment in 2020/2021. This
conversion will free up the existing MGCS equipment to be trru1sfcm:d to forward locations as the equipment was designed to operate. ·111c
131ock 50 FGCS is 30% larger than previous versions, rendering the space renovated during initial bcddo1111 to house the 9th/29th ATKS
useless. Additionally, the MQ-9 ITU is the only combat airframe ITU operating 100% in an Unclassified environment, 1111ile the airframe's
mission is conducted nearly exclusively in a Top Secret environment. Not only does this fact limit the ability to train aircrews to realistically
train for their future mission, it also prevents the MQ-9 FTU from participating in electronically-linked training scenarios with other
airfrruncs/rcsource.s from other training units around the globe (via Distributed Mission Operations). Most importrullly, a class ified
environment enables the use of Link-16 and Blue Force Tracker to provide significantly enhanced safety in the airspace ru1d on the ranges.
Link-16 allows aircraft to sec each other even with radar outages - enhancing flight safety by providing adequate de-conlliction. 131ue Force
Tracker allows MQ-9 aircrew to sec JTAC position on the ground - enhancing life-safety by verifying JT AC position prior to employing
live/inert weapons. Academic portions of the formal training syllabus are routinely held in a relocatable trailer. The trailer was originally
purchased to provide swing space during the execution of initial beddo1111 renovations in 0318, but recurring explosil·c gro111h and the lack
of fixed space alternatives has driven the continued use of the trailer with no end to the requirement in sight. Additionally, there arc
insufficient classrooms to execute the syllabus optimally. Likewise, the FTU squadrons currently operate in a severe shortage ofbrieli'debrief
spaces dispersed throughout the existing facilities. While this shortfall could be addressed through scheduling in a traditional l·T U, the MQ-9
training flow requires students to rotate through "sorties" flying ru1 aircraft already airborne during and after their mission. While one aircrew
is flying the aircraft for a training sortie, the last aircrew to fly the aircraft is debriefing their mission and the next aircrew is briefing for
their mission to follow. This cyclical flow requires reliable availability of brief/debrief rooms to enable smooth trru1sition between
flights. Lastly, students currently have no access to classified mission planning/study space. This limits their ability to focus on the classified
aspects of the training requirements of the syllabus. These critical facility condition, capacity and classification shortfalls severely limit the
overall effectiveness and efficiency of the ITU in pcrfonning its core task of generating properly trained aircrews to feed CAF demands.
IMPACT ff NOT PROVIDED: If properly configured MQ-9 ITU facilities arc not provided, the quantity and/or timeliness of aircrew
produced will be less than 1-IHQ expects while artificially increasing PERSTEMPO to make up for lack of appropriate equipment and
facilities. Low qua11tity and late graduations negatively impact US power proj ection for multiple CCDRs. Additionally, due to the lack of
secure operational spaces, !he newly trained aircrews will continue to be thrust into Top Secret environments will little to no experience
operating in these types of situations. Additionally, failure to enable use ofLink-16 and UFTwill inhibit improvements to safety margins
in airspace and ranges.
ADDITIONAL: This project meets the criteria/scope in Air Force Manual 32-1084, Facility Requirements. A preliminary analysis of
alternatives indicates that constructing a new facility to house MQ-9 ITU Operations is the only feasible option. ll1is is a new mission
bcddo1111 (MQ-9) specific to the mission ru1d no other suitable fa cilities exist on 1-lollomru1 AFB. A certification of exception is being
prepared. Sustainable principles, to include life cycle cost cncctive practices, will be integrated into the design, development, and
construction of the project. Base Civil Engineer: Comm. [phone] ; (MQ-9 Ops Facility: 19702 SM= 212,000 SF)
JOINT USE CERTIFICATION: This facility can be used by other components on an "as available" basis; however, the scope of this project
is based on Air Force requirements.

DD Form 1391, DEC 99 (E-Form)

PREVIOUS EDITIONS MAY BE USED INTERNALLY

FEBRUARY 2018

EXHIBIT 10

1. COMPONENT

FY 2019 MILITARY COllSTRUCTIO!l PROGRAM

2. DATE

ARMY

(

01 FEB 2018
4. co:- -!A!ID
~

3. lllSTALLATIOI! AND LOCATIOll

White Sands Mi ssile Range

5. AREA CONSTRUCTION
COST INDEX

US Army Installation Management Command

0.95

llew ?•!exico

6. PERSO!INEL STREIIGTH:

(11 PERMA!IENT
OFFICER E!ILIST

(2) STUDENTS

CIVIL

OFFICER ENLI ST

(3 l SUPPORTED

CIVIL

OFFICER ENLIST

(4) TOTAL

CIVIL

A. AS OF 31 OCT 2017

64

61

1830

0

0

0

466

1178

3668

7,267

B. E!ID FY 2023

73

155

1695

0

0

0

466

1178

3326

6,893

7. I!IVENTORY DATA ($000)
A. TOTAL AREA ...... . ...

936,364 ha

(2,313,797 AC)

B. IIIVE!ITORY TOTAL AS OF 05 JUL 2017 ........ . . .. .................
c. AUTHORIZATIOll NOT YET m IIIVENTORY ................ ........ . . ..
D. AUTHORIZATIOll REQUESTED IN THE FY 2019 PROGRA!·! . ......... . .....

4,354,107

E . AUTHORIZATIOll HICLUDED IN THE FY 2020 PROGRA!·!. .......... • . ... •
F. PLA!l!IED Ill IIEXT THREE YEARS (IIEl•I MISSIOll OllLY) . . . ... ... •• . ... •

0

G. REl-!AIIIIIIG DEFICIEIICY ............................ .. ...... . .. . . •
H. GRA!ID TOTAL ...... . ........... . ........ • . . ........... • . . . . • . . .•

75,730

8.

221 ,182
40,000
0
4,691,019

PROJECT APPROPRIATIO:,S REQUESTED IN THE FY 2019 PROGRA!·!:
CAT

COST

CODE

PROJECT TITLE

SCOPE/ UH

13115 Information Systems Facility

56,268.00/SF(5227.47/m2)

9.

START

co:-!PLETE

40,000 06/2017

TOTAL

(

DESIGN STATUS

($000)

10/2018

40,000

FUTURE PROJECT APPROPRIATIO!IS:
CATEGORY
CODE

PROJECT TITLE

A.

IIICLUDED Ill THE FY 2020 PROGRA!• HONE
!:

B.

PLA!IIIED !!EXT THREE PROGRA!·! YEARS (!IEI-I MISSIO!I ONLY): !!ONE

C.

COST
($000 )

DEFERRED SUSTAIUHE!IT, RESTORATION, A!ID 1
-:0DERNIZATIOll (SRJ.I) :

II/A

10. 1-HSSIO!I OR l·IAJOR FU!ICTIONS:
l·lhite Sand s Missile Range (WS!-!Rl, birthplace of America's missile and space activity, provides Army,
navy, Air Force, Department of Defense (DoD), and other organizations with high quality services for

experimentation , test, research, assessment, development, and training in support of the llat ion. l·ISMR
always provides the best value; focusing on affordability and stewardship of resources, providing

results that consistent ly exceed expectations while providing a high quality of life for our service
members, civi l ians, and families.
11.

OUTSTA!IDING POLLUTIO!I AND SAFETY DEFI CI Et/CIES:
($000)
A. AIR POLLUTION

0

B. \•1
ATER POLLUTION

0

C. OCCUPATIO!IAL SAFETY A!ID HEALTH

0

DD FOR/-1 1390, JUL 1999

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE

PAGE NO. 71

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

(

PAGE NO.

72

1. co:-IPONENT

2. DATE

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
Army

01 FEB 2018

3. Il/STJ\LLJ\TION AND L OCATION

4.

1~hite Sands Missile Range
New Mexico
5.

PROGRAJ.I ELEMEllT

72896A

PROJECT TITLE

Information Systems Facility

6. CATEGORY CODE

7. PROJECT tlUMBER

13115

8.

33584

PROJECT COST ($000)

40,000

Approp

9. COST ESTHIJ\TES

ITEM
PRIMARY FAC ILITY
13115 Information Systems Facility
81160 Redundant Power
13120 Communications Center
88020 IDS Instal l ation
89220 EMCS Connection
Total from Continuation page(s)
SUPPORTING FACILITIES
Electric Service
Wate r , Sewer, Gas
Paving, Walks, Curbs And Gutters
Storm Drainage
Site Imp (3,658) Demo(462)
Informat ion Systems

(

U!-1

(1-!/E)

m2 (SF)
LS
m2 (SF)
LS
LS

QUANTITY

5,227

(

-185.81 (
---

LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS

---

UNIT COST

56,268)
2,000)

3,707
-5,294

---

-----

----

--

- -

--

COST($000)

30,124
(19,376)
(1,598)
(984)
(104)
(52)
(8 , 010)
6,141
(522)
(77)
(161)
(240)
(4,120)
(1,021)

ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST
CONTINGENCY (5 . 00%)
SUBTOTAL
SUPV, INSP & OVERHEAD (5 . 70%)
TOTAL REQUEST
TOTAL REQUEST (ROUNDED)
INSTALLED EQT-OTHER APPROP

36,265
1 , 813
38,078
2,170
40,248
40,000
(13,360)
10. Description of Proposed Construction
Construct an Information systems Facility (ISF) and a
Communications Center with redundant power, an Intrusion Detection System (IDS) and
connection to the Energy Monitoring and Control System (EMCS). The facilities will have
state of the art network systems, telephonic, voice, and enterprise storage equipment to
support i nstallation wide communication network services. The project includes
administrative offices, laboratory space, a server farm area, enterprise storage systems,
telephone switch room, information assurance secure operations center, customer support
branch, data center Non-classified Internet Protocol Router (NIPR) Network space,
Network Operations Center (NOC), secure room with vault for Outside Plant (OSP), Red NOC,
Communications Security (COMSEC), Technical Support Network(TSN) data center, computer
help desk, Secure Video Teleconferenci ng Center (VTC), telecommunications center,
building information systems, Secret Internet Protocol Router (SIPR) Network data center,
recept ion area, conference room, battery storage area, break room and, res t rooms.
Heating and air conditioning will be provided by self - contained system. Measures in
accordance with the Department of Defense (DoD) Minimum Antiterrorism for Buildings
standards will be provided. Comprehensive building and furnishings related inter ior
design services are required. Access for individuals with disabilities will be provided.
Cyber Security Measures will be incorporated i nto this project. Sustainability/Energy
measures will be provided. Facilities will be designed to a minimum life of 40 years in
accordance with DoD's Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC 1 - 200 - 02) including energy
efficiencies , building envel ope and integrated building systems performance. Demolish 2
DD FORt-! 1391, JUL 1999

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE

PAGE !:O. 73

l . CO:·IPO!IENT

2 . DATE

(

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
Army

01 FEB 2018

3 . IIISTALLATIO!I AND LOCATIO!I

4. PROJ ECT TITLE

White Sands Missile Range
New Mexico
5. PROGRA!·I ELEt·IE!IT

Infor mation Systems Facility

6. CATEGORY CODE

7.

PROJECT IIUHBER

72896A
13115
9. COST ESTIMATES {CONTINUED)

33584

ITEM

UM {M/E)

PRIMARY FACILITY {CONTINUED)
00000 Cybersecurity Measures
Sustainability/Energy Measures
Antiterrorism Measures
Building Information Systems

8. PROJECT COST ($000)

40,000

Approp

QUANTITY

UNIT
COST

LS
LS
LS
LS
Total

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION:
{CONTINUED)
buildings at White Sands Missile Range, NM (Total 2,061 m2/22,180 SF).
(Estimated 2,198 kWr/625 Tons ).

(

COST
($000)

(750)
(416)
(416)
(6,428)
8,010

Air Conditioning

11. REQ:
5,312 m2
ADQT:
85 m2
SUBSTD:
NONE
PROJECT:
Construct an Information Systems Facility at White Sands Missile Range {WSMR),
New Mexico . (Current Missio n)
REQUIREMENT:
This project is required to provide l'ISMR with an adequate ISF ne cessary to
provide a missi o n essential operational interaction affecting a 24-hour Information
Technology and Information Management {IT/IM) between Command, tenants, and Other
Government Agency {OGA) partners. The facility includes space for a command center for
operations support, system and network administrators, operations floor, technical
laboratory, Multi -service Technical Control Facility {MTCF), Defense Switched Network
{DSN), operations center, administrative offices, customer service center, tec hnica l
assistance for IT and land mobile radios. The facility also serves the Instal lation as a
Docking Station {IAADS) in its baseline services . The ISF will contain a Network
Operations Center (NOC), technical laboratory, Video Teleconferencing {VTC) ,
classroom(s), training room{s), conference room{s) and offices.
CURRENT S I TUATI<)N:
Curr ently t he ISF occupies both limited and fragmented space in ten
separate buildings located at WSMR. Each assigned building has undergone varying levels
of retrofit to a ccommodate the current I S F mission . None of which have b een successful
for l ong-term planning. Th e cooling sys t e ms are highly ineffic ient and inadequate, partly
due to the n ecessa ry alterations of past floor plans to accommodate equipment expansions
throughout the years. The heating system is l imited in that the temperature control in
t he personne l areas cannot be maintained at comfortable limits without overheating
equipment areas. Hazardous materials like asbestos and lead are dealt with on a case-bycase basis. Existing building design lacks appropriate workstation space and circulation,
is encumbered with safety concerns including poor air quality and limited reliable
electrical redundancy, no grounding/bonding/shielding, and noncompliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act {ADA). Assigned geographically separated space cannot
provide the operational s ynergy required for 24-hour informat ion management and the
necessary workforce fusi on r e quired for network defense.
IMPACT IF NOT PROVI DED :
I f this project is not provided, the WSMR ISF operations,
situationa l awareness, and s e c u rit y o f information and information systems may be
comprom i sed d ue to the inability to provide complete and continuous surveillance and
response me a sures. The inability to expand and support existing and future network
systems wil l negativel y e ff ect DoD efforts relati ng to IT / IM and information security. As
PAGE NO. 74

PREVIOUS EDITIO!I IS OBSOLETE

DD FORJ.I 1391C, JUL 1999

1. COMPO!IE!IT

2. DATE

(

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
Army

01 FEB 2018

3. INSTALLATIO!I AtlD LOCATIO!I

4 •

White Sands Missil~ Range
New Mexico
5 . PROGRA!-1 ELEME!IT

(

6. CATEGORY CODE

PROJECT TITLE

Information Systems Facility
7. PROJECT 11U..lBER

8 . PROJECT COST ($ 000)

72896A
13115
33584
Approp
40,000
IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED: (CONTINUED)
new military technologies and operational concepts grow and mature WSMR will need to
position itself to process and transport vast amounts of electronic test data more
reliably, efficiently, faster, and securely. The risk to the segment of the Global
Information Grid (GIG) will affect the integrity and reliability of the global networks,
adversely affecting field commanders' capability to reach-back which is a vital mission
requirement for the warfighter. Secure and reliable information may not be readily
available to installation and field commanders and will compromise the integrity and
confidentiality of information systems available to the warfighter .
ADDITIONAL:
Required assessments have been made for s upporting facilities and the
project is not in a 100 -year floodplain in-accordance-with Executive Order 11988. This
project has been coordinated with the installation physical security plan, and all
physical security measures are included. All required antiterrorism protection measures
are included . Alternative methods of meeting this requirement have been explored during
project development. This project is the only feasible option to meet the requirement.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Ar my (Installations, Housing and Partnerships)
certifies that this project has been considered for joint use potential. The facility
will b e available for use by other components . A parametric cost estimate based upon
project engineering design was used to develop this budget estimate. Sustainable
principles, to include life cycle cost effective practices, will be integrated into the
design, development and construction of the project and will follow the guidance detailed
in the Army Sustainable Design and Development Policy - complying with applicable laws
and executive orders .
12.

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA:
A. Estimated Design Data:
(1) Status:
(al
Date Design Started . . ...... . ... .... ... ......... . . .
(bl
Percent Complete as of January 2018 .. .... . ... .... .
(cl
Date 35% Designed ............ .... . . ... ...... .. ... .
(d)
Date Design Complete .......... . ... . ......... .. ... .
(e)
Parametric Cost Estimating Used to Develop Costs . .
(f)
Type of Design Contract : Design-bid-build
(g) An energy study and l ife cycle cost analysis will be
documented during the final design.
(2)

Basis:
(a) Standard or Definitive Design: YES
(b)
Where Design Was Most Recently Used:
Percentage of Design utilizing Standard Design ...

50

Total Design Cost (c) = (a)+(b) OR (d)+(e) :
(a)
Production of Plans and Specifications ........... .
(bl
All Other Design Costs . . . ..... . . ..... . . .... . ..... .

($000)
2 , 160
1,440

(cl
(3)

JUN 2017
35 . 00
JAN 2018
OCT 2018
YES

DD FOR/.! 1 391C, JUL 1999

PREVIOUS EDIT!Oll IS OBSOLETE

PAGE NO . 75

l.

c o :-!PONENT

2 . DATE

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
Army

01 FEB 2018

3 . IIISTALLATION AIID LOCAT ION

4. PROJEC T T ITLE

White Sa nds Missile Range
New Mexico
5 . PROGRAM ELEMEHT

72896A
12. SUPPLEMENTAL
A . Estimated
(c)
(d)
(e)

Information Systems Facility

6 . CATEGORY CODE

7. PROJECT llU!-!BER

13115
DATA (CONTINUED . . )
Design Data : (CONT I NUED .
Total Design Cost . .. .. . .
Contract ... . .. . .. .. .. . . .
In-house .. . ... . .. . .. . ...

33584

8 . PROJECT COST ($0 00)

40,000

Approp

.)
. ...... .. ...... . . .. ...... .
.. .. . . . ...... ..... . . .. . . . .
. ............ . .. . .. .. . . . . .

3 , 600
2,880

(4) Construction Contract Award .... .. . . ........ . . . ...... .. .

APR 2019

(5) Construction Start . .. . .......... . . .. . .. . . ..... . ... . .. . .

JUN 2019

( 6) Construct i on Compl et i on . . ........... . ... .. . . ....... . .. .

JUN 2021

720

B . Equipment associated with this project which wi l l be provided from
other appr opriations :
Fi scal Year
Equipment
Procuring
Appropriated
Nomenclature
Appropriat i on
Or Requested

(

Co st
($000)

Equipmen t
IDS Equipment
Electronic Access Control
Clean Agent supp System w/ VES
UPS Equipment
Info Sys - !SC
Info Sys - PROP

130
100
100
100
40
2 , 532
10,358

OPA
OPA
OPA
OPA
OPA
OPA
RDT&E

2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
Total

Instal l ation Engineer:
PAGE !10 . 76

Phone Number:

13,360

575 - 678 - 2252

PREVIOUS EDITION I S OBS OLETE

DD FOR/-! 13 91C, JUL 1 999

EXHIBIT 11

1 . COHPONENT

2 . DATE

(

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCT I ON PROJ ECT DATA

11 APR 2019
29 AUG 2017

Army
3.

IIISTALLATIO!I AND LOCATIO!I

4. PROJEC-T TITL E

West Point Military Reservation
New York
5 . PROGRAM ELEKENT

6. CJ\TEGORY CODE

Engineering Center and Parking
Structure
7 . PROJECT 1/UXBER

171 38

8. PROJECT COST ($000)

1 97,000

78804
9. COST ESTH :ATES

ITEM
PRIMARY FACILITY
Instruct i onal Building
Parking Structure
Rock Removal
Guard Booth
Cyber Security
Total from Continuation page
SUPPORTING FACILITIES
Ele ctric Service
Water, Sewer, Gas
Steam And/Or Chilled Water Dist r ibut i on
Paving, Walks, Curbs And Gutters
Storm Drainage
Site Imp(7,333) Demo(369)
Information Systems

(

UM

SF
EA
LS
SF
LS

LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS

ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST
CONTINGENCY (5.00%)
SUBTOTAL
SUPERVISION, INSPECTION & OVERHEAD (5.70%)
TOTAL REQUEST
TOTAL REQUEST (ROUNDED)
INSTALLED EQT-OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

QUANTITY

136, 00(
15(
10 (

--

---

-----

667.63
43,736

--

--

--

U!IIT COST

2,770

--

COST ($000)

161,225
(90,797)
(19,681)
(45,221)
(277)

(1,065)
(4,184)
16,616
(2,680)
(744)
(1,939)
(1,771)
(1,548)
(7,702)
(232)

177,841
8,892
186,733
10,644
197,377
197,000
(53,214)

10. De scription o f Proposed Construction

This is an incrementally funded project. Congress initially authorized the project
in FY2019 as two separate projects, PN 78804, Engineering Center (authorized at
$95M) and PN 78805, Parking Structur e (authorized at $65M) . A second funding
increment of $ 37~ wil l be request e d in FY2022. Constr uct an Engineering Center to
provi de a state-of-the-art collaborative educational space in support of multidiscip l inary project based engineering education for science, technology,
e n gi neer~ng and mathematics (STEM). Construct a Parking Struc t ure fo r faculty and
scaff to support tne a c a d emic program within the central Cadet Zone. Primary
fac i l i ty includes an inst ructional building with space for mission-critical
laboratories and laboratory support; project fabrication areas; and space for
project display, collaborative effort, and capstone work. The instructional
building will also contain confe r ence rooms, spray booths, double height space
(high bay) with overhead lift capability, and a loading dock. A guard booth
supports the building and multi-stor y parking structure equipped with electronic
security system. Significant rock removal is required . Project includes cyber
security measures, a mass not i fication system , information systems, fire detection
system (smoke detection) and sprinklers, building information systems, intrusion
detection system (IDS) installation, and energy monitoring control systems (EMCS)
connection to the installation central system. Sustainability/energy measures will
be provided. Measures in accordance with the Department of Defense (DoD) Minimum
DD fOfill 1391, JU l, 19 9 9

BNCLOSUR R l

- DD 1391

PREVIOUS EDITION I S OBSOLJ;TE

PAGE tlO.

1. CO~IPO:S811T

2. DAT8

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

11 APR 2019
29 AUG 20 1 7

Army
3. !NSTALLATIOII

rum LOCATION

1. PROJECT TITLE

West Point Mi litary Reservation
New York
5. PROGRAM ELEMENT

6. CATEGORY CODE

171 38

Engineering Center and Parking
Structure
7. PROJECT NUMBER

8. PROJECT COST ($000)

197,000

78804

9. COST ESTIMATES (CONTINUED)
ITEM

UNIT
COST

UM

LS
LS
LS

PRIM
ARY FACILITY (CONTINUED)
Sustainability/Energy Measures
Antiterrorism Measures
Buil ding Information Systems

QUANTITY

--

--

---

--Total

(

COST
($000)

(1,10 7 )
(1 , 1 10)
(1 ,967)
4, 1 84

Antiterrorism for Buildings standards to include a fence will be provided.
Supporting facilities inc lude utilities (electric, water, sewer, gas); paving,
parking, walks , curbs and gutters; storm drainage; veh i cular dri ves; site
improvements to include extension of existing historic pedestrian walk and ston e
retaining walls; relocation of existing passive and active barriers; landscaping;
signage; and information systems . Heating and air conditioning will be provided by
self-contained systems. The project will include a solar array on the roof,
electric service, outdoor security lighting, electric car charging stations,
Common Access Card (CAC) readers enabled control access gates, fire protection (to
include additional fire hydrants), an elevator and stairs. Access for individua l s
with disabilities will be provided . Comprehensive building and furnishings related
interior design services are required. Facility shall be constructed to standards
for historically significant facilities. Operations and maintenance manuals wi ll
be provided. Fac i lities will be designed to a minimum life of 40 years in
accordance with DoD's Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC 1 - 200-02) including energy
efficiencies, building envelope and integrated building systems performance.
Demolish 5 buildings at West Point Military Reservation, NY (14 , 700 Total SF).
Air Conditioning (Estimated 600 Tons) .
11. REQ:

136,000 SF

ADQT:

NONE

SUBSTD:

33,201 SF

PROJECT :
Construct an Engineering Center and multi - level parking structure at West Point
Military Reservation, New York. (Current Mission)
REQU I REMENT:
Th i s project is required to provide flexible multi-discip l inary project based
educational space for science , engineeri n g, techno l ogy and mathematics (STEM) that
achieves compl iance with academic standards. The facility is required to compete
with peer institutions for recruitment of STEM students and, in part icular , highly
recruited minority candidates. This project wi l l provide open, unstructured
project areas, high - bay space , collaborative workspaces and laboratories essent i al
for project-based learning . By br i ngi ng the engineering and cyber programs from
several different academic buildings into one, cross-disciplinary collabor ation
and project-based education will be brought up to 21st Century pract i ces. High-bay
space and overhead lift capability will allow Cadets to work on projects exceeding
8ft and to work thru the winter months . Open and unstructured project areas will
DD FORM 1391C, JUL 1999

PREV10US EDITIOII IS OBSOLETE

P/\Gf: tW.

1.

COMPOllEI-IT

2, DI\TE

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
Army

11 APR 2019
29 AUG 20 17

3. lllSTI\LLATIO:I AND LOC/\TION

4.

West Point Military Reservation
New York

Engineering Center and Parking
Structure

5. PROGRAM ELEMENT

6. CATEGORY CODE

171 38

PROJECT TITLE

7 • PROJECr llill!BER

78804

8. PROJECT COST ($000)

197,000

REQUIREMENT: (CONTINUED)
allow proper materi a ls handling capabilities. A proper loading dock, adjacencies
for rapid fa brication, and visibility into fabrication and project spaces will cut
down life, health, safety chal lenges. This project will provide air handling a nd
f ume ventilation for application of coatings, glues, paints and chemical
treatments. There are no alternate permanent facilities, either adequate or
available, which could be used to support this mission. Parking and circulation
studies conducted by the Garrison indicate the need to eliminate exis ting parking
due to antiterrorism force protection violations; the need to restrict vehicle
access within the academic campus for safety and secu rity purposes; and the need
to provide additional parking for staff and faculty. The location along Thayer
Road will support the parking demands of faculty a nd staff, and accommodate
displaced parking to be removed in accordance with minimum antiterrorism force
protection standards.

(

CURRENT SITUATION:
Currently, neither adequate existing permanent facilities nor buildings of
opportunity are available at West Point to support compl iance with engineering
academic standards and the requirements to turn out high caliber, Army ready
Soldiers. As functions and requirements have changed, existing facilit ies have
become inadequate for the success of the program mission. Functions are scattered
throughout the buildings, so preferred ad jacencies, utilities, climate control,
ceiling height and material handling capacity are not available . Adequate
facilities for the support of project-based lea rn ing and Cyber Security Studies do
not exist, and there are on-going issues with water inf i ltrat ion, insufficient
provision of air and circulation, inflexibility of layout spaces, and difficulty
in providing new utilities. Existing laboratories have insufficient headroom and
separation of functions, and classrooms need additional audio visual
infrastructure and blackboard/chalkboard sur f aces . Parking within the academic
campus area is critically short, and does not meet the requirement of numerous
faculty and staff that work with in this area. Additionally, much of the parking is
in violation of Antiterrorism force protection standards, and needs to be
relocated. The structure will enable the required 450 park ing spaces to fit within
the dense urban campus, minimize the amount of land needed, and account for the
steep slopes. The steep terrain and rock conditions will require extensive rock
blasting and removal/disposal.
IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED:
If this pro jec t is n o t provided, l'lest Point's eng ineering education facilities
wil l f a il t.o meet the standards set by peer Universities (Mission failure), Cadet
injury, potential loss of Enginee r ing Accreditation {Mission failure), and loss of
prime Collegiate recruits {Mission failure). The quality of the engineering
education at West Point would be deteriorated, particularly as compared to peer
and near-peer institutions . The nationally-ranked engineering programs absolutely
require this modernization to maintain the edge, and a failure to act will have a
significant negative impact on t he accession of trained engineers and cybersecurity personnel in to the Army as cadets and potential Cadets choose other
academic maiors and other universiti es. Further , recruitino of n ew cadets,
DD FORN 139lC, JUL 1999

PREVIOUS EDIT[0/1 IS OBSOU,"!E

PIIGE t,O.

2. DATE

l . COMPON8ff['

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
Army

11 APR 2019
29 AUG 2017

3. INSTALLATIOll AND LOCATION

4. PROJECT TITLE

West Point Military Reservation
New York

Engineering Center and Parking
Structure

6 . CATEGORY CODE

5. PROGRA.'I Et..EME!IT

171 38

7. PROJECT l!Ul-ulER

78804

8. PROJECT COST ($000)

197,000

IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED: (CONTINUED)
particularly those not familiar with West Point, such as under-represented groups,
would be negatively impacted as the deteriorated existing faci l ity looks
progressively less competitive with peer institutions. If the project does not
include parking, a gross deficit in parking throughout the academic campus will
continue to be a critical issue at the installat ion. The need for faculty and
staff parking within the campus will necessitate the continued use of parking on
and adjacent to Thayer and Mahan Halls. This will prolong v iolations of minimum
antiterrorism force protection standards . Distant parking lots are beyond the
acceptable distance to principal buildings per international building codes.

(

ADDITIONAL:
Required assessments have been made for supporting facilit i es and the project is
not in a 100 - year floodp la in in-accordance - with Executive Order 11988. This
project has been coord inated with the installation physical security plan, and all
physical security measures are included. All required antiterrorism protection
measures are incl uded. Alternative methods of meeting this requirement have been
explored during project development . This project is the only feasible option to
meet the requirement . A parametric cost estimate based upon project engineering
design was used to develop this budget estimate . Sustainable principles, to
include life cycle cost effective practices, will be integrated into the design,
development and construction of the project a nd will follow the guidance detailed
in the Army Sustainable Design and Development Policy - complying with applicable
laws and executive orders.

Installation Engineer: Mr. Matthew Talaber
Phone Number:
845-938 - 3415
DD FO~M l391C,

JUl,

1999

PREVIOUS EDl"!'lOll IS OilSOLETE

PAGE NO.

EXHIBIT 12

I. COMPONENT

FY 2018 rvllLITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
(computer generated)

ANG
3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION

2. DATE
May 2017

4.

PROJECT TITLE

KLAMATH FALLS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, OREGON CONSTRUCT INDOOR RANGE
5. PROGRAM ELEMENT 6. CATEGORY CODE 7. PROJECT NUMBER
8. PROJECT COST($000)
52276F

179-475

KJAQ159096

$8,000

9. COST ESTIMATES
ITEivl
CONSTRUCT INDOOR RANGE
SMALL ARMS RANGE (179-475)
COivffiAT ARMS TRNG & MAINT (171-476)
SUPPORTING FA CJ LITIES
UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT
SITE ll'vlPROVEMENTS
PAVEMENTS
SUSTAINABUTY AND ENERGY MEASURES
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (5%)
TOTAL CONTRACT COST
SUPERVISION, INSPECTION AND OVERHEAD (6%)
TOTAL REQUEST
TOTAL REQUEST (ROUNDED)

(

U//vl QUANITIY
SM
1,142
SM
975
SM
167
LS
LS
LS
LS

UNIT
COST

5,490
3,983

COST
($000)
6,018
( 5,353)
( 665)
1,000
( 500)
( 250)
( 250)
150
7,168
_ill
7,526
___ill
7,977
8,000

I 0. Description of Proposed Construction: Construct a small arms indoor range and CA TM training &
maintenance facility utilizing conventional design and construction methods to accommodate the
mission of the facility. Facility shall be designed as permanent construction in accordance with the
DOD Unified Facilities Criteria. The facility should be compatible with applicable DoD, Air Force,
and base design standards. In addition, local materials and constmction techniques shall be used where
cost effective. This project will comply with DoD antiterrorism/force protection requirements per
unified facilities criteria. Special construction requirements: Use modular small arms range
construction to the maximum extent possible. all necessary exterior utilities, access pavements, fire
protection, site work, and support. Provide utility connections for modular small arms range equipment
components. Provide doors to ensure ease of access to modular small arms range equipment to
facilitate maintenance.
Air Conditioning: 105 KW.
l l. REQUIREMENT: 1, 143 SM ADEQUATE: 0 SM SUBSTANDARD: 0 SM
PROJECT: Small Arms Range/CATM Training (Current Mission)
REQUIREM ENT: The installation requires an adequately sized, properly configured, and correctly
sited small arms range to train and certify security forces, battlefield airmen, and mobility personnel in
accordance with Afl 36-2226. The facility will house a.JvlCSATS (Modular Containerized Small Arms
Training Set) for a total of 12 to 14 firing lanes. A combat arms training and maintenance (CA TM)
facility, to provide classroom training space, administrative space, and arms cleaning and inspection
areas for members using the small arms range. The ANG has both members that are required to
perform armed duties in-garrison and others only in contingency operations on both pistol and rifle in
accordance with AFI 36-2226, Table 2-1.
CURRENT SITUA T!ON: The installation does not have an organic small arms range capability. Drill
status members cannot be qualified on base during their 2-days-per-month drill attendance. Workarounds include traveling off-site at considerable expense per qualification. Given the new course of
fire includes a full 8-hour firing day, plus pre-firing classroom familiarization training, combat arms
training can occupy the majority of a drill weekend, leaving no time for other functional or ancillary
training. On base training is considered the preferred course of action because it minimizes impacts to

DD FORM 1391s, OCT 96

Previous editions are obsolete

Page No. 11-42

I. COMPONENT

(

FY 2018 l\HLITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
(computer generated)

May 2017

ANG
3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION
KLAMATH FALLS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, OREGON
5. PROJECT TITLE
CONSTRUCT 11\TDOOR RANGE

2. DATE

7. PROJECT NUMBER
KJAQ159096

12.
a.

SUPPLEl'vlENTAL DATA:
Estimated Design Data:
(I) Status:
(a) Date Design Started
(b) Parametric Cost Estimates used to develop costs
( c) Percent Complete as of Jan 17
* (d) Date 35% Designed
(e) Date Design Complete
(f) Type of Design Contract
(g) Energy Study/Life-Cycle analysis was/will be performed

JAN2017
No
6%
SEP 2017
DEC 2017
IDTQ
No

(2) Basis:
(a) Standard or Definitive Design (b) Where Design \Vas Most Recently Used -

(

No

(3) Total Cost (c) = (a)+ (b) or (d) + (e):
(a) Production of Plans and Specifications
(b) All Other Design Costs
(c) Total
( d) Contract
(e) In-House

($000)
400
300
700
700

(4) Contract Award (Month/Year)

APR 2018

(5) Construction Start

MAY 2018

(6) Construction Completion

JUL 2019

* Indicates completion of Project Definition with Parametric Cost Estimate which
is comparable to traditional 35% design to ensure valid scope and cost and executability.
b. Equipment associated with this project will be provided from other appropriations:

NI A

POINT OF CONTACT: NGB/A4AD
[phone]

DD FORM 1391C, OCT 96

Previous editions arc obsolete

Page No. 11-44

EXHIBIT 13

(

(

1. Component
2. Date
FY 20 1 6 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
DEFENSE (DLA)
FEBRUARY 2015
3 . Installation And Location
4. Command
5 . Area Construction
AIR NATIONAL GUARD KLAMATH FALLS
DEFENSE LOGISTICS
Cost Index
INTERNATIONAL AIR PORT, OREGON
AGENCY
1.11
6. PERSONNEL
(1) PERMANENT
(2) STUDENTS
( 3) GUARD/RESERVE
( 4) TOTAL
ANG FACILITY
OFF
ENL
CIV
OFF
ENL
CIV
OFF
ENL
CIV
a. ACTUAL AS
OF
b . AUTHOR I ZE D
7. INVENTORY DATA ($000)
A. TOTAL ACREAGE
B . INVENTORY TOTAL AS OF
C . AUTHORIZED NOT YET IN INVENTORY
D. AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED IN THIS PROGRAM
2 , 500
E. AUTHORIZATION INCLUDED IN FOLLOl'1ING PROGRAM
F. PLANNED IN NEXT THREE YEARS
0
G. REMAINING DEFICIENCY
H. GRAND TOTAL
2,500
8 . PROJECTS REQUESTED IN THI S PROGRAM:
a . CATEGORY
b . COST
c. DESIGN STATUS
(2)
(1) START
(1) CODE
(2) PROJECT TITLE
(3) SCOPE
($000)
COMPLETE
mm/yy
mm/yy
Replace Fuel
126
2 OL
2,500
10/10
12/ 1 4
Facili t ies
9. FUTURE PROJECTS
a. INCLUDED IN FOLLOWING PROGRAM
CATEGORY CODE
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT TI TLE
COST ($000)
None
b . PLANNED IN NEXT FOUR YEARS
CATEGORY CODE
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJ ECT TITLE
COST ($000)
None
10 . MISSION OR MAJOR FUNCTION
These fuel facilities provide essential storage and distribution sys t ems to support
the mission of assigned Air National Guard units and transient aircraft at Klamath
Falls International Airport (IAP) , Oregon .
Deferred sustainment , restoration , and modernization for fuel facilities at this
location is $0 . 4 mill ion.

11. OUTSTANDING POLLUTION AND SAFETY DEFICIENCIES :
A. AIR POLLUTION
B. WATER POLLUTION
C . OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
DD Form 1390, Jul y 1999
PREVIOUS EDI TION IS OBSOLETE .

($000)
0
0
0
PAGE NO.

54

1. Component
FY 2016 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
2 . Date
DEFENSE {DLA)
PROJECT DATA
FEBRUARY 2015
3. Installation and Location
AIR NATIONAL GUARD KLAMATH FALLS , KINGSLEY 4. Project Title
REPLACE FUEL FACILITIES
FIELD, OREGON
8. Projec t Cost
5. Program Element
6 . Category Code 7 . Project Number
($000)
0702976S
126
DESC14U2
2,500
IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED : Loading and unloading of refueler tank trucks will
co ntinue t o b e a lengthy , ine£ficient operat ion.
The environment and operators
1·1ill be at risk d ue to lack of adequate cont ainment s u rfaces and operating from a
fa cili ty that does not have all the current DoD safety fe atu res.
ADDITIONAL: This project meets al l applicable DoD criteria. The Defense Logistics
Agency certifies that this facility has been considered for joint use, as
applicable , by o ther components . Mission requirements , o pera t i onal considerations,
and location are incompatible with use by the other components.
12. Supplemental Data :
A. Es timated Design Data:
1 . Status
{a) Date Design Started :
{b) Parametric Cost Estimate Used to Develop Costs {Yes/No) :
{c) Percent Complete as of February 2015 :
{d) Date 35 Percent Complete:
{e) Date Design Complete :
(f) Type of Design Contract:

(

1 0/ 10
No
95
03/11
12/14
D/B/B

2. Basis
{a) Standard or Definitive Design:
{b) Date Design was Most Recently Used :

No
N/A

3 . Total Cost (c) = (a) + {b) or {d) + (e) ($000)
{a) Production of Plans and Specifi cations:
(b) All Other Design Costs :
(c) Total:
{d) Contract:
{e) In-House:

100
100
200
150
50

4. Cont ract Award :
5. Construction Start:
6. Construc tion Complete :
B. Equipment associated with this project that will be provided fr om other
appropriations :
PURPOSE
APPROPRIATION FISCAL YEAR REQUIRED AMOUNT ($000)
Environmental Remediation
DWCF
2016
50

DD Form 1391, July 1 999

03/16
04/16
06/17

Point of Contact is DLA Civil Engineer at 703-767 - 2326
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE.
PAGE NO.
56

EXHIBIT 14

1. COMPONENT

(

2. DATE

FY 2019 GUARD AND RESERVE
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

ANG

Feb 2018

4. AREA CONSTR
COST INDEX
.91

3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION
JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS, HAMPTON
5. FREQUENCY AND TYPE OF UTILIZATION
192nd Fighter Wing

6. OTHER ACTIVE/GUARD/RESERVE INSTALLATIONS WITHIN 15 MILES RADIUS

7. PROJECTS REQUESTED IN THIS PROGRAM
CATEGORY
CODE
171-447

PROJECT TITLE
Construct Cyber Ops Facility

SCOPE
966 SM (10,400 SF)

COST
$(000)

DESIGN STATUS
START
COMPLETE

10,000

Sep 17

Oct 18

(

8. STATE RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Board recommendations are:

9. LAND ACQUISITION REQUIRED
10. PROJECTS PLANNED IN NEXT FOUR YEARS
CATEGORY
CODE
PROJECT TITLE

04 Feb 16
(Date)

None
(Number of Acres)
COST
S{QQQl

R&M Unfunded Requirement: SO

DD FORM 1390S/1, MAY 1978

Page No. 11-32

I. COMPONENT

2. DATE

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
ANG
(computer generated)
3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION

Feb 2018

JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS, VIRGINIA
5. PROJECT TITLE

7. PROJECT NUMBER

CONSTRUCT CYBER OPS FACILITY

MUHJI79000

As a tenant unit on an Active Duty base with a Tfl agreement, the 192d FW does not have the ability
to allocate buildings on Joint Base Langley-Eustis. The host 633d ABW does not currently have the
availability in any building that would meet the COS mission requirements. In order for the unit to
attain operating capability, temporary leased space has been obtained off base. Continued use of that
space is costly, and it involves an increased security risk, which is not appropriate to continue.
IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED: The 185th COS will be unable to reach Full Operating Capability
(FOC) without a facility that includes the required SCIF space from which to operate. Having the
required SCIF space is necessary for the team to receive the intel and perform the training required to
perform in the cyber mission space. The squadron is required for the ANG to meet their USCC
mobilization requirements. Not having a facility that enables the unit to reach FOC risks the ANG
being unable to fulfill their obligation to USCC. Continued use of leased space is costly and represents
an enhanced security risk.
ADDITIONAL: Sustainable principles, to include Life Cycle cost effective practices, will be integrated
into the design, development and construction of the project in accordance with Executive Order 13423,
10 USC 2802(c) and other applicable laws and Executive Orders. An economic analysis is being
prepared comparing the alternatives of new construction, revitalization, leasing and status quo
operation. This project is considered capitalization based on the following rule from ANGETL 17-06:
New Construction.

CatCode
171-447 RES FORCES COMM/ELECTRONIC TRN
171-447 RES FORCES COMM/ELECTRONIC TRN

Requirement
455 SM
511 SM

CONSTRUCT CYBER ADMINISTRATION (171447)
CONSTRUCT CYBER SCIF (171447)

DD FOIUvf 1391 C, OCT 9G

Previous editions are obsolete

Adequate
OSM
OSM

Substandard
OSM
OSM

455 SM = 4,900 SF
511 SM= 5,500 SF

Page No. l!-35

1. COMPONENT

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
(computer generated)

ANG
3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION
JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS, VIRGINIA
5. PROJECT TITLE
CONSTRUCT CYBER OPS FACILITY

2. DATE
Feb2018

7. PROJECT NUMBER
MUHJl79000

12.
a.

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA:
Estimated Design Data:
(I) Status:
(a) Date Design Started
(b) Parametric Cost Estimates used to develop costs
(c) Percent Complete as ofJan 2018
* (d) Date 35% Designed
(e) Date Design Complete
(f) Type of Design Contract
(g) Energy Study/Life-Cycle analysis was/will be performed

SEP 20 17
No
6%
APR2018
OCT 2018
Standard
YES

(2) Basis:
(a) Standard or Definitive Design (b) Where Design Was Most Recently Used -

(

No

(3) Total Cost (c) =(a)+ (b) or (d) + (e):
(a) Production of Plans and Specifications
(b) All Other Design Costs
(c) Total
(d) Contract
(e) In-House

($000)
$470
$270
$740
$740

( 4) Contract A ward (Month/Year)

FEB 2019

(5) Construction Start

APR2019

(6) Construction Completion

JAN 2020

* Indicates completion of Project Definition with Parametric Cost Estimate which
is comparable to traditional 35% design to ensure valid scope and cost and executability.
b. Equipment associated with this project will be provided from other appropriations:

NIA

POINT OF CONTACT: NGB I A4AD
[phone]

DD FORt\11391C, OCT 96

Previous editions are obsolete

Page No. 11-36

EXHIBIT 15

11 . Component

3. Installation and Location

May 2017

4 . Project Title

NORFOLK NAVAL STATION , NORFOLK, VA
5 . Program Element

2. Date

FY 2018 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT DATA

DEFENSE ( DLA)

7 . Project Number

6. Category Code

0702976S

REPLACE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS \·lAREHOUSE

44130

DDNV1801

18.

Project Cost ($000)

18,500

9 . COST ESTIMATES

Item

U/M

Quantity

35,904
13,000
682
100

-

Unit Cost

Cost ( $000)

PRIMARY FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . .. . .. .
HAZMAT WAREHOUSE & ADMIN NAVSTA (CC 44130) .....
GAS CYLINDER STORAGE SHED NAVSTA (CC 44135) . . ..
FORKLIFT STORAGE SHED (CC 44135) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
GATE HOUSE NAVSTA (CC 73025) .... ... ........ ... .

.
.
.
.
.

SF
SF
SF
SF

SUPPORTING FACILITIES .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .....
S ITE PREP , PAV ING & I MPROVEMENTS .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .
SPECIAL FOUNDATIONS ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SITE UTILITIES . . . .. . .. ... .. . ...... . . ....... . ...
DEMOLITION . ...... . . .. ... . ...... . ... . ...... . . .. .

.
.
.
.
.

-

-

LS
LS
LS
LS

16,668
833
--

207
95
268
440

8 , 894
(7,432)
(1,235)
( 183)
(44)
7,774
(2,797)
(2,038)
(1,891)
(1,048)

-

-

SUBTOTAL ..... ......... .... . . .. ..... . .. . . . . .. ..... .
CONTINGENCY ( 5 %) .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-

-

-

-

-

ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST

-

-

17,501

-

-

-

998
--

TOTAL ... .... . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... ... . . . . . . ... .

-

-

-

18,499

TOTAL (ROUNDED) . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ..... .
EQUIPMENT FROM OTHER APPROPRIATIONS .. . .......... .

(

(5 . 7 %) . .

-

-

-

-

18,500
(1 ,670)

SUPERVISION, INSPECTION

10.

&

OVERHEAD (SIOH)

Description of Proposed Construction:

Construct a non-combustible Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) \·larehouse. It wil l include
sufficient c l ear stacking height storage , concrete floors at dock h eight , weather-sealed
truck doors , l oading docks with dock levelers, shipping and receiving areas , admin office
space , restrooms with lockers, employee lunch/break/training room, and utility spaces. The
project will also include a gas cylinder storage shed with f orklift storage and charging
capability. Supportin g facilities include site improvements, dumpster enclosures , utilities,
f ire protection, storm drainage, site information sys tems , site lighting , paving (access
road1
·1ays , hardstand aprons , parking), fencing, 11alks, landscaping , and related improvements .
Provide aboveground f ire protection water storage tank(s) and associated fire pump s , piping,
etc . Site 1·1ork includes improvements to parking areas to replace displaced parking.
Demolition at NAVSTA Norfolk includes a portion of exis ting warehouse CEP-156 (approx.
110,668 SF, FCI=67) , the adjacent gatehouse CEP- 180 (approx. 108 SF, FCI =76) and the existing
gas cylinder storage shed (Shed X380, approx. 67 , 300 SF, FCI = 64) . The existing warehouse will
return to the hos t installation for reuse .
11.

REQU I REMENT :

105,600 Square Feet (SF)

ADEQUATE: 0 SF

SUBSTANDARD: 2 01,792 SF

PROJECT : Cons tru ct modern hazmat 1·1are house 1·1ith appropriate administrative areas , gas
cylinde r storage and forklift storage and charging fac iliti es.
(C)

l

71
DD Form 1 391 , July 1999

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE .

r

1. Component

2. Date

FY 2018 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT DATA

DEFENSE (DLA)
3. Installation and Location

4. Pro ject Title

NORFOLK NAVAL STATION, NORFOLK , VA
5. Program Element

REPLACE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1
·/AREHOUSE

6. Category Code

07029763

May 2017

7.

44130

Project Number

DDNV18 0 1

18.

Project Cost ($000)

18 , 500

2. Basis
(a) Standard or Definitive Design:
(b) Date Design was M st Recen t ly Used :
o
3. Total Cos t
(c)
(a)+(b)
=
or
(d)+(e)
(a) Production of P l ans and Specifications
(b) All Other Design Costs
(c) Total
(d) Contract
(e) In-House

No
N/A
($000)
1,150
650
1, 755
1 , 432
323

4. Contract A1·1ard

06/ 1 8

5 . Cons t r u c tion Start
6. Construction Complete

05/ 20

B.

07/18

Equipment associated with t his project t hat will be provided from other appropriations :

PURPOSE

FISCAL YEAR
REQUIRED

AMOUNT ($000)

Furniture

(

APPROPRIATION
Dl'/CF

2018

65

Security/Access Control
System

D~/CF

2018

100

D\·/CF

20 1 8

1, 500

DWCF

2018

5

Rack System

&

MHE

Info Sys

Point of Contact is DLA Civil Engineer at 703 - 767-2326

73
DD Form 1 391 , July 1999

PREVIOUS EDI TION IS OBSOLETE .

EXHIBIT 16

1. CO!·!POllEtlT

2 . DATE

FY 2017 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

(

Feb 2016

WHS
3.

HISTALLATIO!J AllD l,OCAT ION

4. PROJECT T ITLE

Pentagon Reservation
5. PROGRAH ELEMEtlT

Penta gon Metro Entrance Facility
6 . CATEGORY CODE

7.

PROJECT NUHBER

144 13

8 . PROJECT COST ($0 00 )

80916

12,111

9 . COST ESTIMATES

ITEM
PRIMARY FACILITY
Entrance Screening Facility
Existing Canopy Removal/Modifications
Fixed Equipment
Security Equipment Infrastructure
Intrusion Detection Infrastructure
Total from Continuation page(s)
SUPPORTING FACILITIES
Electric Se rvice
Steam And/Or Chilled lvater Distribution
Paving , Walks, Curbs And Gutters
Site Imp(244) Demo( )
Antiterrorism Measures
Info Systems

(

U:-1

QUANTI TY

SF
SF
LS
LS
LS

10,400
9,125

LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS

--

ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST
CONTINGENCY (10 . 00 %)
SUBTOTAL
SUPERVISION, INSPECTION & OVERHEAD (5.70 %)
DESIGN/BUILD - DESIGN COST (4.0000 %)
TOTAL REQUEST
TOTAL REQUEST (ROUNDED)
INSTALLED EQT - OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

--

---

-----

--

UNI T COST

431.9
155
----

---

-----

COST ( $000 )

9,358
(4,493)
(1,414)
(538)
(1 , 584)
(28)
(1 301 l
679
(74)
(271)
(39)
(244)
(32)
(19)

10,037
1,004
11 , 041
629
442
12,111
12,200
2,324

10 . Description of Propos ed Cons truct i on

Construct a new Pedestrian Access Control Point (PACP) for employee screening at
the Pentagon Metro Entrance. This addition to the existing building will include
all required security equipment and systems; anti-terrorism/force protection
(AT/FP); intrusion detection system, information system (IT/communications) ;
safety and surveillance measures; screening and unauthorized personnel and
hazardous materials detection capabilities; systems commissioning ; ut i lity
services; l ighting, heating, ventilation and air conditioning; i n terior
renovations; demolition; and site work for conformance with Home l and Security
Presidential Directive (HSPD) - 1 2, Pentagon Integrated Security Master Pl an
(ISMP), Pentagon Exterior Standards, Architectural Barriers Act (ABA), Historical
Preservat i on, Green Build/Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Silver, Sustainability and Energy Policy Act features, Unified Facilit i es Criteria
(UFC) and all applicable Federal , State and local codes and requirements. The new
employee screening facil i ty will provide increased throughput capac i ty to safely
and efficiently handle the large daily volume of Pentagon employees and badged
personnel traffic using the Pentagon Metro Entrance and to decrease threats and
risks to the attending police officers.
Interior renovations to the existing Metro En trance screening area will be
requi red for integrat i on and efficient functioning of the new e mployee screening

DD FOR!-! 13 9 1, JUL 199 9

PRE VIO US EDITJO:I I S OBSOLETE

175

l. CO:-IPONEtlT

2 . DAT E

FY 2017 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

(

Feb 2016

1·/HS
3. INS TALLATI0/1 A!ID LOCATION

4. PROJECT T I TLE

Pentagon Reservation

Pentagon Metro Entrance Facili t y

5. PROGRAM EL EMENT

6 . CATEGORY CODE

14 4 13

7 . PROJECT 1/UMDER

80916

8 . PROJECT COST ($000)

12, 111

IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED: (CONTINUED)
Pentagon access control points. This projec t is also needed to complete integration l'lith
the new Metro Entrance Visitor Screening Facility for maximum operational efficiency.

ADDITIONAL :
All applicable Federal, St ate , local codes, regulations and criteria wi ll be i ntegrated
into this project including all appl icable Pentagon standards. The Di r ector WHS
certifies that this p ro ject has been considered for joint use potential. The fa c ility
will be available for use by other components.

(

177
DD fORH ! 391C,

J UI. 1999

PRf.VIOUS F.DITTO!I I S ODSOLET E

PAGE l!O .

, 1. COMPONENT

2. DATE
Feb 2016

Washing ton Headquarters
Services

FY 2017 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION

4. COMMAND

Pentagon Reservation (Raven R ock Mountain Complex)

OSD/DAM

5. AREA CONSTRUCTION COST
INDEX

1.14
(1) PERMANENT
OFFICER ENLISTED CIVILIAN

6. PERSONNEL

a.

(2) STUDENTS
OFFICER ENLISTED CIVILIAN

(3) SUPPORTED
OFFICER

ENLISTED

CIVILIAN

AS OF 30 Sep 2015

(4)TOTAL

23,000

b. END FY 2020

23,000

?. INVENTORY DATA ($000)
a. TOTAL ACREAGE

b. INVENTORY TOTAL AS OF 30 Sep 2014

c. AUTHORJZATION NOT YET IN INVENTORY

8,105

d. AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED IN THIS PROGRAM)

e. AUTHORJZATION INCLUDED IN FOLLOWING PROGRAM

0

f. PLANNED IN NEXT THREE PROGRAM YEARS

0

g. REMAINING DEFICIENCY

0
8,105

h. GRAND TOTAL

8. PROJECTS REQUESTED IN THIS PROGRAM
a. CATEGORY
(1) CODE

(2) PROJECT TITLE

13290

Upgrade IT Facilities
Infrastructure

(

(3)SCOPE

b. COST
($000)

4 ,000 SF

8,105

DESIGN START

03/2015

STATUS COMPLETE

04/2019

.

9. FUTURE PROJECTS

NIA

10. MISSION
FUNCTIONS

OR

MAJOR

Raven Rock Mountain Complex p rovides an enduring platform from where DOD can execute its mission e ssential functions in support of continuity of
operations.

11. OUTSTANDING POLLUTION AND SAFETY DEFICIENCIES

A.

B.
C.

Air Pollution
Water Pollution
Occupational Safety and Health

DD FORM 1390, JUL 1999

($000)
0
0
0

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE

179

1. co:-1Pm1E1H

2. DATE

FY 2017 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

(

WHS

Feb 2016

3. IIISTALLATIO!l AND LOCATION

4.

Pentagon Reservation (Raven
Rock Mountain Complex
5 . PROGRAM f.LEl-:ENT

Upgrade IT Facilities Infrastructure -RRMC

6. CATEGORY CODF:

132 90
PROJECT:

PROJECT Tl TLC

7. PROJECT !lU!rnER

87744

8.

PROJECT COST

($000)

8,105

(CONTINUED)

REQUIREMENT:
Provide adequate information systems infrastructure both classified and
unclassified and to meet the site's mission. Centrall y located Telecommunication Rooms
paired with upgraded cabling plant will require less maintenance, provide more
accessibility to IT personnel, and provide for additional information throughput to
serve a greater user population with increasing bandwidth needs .

(

CURRENT SITUATION :
The facility currently has an IT infrastructure with inadequate capacity to serve current
data needs and a layout that is i n efficient and requires multiple hops 1·1hich causes
signa l degradation and slow network speed. Additionally the lack of dedicated IT rooms
on each floor of the main facility causes maintenance personnel to take an average of
eight (8) hours per service tic ket to track down and resolve problems with cabling not
being properly routed , and equipment spread throughout the facility often in tenant
spaces that should be centrally located for ease of access. The unnecessary complexity
and inadequate capacity of the current infrastructure and equipment access constraints
require work- arounds and delay both the information systems operators and end users. This
could be eliminated by a more modern, higher capacity, information systems
infrastructure.
IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED:
If this project is not constructed si te info rmation systems users will not have
the bandwidth available to efficiently perform their missions nor will information
systems personnel have the abi li ty to effectively upgrade proponent sponsored equipment
as data needs continue to increase to meet user needs. Trouble - shooting delays will
continue to result from the unnecessary complexity of the existing system.
ADDITIONAL:
All applicable codes will be integrated into this project . This project has been
coordinated with the installation physical securi ty plan , and all physical
security measures are included. Al l required antiterrorism protection measures
are included . Alternative methods of meeting this requirement have been explored
during project development. This project is the only feasible option to meet the
requirement. The Director WHS certifies that this project has been considered for
joint use potential. Mission requirements , operational cons iderations, and
location are incompatible wi t h user by other components. Sustainable p rinciples ,
to include life cycle cost effective practices, will be integrated into the
design , development and construction of the project .

DD FORM l 391C,

J UL 1999

PREVIOUS EDITIOll IS OBSOLETE

181

EXHIBIT 17

Component

3. Instal lation and Location

May 20 1 7

4. Project Title

NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD , PORTSMOUTH, VA
5. Program Element

2 . Date

FY 2018 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT DATA

DEFENSE (DLA)

6. Category Code

07029763

REPLACE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WAREHOUSE
7. Project Number

44130

8 . Project Cost ($000)

DDNV1802

22,500

9 . COST ESTIMATES
Item

U/N

Quantity

PRIMARY FACILITIES
HAZMAT l·/AREHOUSE & ADMIN NNSY (CC 44130) ... . .. .
GAS CY LIN DER STORAGE SHED NNSY {CC 44135) . ... . . .
FORKLIFT STORAGE SHED {CC 44135) ... . ..... .... . . .

SF
SF
SF

-

Unit Cost

SUPPORTING FACILITIES .. . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .
SITE PREP , PAVING & I MPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SPECIAL FOUNDATIONS . ... ... .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .... . .
SITE UTILITIES ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . ... .
DEMOLITI ON

LS
LS
LS
LS

-

-

-

SUBTOTAL . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . ..... .. .
CONTINGENCY {5%) .... . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , . , , ..... .

-

-

-

ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST

Cost ($000)

207
95
268

11 , 916
(10,878)
(855)
(183)

-

8 , 287
{2,797)
{2,551)
(1 , 891)
{1,048)

-

-

20 , 203
1,010

-

-

-

21 , 213

-

-

-

1, 209

TOTAL

-

-

-

22 ,4 22

TOTAL (ROUNDED) ....... ..... ... .... ...... . ...... . .
EQUIPMENT FROM OTHER APPROPRIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-

-

-

22,500
{1,670)

SUPERVISION , INSPECTION

(

10.

&

OVERHEAD {SIOH)

(5 . 7 %) ..

52,500
9 , 000
682

-

Description of Proposed Construction:

Construct a non -combustible Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) l·/arehouse. It will include
sufficient clear stackin g height storage , concrete floors at dock height , weather-sealed
truck doors, loading docks with dock levelers, shipping and rece i v ing areas, admin office
space , restrooms with lockers , employee lunch/break/training room, and utility spaces . The
project will also include a gas cylinder storage shed with forklift storage and charging
capability. Supporting faci liti es include site improvements, dumpster encl osures , utilities,
fire protection, storm drainage , site information systems , site lighting , paving (access
roadways, hardstand aprons, parking), fencing, wa lks , la ndscaping, and related improvements.
Provide aboveground fire protection water storage tank(s) and associated fire pumps, piping,
etc. Site work includes improvements to parking areas to replace displaced parking.
Relocate ready service lockers {RSL's) and demolish gas cylinder storage shed {Shed 1567 ,
approx . 15,400 SF, FCI=76) and a shed area office {approx. 96 SF) .

11 .

REQUIREMENT: 105,600 Square Feet (SF)

ADEQUATE: 0 SF

SUBSTANDARD: 20 1, 792 SF

PROJECT: Construct a modern hazmat warehouse 1·1i th appr opriate administration areas, gas
cylinder storage a nd forklift storage & charging facilities.
{C)

(

75
DD Form 1391 ,

July 1999

PREVIOUS EDIT I ON IS OBSOLETE.

f1.

Compone nt

FY 2018 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT DATA

DEFENSE (DLA)

3. Install ati on and Location

NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD,
5. Program Element

May 2017

4. Project Title

PORTSMOUTH, VA

6. Category Code

0702976S

2. Date

REPLACE HAZARDOUS MATER I ALS \·IAREHOUSE
7 . Project Number

44 1 30

, 8. Project Cost ($000)

DDNV 1802

22 , 500

2 . Basis
(a) S t andard or Definit i ve Design:
(b) Date Design was Most Recent l y Used :
3 . Total Cost
(c)
= (a)+(b) or (d)+(e)
(a) Production of Plans and Speci fications
(b) All Other Design Costs
(c) Total
(d) Contract
(e) In-House

No
N/A

($000)
1 , 391
735
2 ,1 26
1 , 803
323

4 . Contract A1·1ard

06/18

5 . Construction Start

07/18

6 . Cons truction Complete

05/20

B. Equipment associated with this project that will be provide d from o ther appropriatio ns:

PURPOSE

APPROPRIATION

FISCAL YEAR
REQUIRED

AMOUNT ($000)

Furniture

D\'lCF

20 1 8

65

Security/Access Con t rol
Syst em

DlvCF

2018

10 0

Rack System & M
HE
Info Sys

Dl·ICF

2018

1,500

D1'7CF

20 18

5

Point of Contact is DLA Civil Engineer at 703 - 767-2326

DD Form 1391 , July 1999

77
PREVI OUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE .

EXHIBIT 18

1 . Component
NAVY

(

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

3 . Installation(SA)& Location/UIC: N32443
NAVAL SUPPORT STATION NRFK NSY
PORTSMOUTH , VIRGINIA

2. Date
05 FEB 2018

4. Project Title
Ships Maintenance Facility

5 . Pr ogram Element 6 . Category Code 7 . Project Number 8 . Project Cos t
0703676N
2 1 357
P256
26 , 120

Item
SHIPS MAINTENANCE FACILITY
(370 , 989SF)

9 . COST ESTIMATES
UM
Quanti t y
m2
34 , 466

Cost ($000)
23,080

ELECTRIC/ELECTRONICS SHOP
CC21357 ( 370, 989SF) (RENOVATE)

m2

ANTI-TERRORISM/FORCE
PROTECTION

LS

(3 , 020)

BUILT-IN EQUIPMENT

LS

(150)

SPECIAL COSTS

LS

(950)

LS

(2 30)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE SUPP
INFO (OMSI)

34 , 466

Unit Cost

($000)

SUPPORT ING FAC IL ITIES

543 . 52

(18 , 730 )

450

PAVING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS

(30)

ELECTRICAL UTILITIES

LS

(220)

MECHANICAL UTI LITIES

LS

( 40)

ENVIRONMENTAL MI TIGAT I ON

(

LS

LS

(160)

SUBTOTAL

23 ,5 30
1,180

CONTINGENCY (5%)

24 , 71 0

TOTAL CONTRACT COST
SIOH

(5 . 7%)

1,410

SUBTOTAL

26 , 120

TOTAL REQUEST ROUNDED

26 , 120

TOTAL REQUEST

26 , 120

EQUIPMENT FROM OTHER
APPROPRIATIONS (NON ADD)

(1,384)

10. Description of Proposed Construction:
Converts the fifth and sixth floor in Building #510 to accommodate the
relocation of the nuclear containment and life raft shops. The altered
floor plan will include shop equipment areas, maintenance space , pallet
racks , fire rated walls around storage areas , admin i strative office, break
room , personnel support areas , bathrooms , and a conference room . Existing
stairwells , from ground floor t o sixth floor will be repaired to meet code
requirements . All non-code compliant combustibl e construction throughout
the building wil l be removed and the egress deficiency on the third floor
wi ll be corrected. Code compliant fire a lar m/mass notification, standpipe
and sprinkler systems will be installed t h roughout the facility.
Pro g ressive collapse retrofits are included.

DD

Form

1 Dec 76

1391

Submitted to Congress
February 2018

Page No. 181

1 . Component

FY 2019 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

NAVY

3 . Installation(SA)& Location/UIC : N32443
NAVAL SUPPORT STATION NRFK NSY
PORTSMOUTH, VIRGIN IA

2. Date
05 FEB 20 1 8

4 . Pro j ect Title
Ships Maintenance Facility

5 . Program Element 6 . Category Code 7 . Project Number 8 . Project Cost ($000)
0703676N
21357
P256
26 ,1 20
CURRENT SITUATION:
Buil ding #510 was constructed in 1957 . The building has been cited for a
number of life safety v i o l ations. These viol ations include having no
sprinkler p r otection, inadequate fire alarm placement, lack of a mass
notification system and i nadequate egress. Most of the occupants on fifth
and sixth f l oors have been relocated into trailers . Current mitigation
inc ludes rov i ng fire wa tches on each floor, 2 4 hours per day, seven days a
week , by existing shop personne l, thus reduci ng availabl e manpower for ship
maintenance and repair act i vit i es .
The most efficient use of the vacan t space in building #510 wou l d be the
relocation of the nuclear cont ainment and life raft shops from an e xi sting
faci l ity. This existing faci l ity has severe li fe safety and environmental
concerns t ha t wou l d require sign i f i can tly more funding to repa ir than
Building #510.

(

The sh i pyard has the only life raft i nspect i on , repairs and certification
facility for the east coast , se r vicing life r afts f rom Navy and Coast Gua r d
ships . This r epresents an annua l work load o f 750 raft i nspections ,
repa i rs and certi fica tions per year, with 50-100 rafts i n active
ma i ntenance a t any time .
IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED:
The nuclear containment and l i fe raft shops wi ll s t a y in their existing
faci li ty, resulting i n increased risk to critical ship ma i ntenance
activi t i es . Approxi mate ly 330 personnel , working more than 256,000 man hours annua ll y , will remain in a high risk environment, with conti nui ng
significant r ework, higher stress , and additi ona l operating costs due to
i nadequate working environment . Shop operations wil l cont i nue to r equire
the r ental of a p ortabl e sixty ton HVAC system to provide the minimum
requ i red c limate con tro l for the shops requ ire d to operate under specified
temperature and/or humidity leve l s . Even wit h the temporary c lima te
contro l, this facility sti l l routine l y opera tes at high summertime
temperatures and/or high humidity . The result is negative impacts on
avai l abi li ty schedules due to rework , and time de l ays caused by equipment
o v erh eat i ng and failed seams on the contaminat ed materials containment bags
and enclosures.
12 . Supplemental Data:
A. Estimated
1. Status :
(A) Date
(B) Date
(C) Date

DD

Form

1 Dec 76

Design Data:
design or Parametric Cost Estimate started
35% Design or Parametric Cost Estimate complete
design completed

1391C

Submitted to Congress
February 2018

09/2016
02/2017
11/20 1 8
Page No . 183

EXHIBIT 19

@
(

I. COMPONENT

FY 2018 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
(computer generated)

ANG
3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION

2. DATE
AUG 14, 2018

4.

PROJECT TITLE

DANE COUNTY REGIONAL-TRUAX FIELD, WISCONSIN
CONSTRUCT SMALL ARMS RANGE
5. PROGRAM ELEMENT 6. CATEGORY CODE 7. PROJECT NUMBER
8. PROJECT COST($000)
52276F

179-475

XGFGl79036

$8,000

9. COST ESTIMATES
ITEM
CONSTRUCT SMALL ARMS RANGE
SMALL ARMS RANGE (179475)
COMBAT ARMS TRNG & MAINT (171476)
SUPPORTING FACILITIES
UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT
SITE IMPROVEMENTS
PAVEMENTS
SUSTAINABLITY AND ENERGY MEASURES
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (5%)
TOTAL CONTRACT COST
SUPERVISION, INSPECTION AND OVERHEAD (6%)
TOTAL REQUEST
TOTAL REQUEST (ROUNDED)

(

U/M QUANITIY
SF
12,300
SF
10,500
SF
1,800

LS
LS
LS
LS

UNIT
COST
510
370

COST
($000)
6,021
( 5,355
( 666
1,000
( 500
( 250
( 250
150
7,171
_______ll2
7,530
___Ail
7,981
8,000

I 0. Description of Proposed Construction: Construct a small arms range and CATM training &
maintenance facility utilizing conventional design and construction methods to accommodate the
mission of the facility. Facility shall be designed as permanent construction in accordance with the
DOD Unified Facilities Criteria. The facility should be compatible with applicable DoD, Air Force,
and base design standards. In addition, local materials and constrnction techniques shall be used where
cost effective. This project will comply with DoD antiterrorism/force protection requirements per
unified facilities criteria. Special constrnction requirements: all necessary exterior utilities, access
pavements, fire protection, site work, and support. Provide utility connections for modular small arms
range equipment components.
Air Conditioning: 30 Tons.
11. REQUIREMENT: 12,300 SF ADEQUATE: 0 SF SUBSTANDARD: 0 SF
PROJECT: Small Arms Range/CATM Training (Ctment Mission)
REQUIREMENT: The installation requires an adequately sized, properly configured, and correctly
sited small arms range to train and certify security forces, battlefield airmen, and mobility personnel in
accordance with AFI 36-2226. The facility will house a MCSATS (Modular Containerized Small Arms
Training Set) for a total of I 2 to 14 firing lanes. A combat arms training and maintenance (CATM)
facility, to provide classroom training space, administrative space, and arms cleaning and inspection
areas for members using the small arms range. The ANG has both members that are required to
perform armed duties in-garrison and others only in contingency operations on both pistol and rifle in
accordance with AFI 36-2226, Table 2-1.
CURRENT SITUATION: The installation does not have an organic small arms range capability. Drill
status members cannot be qualified on base during their 2-days-per-month drill attendance. Workarounds include traveling off-site at considerable expense per qualification. Given the new course of
fire includes a full 8-hour firing day, plus pre-firing classroom familiarization training, combat arms
training can occupy the majority of a drill weekend, leaving no time for other functional or ancillary
training. On base training is considered the preferred course of action because it minimizes impacts to
drill time. The AN G's 89 wings each have Airmen who need to qualify on rifle or pistol. However,
most ANG bases have too little real estate to support enclosed outdoor firing ranges due to the sizable
DD FORM 1391 s, OCT 96

Previous editions arc obsolete

Page No

I. COMPONENT

2. DATE

FY 2018 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
ANG
(computer generated)
3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION

AUG 14, 2018

DANE COUNTY REGIONAL-TRUAX: FIELD, WISCONSIN
5. PROJECT TITLE

7. PROJECT NUMBER

CONSTRUCT SMALL ARMS RANGE

(

XGFGJ79036

surface danger zone behind the target line; units seek indoor ranges to minimize the range footprint,
maximize training efficiency for drill status Airmen and CATM instrnctors, and allow required Security
Forces "night" firing by using low light levels inside the indoor range. In an NGB/A4S study which
considered the cost of travel and lost time, this site had the third highest cost-per-qualification in the
ANG, at more than $1,116 per student qualified.
IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED: Installation personnel will continue to travel considerable distances to
qualify on weapons, negatively affecting all wing readiness and severely degrading their wartime
mission. The installation will have to continue to travel over 5 hours round trip, plus 4 hours of training
forces the unit to stay over night near the range, costing S 15K annually. Safety, security, and physical
protection of Wing personnel is hampered, endangering both life and property. Additionally,
installation security forces will not have adequate training and qualifications which reduces overall base
security and also endangers both life and property. Accept risk to the deployment mission and the
protection of valuable mobility aircraft on site due to inadequate training.
ADDITIONAL: The ANG currentl y has 28 installations with a small-arms range. An additional 24
ANG installations are units hosted on an installation with an operational small arms range, leaving 46
installations which lack organic range capability. This project will constrnct a facility to provide a
modular small arms range plus provide classroom and weapons maintenance/administrative space. This
project is considered capitalization based on the following rule from ANGETL 17-06: New
Construction.

CatCode
179-475 SMALL ARMS RANGE SYSTEM
171-476 COMBAT ARMS TRNG & MAINT

SMALL ARMS RANGE (179475)
COMBAT ARMS TRNG & MAINT (171476)

DD FORM 1391 C, OCT 96

Requirement
10,500 SF
1,800 SF

Adequate
0 SF
0 SF

Substandard
0 SF
0 SF

10,500 SF= 975 SM
1,800 SF = 167 SM

Previous editions are obsolete

Page No

EXHIBIT 20

RULE 55

FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL
(Adopted June 24, 2009; Effective December 24, 2009)

(a) APPLICABILITY
Except as provided in Section (b), the provisions of this rule shall apply to any commercial
construction or demolition activity capable of generating fugitive dust emissions, including
active operations, open storage piles, and inactive disturbed areas. Activities subject to this
regulation are also subject to the applicable requirements of Rule 50 (Visible Emissions) and
Rule 51 (Nuisance).
(b)

EXEMPTIONS

The provisions of this rule shall not apply to the following:
(1) Noncommercial construction or demolition activities in support of any structure
designed for and used exclusively as a dwelling for not more than four families;
(2) Emergency operations conducted during and in response to life-threatening
situations, or in conjunction with any officially declared disaster or state of emergency;
(3) Active operations conducted by essential service utilities to provide electricity,
natural gas, telephone, water and/or sewer during periods of unplanned service outages and
emergency disruptions;
(4) Any active operation, open storage pile, or inactive disturbed area for which the
owner/operator can demonstrate that necessary fugitive dust preventive or mitigating
actions are in conflict with the California or federal Endangered Species Acts, or a local,
state, or federal water quality requirement;
(5) Explosive blasting operations. However, any other activities capable of
generating fugitive dust emissions and performed in conjunction with explosive blasting,
such as vehicle transport of materials produced by blasting operations, are not exempt from
complying with the provisions of this rule or other applicable rules;
(6)
(7)

Activities subject to an Air Pollution Control District permit to operate;

(8)
(c)

Abrasive blasting operations regulated by Rule 71 (Abrasive Blasting);

Permanent unpaved roads.

DEFINITIONS

For the purpose of this rule, the following definitions shall apply:

Rule 55

San Diego County Air Pollution Control District

Regulation IV – 06/24/09

-1-

(1) “Active Operation” means any construction or demolition activity capable of
generating fugitive dust. This includes but is not limited to, earth-moving activities, and
heavy- and light-duty vehicular movement on disturbed surface areas or on unpaved roads.
(2) “Bulk Materials” means any material which can emit fugitive dust when
stored, disturbed, or handled, and is un-packaged. Bulk material includes, but is not limited
to, sand, gravel, soil, aggregate material, and other organic or inorganic particulate matter.
(3) “Commercial” means work conducted for financial compensation by other than
a tenant or property owner.
(4) “Construction or Demolition Activity” means any on-site activity preparatory
to or for the purpose of building, altering, rehabilitating, raising, tearing down, breaking
into pieces, or improving property, including, but not limited to, the following activities:
grading, excavation, loading, transporting, crushing, cutting, planing, shaping or ground
breaking.
(5) “Dust” means minute solid particles released into the air by natural forces or by
mechanical processes including, but not limited to: crushing, grinding, milling, drilling,
demolishing, shoveling, conveying, covering, bagging, and sweeping.
(6) “Earth-moving Activities” means activities that include, but are not limited to,
grading, earth cutting and filling operations, loading or unloading of dirt or bulk materials,
adding to or removing bulk materials from open storage piles, or soil mulching.
(7)

“Emergency” means an immediate threat to human health or property.

(8) “Erosion” means the movement and deposition of land surface materials by
water or wind primarily as a result of human activities.
(9) “Inactive Disturbed Area” means a portion of the earth's surface that has been
physically moved, uncovered, destabilized, or otherwise modified from its undisturbed
natural soil condition, thereby increasing the potential for emissions of fugitive dust. This
definition excludes those areas that have:
(i) Been restored to a natural state, such that the vegetative ground cover and
soil characteristics are similar to adjacent or nearby natural conditions;
(ii)

Been paved or otherwise covered by a permanent structure; or

(iii) Established a vegetative ground cover equivalent to at least 70% percent
of the background coverage for nearby undisturbed areas.
(10) “Open Storage Pile” means any accumulation of bulk material with five
percent or greater silt content which is not fully enclosed, covered or chemically stabilized,
and which attains a height of three feet or more and a total surface area of 150 or more

Regulation IV

-2-

Rule 55

square feet. Silt content level is assumed to be five percent or greater unless a person can
show, by sampling and analysis in accordance with ASTM Method C-136 or other
equivalent method approved in writing by the California Air Resources Board, that the silt
content is less than five percent.
(11) “Owner/operator” means any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or
supervises any activity subject to this rule or any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises the site at which any activity subject to this rule occurs, or both.
(12) “Particulate Matter” means any finely divided material which exists as a solid
or liquid at standard conditions, excluding uncombined water.
(13) “Paved Road” means an improved street, highway, alley, public way, or
easement that is covered by concrete, asphaltic concrete, fresh or recycled asphalt, or
rubberized asphalt, excluding access roadways that connect a facility with a public paved
roadway and are not open to through traffic.
(14) “Permanent Unpaved Road” means any unsealed or dirt roadway that is not
covered by concrete, asphaltic concrete, fresh or recycled asphalt, or rubberized asphalt,
and which is designed and intended to remain unsealed and uncovered indefinitely. This
definition excludes public or private roads undergoing construction or resurfacing.
(15) “Person” means any individual, firm, association, organization, partnership,
business trust, corporation, company, contractor, supplier, installer, user or owner, or any
state or local government agency or public district and any officer or employee thereof, or
the federal government and any officers or employees thereof to the extent authorized by
federal law, or any other entity whatsoever which is recognized by law as the subject of
rights and duties.
(16) “Property Line” means the boundaries of an area in which either a person
causing the fugitive dust emissions or a person allowing such emissions has the legal
control or possession. This may include all or portions of a legal parcel or parcels as
defined by the San Diego County Assessor.
(17) “Track-Out/Carry-Out” means any bulk materials that adhere to and
agglomerate on the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles and/or equipment (including tires),
or are inadvertently carried out, and that fall onto a paved road, creating visible roadway
dust.
(18) “Visible Dust Emissions” means any solid particulate matter that is visually
detectable in the air without the aid of instruments other than corrective lenses.
(19) “Visible Roadway Dust” means any sand, soil, dirt, or other solid particulate
matter which is visible upon paved public road surfaces and which can be removed by a
vacuum sweeper, or a wet sweeper under normal operating conditions.

Regulation IV

-3-

Rule 55

(d)

STANDARDS

(1) Airborne Dust Beyond the Property Line: No person shall engage in
construction or demolition activity subject to this rule in a manner that discharges visible
dust emissions into the atmosphere beyond the property line for a period or periods
aggregating more than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period.
(2) Track-Out/Carry-Out: Visible roadway dust as a result of active operations,
spillage from transport trucks, erosion, or track-out/carry-out shall:
(i) be minimized by the use of any of the following or equally effective trackout/carry-out and erosion control measures that apply to the project or operation:
track-out grates or gravel beds at each egress point, wheel-washing at each egress
during muddy conditions, soil binders, chemical soil stabilizers, geotextiles,
mulching, or seeding; and for outbound transport trucks: using secured tarps or cargo
covering, watering, or treating of transported material; and
(ii) be removed at the conclusion of each work day when active operations
cease, or every 24 hours for continuous operations. If a street sweeper is used to
remove any track-out/carry-out, only PM10-efficient street sweepers certified to meet
the most current South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186
requirements shall be used. The use of blowers for removal of track-out/carry-out is
prohibited under any circumstances.

Regulation IV

-4-

Rule 55

EXHIBIT 21

The Trump Administration’s “Zero
Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy
name redacted
Analyst in Immigration Policy
July 20, 2018

Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R45266

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

Summary
For the last several years, Central American migrant families have arrived at the U.S.-Mexico
border in relatively large numbers, many seeking asylum. While some request asylum at U.S.
ports of entry, others do so after entering the United States “without inspection” (i.e., illegally)
between U.S. ports of entry. On May 7, 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) implemented a
zero tolerance policy toward illegal border crossing both to discourage illegal migration into the
United States and to reduce the burden of processing asylum claims that Administration officials
contend are often fraudulent.
Under the zero tolerance policy, DOJ prosecutes all adult aliens apprehended crossing the border
illegally, with no exception for asylum seekers or those with minor children. DOJ’s policy
represents a change in the level of enforcement for an existing statute rather than a change in
statute or regulation. Prior Administrations prosecuted illegal border crossings relatively
infrequently.
Criminally prosecuting adults for illegal border crossing requires detaining them in federal
criminal facilities where children are not permitted. While DOJ and the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) have broad statutory authority to detain adult aliens, children must be detained
according to guidelines established in the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. A 2015
judicial ruling held that children remain in family immigration detention for no more than 20
days. If parents cannot be released with them, children are treated as unaccompanied alien
children and transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS’s) Office of
Refugee Resettlement (ORR) for care and custody.
The widely publicized family separations are a consequence of the Trump Administration’s 100%
prosecution policy, not the result of any family separation policy. Since that policy was
implemented, up to 3,000 children may have been separated from their parents.
Following mostly critical public reaction, President Trump ordered DHS to maintain custody of
alien families during the pendency of any criminal trial or immigration proceedings. DHS
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) subsequently stopped referring most illegal border crossers
to DOJ for criminal prosecution. A federal judge then mandated that all separated children be
promptly reunited with their families. Another rejected DOJ’s request to modify the FSA to
extend the 20-day child detention guideline. DHS has since reverted to some prior immigration
enforcement policies.
Family unit apprehensions, which increased from just over 11,000 in FY2012 to 68,560 in the
first nine months of FY2018, are occurring within relatively low historical levels of total alien
apprehensions. The national origin of recently apprehended aliens and families has shifted from
mostly Mexican to mostly Central American.
Administration officials and immigration enforcement advocates argue that measures like the zero
tolerance policy are necessary to discourage migrants from coming to the United States and
submitting fraudulent asylum requests. They maintain that alien family separation resulting from
the prosecution of illegal border crossers mirrors that occurring under the U.S. criminal justice
system policy where adults with custody of minor children are charged with a crime and held in
jail, effectively separating them from their children.
Immigrant advocates contend that migrant families are fleeing legitimate threats from countries
with exceptionally high rates of gang violence, and that family separations resulting from the zero
tolerance policy are cruel and violate fundamental human rights—such as the ability to request

Congressional Research Service

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

asylum. They maintain that the zero tolerance policy was hastily implemented and lacked
planning for family reunification following criminal prosecutions. Some observers question the
Trump Administration’s capacity to marshal sufficient resources to prosecute all illegal border
crossers without additional resources. Others criticize the family separation policy in light of less
expensive alternatives to detention.

Congressional Research Service

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Enforcement and Asylum Policy for Illegal Border Crossers ......................................................... 3
Illegal U.S. Entry....................................................................................................................... 3
Asylum ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Detention ................................................................................................................................... 5
Removal .................................................................................................................................... 5
Prosecution of Aliens Charged with Illegal Border Crossing in Prior Administrations .................. 6
Prosecution of Aliens Charged with Illegal Border Crossing in the Trump Administration ........... 7
Statistics on Family Separation ................................................................................................. 8
Recent Developments................................................................................................................ 9
Policy Perspectives ........................................................................................................................ 12
Enforcement Perspectives ....................................................................................................... 12
Immigrant Advocacy Perspectives .......................................................................................... 14
Congressional Activity .................................................................................................................. 17

Figures
Figure A-1. Total CBP Alien Apprehensions at the Southwest Border, FY1975-FY2018* .......... 18
Figure A-2. Total CBP Alien Apprehensions at the Southwest Border by Country of
Origin, FY2000-FY2018* .......................................................................................................... 19
Figure A-3. Total CBP Alien Family Unit Apprehensions at the Southwest Border,
FY2012-FY2018* ...................................................................................................................... 20

Appendixes
Appendix. Trends in Alien Apprehensions .................................................................................... 18

Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 20

Congressional Research Service

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

Introduction
In recent years, Central American migrant families have been arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border
in relatively large numbers, many seeking asylum.1 While some request asylum at U.S. ports of
entry, others do so after attempting to enter the United States illegally between U.S. ports of
entry.2 On May 7, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice
(DOJ) implemented a “zero tolerance” policy toward illegal border crossing, both to discourage
illegal migration into the United States and to reduce the burden of processing asylum claims that
Administration officials contend are often fraudulent.3
Under the zero tolerance policy, DOJ is prosecuting 100% of adult aliens4 apprehended crossing
the border illegally, making no exceptions for whether they are asylum seekers or accompanied
by minor children.5 Illegal border crossing is a misdemeanor6 for a first time offender and a
felony7 for anyone who has previously been “denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed,
or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation or removal is
outstanding and thereafter enters, attempts to enter or is found in the U.S.”8 Both such criminal
offenses can be prosecuted by DOJ in federal criminal courts.
DOJ’s “100% prosecution” policy represents a change in the level of enforcement of an existing
statute rather than a change in statute or regulation.9 The recent Bush and Obama Administrations
prosecuted illegal border crossings relatively infrequently, in part to avoid having DOJ resources
committed to prosecuting sizeable numbers of misdemeanors. At different times during those
1

Asylum is a protection granted to a foreign national physically present within the United States or at the U.S. border
who meets the definition of a refugee. A refugee is a person who is outside his or her home country (a second country
that is not the United States) and is unable or unwilling to return because of persecution, or a well-founded fear of
persecution, on account of five possible criteria: (1) race, (2) religion, (3) nationality, (4) membership in a particular
social group, or (5) political opinion; INA 1101(a)(42)(A). In recent years, particularly following the surge of
unaccompanied children at the southwest border in 2014, courts have grappled with whether the statutory definition of
asylum can encompass threats like gang violence. In some cases, asylum has been granted on such grounds.
2 A port of entry is a harbor, border town, or airport through which people and goods may enter a country. The United
States currently has 328 ports of entry. For background information related to ports of entry and border security, see
CRS Report R43356, Border Security: Immigration Inspections at Ports of Entry; and CRS Report R42138, Border
Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry.
3 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the
Immigration Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration,” May 7, 2018.
4 Alien refers to anyone who is not a citizen or a national of the United States; INA §101(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(3). In
this report, alien is synonymous with foreign national. Unauthorized alien refers to a foreign national who is
unlawfully present in the United States and who either entered the United States illegally (“without inspection”) or
entered lawfully and temporarily (“with inspection”) but subsequently violated the terms of his/her admission, typically
by “overstaying” a visa duration.
5 DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) refers to the “zero tolerance” policy as the “100% prosecution”
policy. CRS consultation with ICE Legislative Affairs, June 8, 2018.
6 A misdemeanor, under federal law, is a criminal offense that is generally regarded as less serious than a felony and
punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment for a period of one year or less. See 18 U.S.C. § 3559; see also Black’s Law
Dictionary, 10th ed., 2014.
7 A felony is a criminal offense punishable by a term of imprisonment for more than one year or by death. See 18
U.S.C. § 3559; see also Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th ed., 2014.
8 8 U.S.C. §1326
9 See Tim O’Shea, Theresa Cardinal Brown, “Why Are families Being Separated at the Border? An Explainer,”
Bipartisan Policy Center, June 13, 2018; and Weekend Edition Saturday, “Jeh Johnson On Immigration And Trump,”
National Public Radio, June 9, 2018.

Congressional Research Service

1

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

Administrations, illegal entrants would be criminally prosecuted in an attempt to reduce illegal
migration, but exceptions were generally made for families and asylum seekers.
Illegal border crossers who are prosecuted by DOJ are detained in federal criminal facilities.
Because children are not permitted in criminal detention facilities with adults, detaining adults
who crossed illegally requires that any minor children under age 18 accompanying them be
treated as unaccompanied alien children (UAC)10 and transferred to the care and custody of the
Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS’s) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
The widely publicized family separations are therefore a consequence of the Administration’s
new policy of 100% prosecution of illegal border crossing, and not the result of a direct policy or
law mandating family separation. Since the policy was implemented, “under 3,000” children may
have been separated from their parents, including at least 100 under age 5.11
The family separations have garnered extensive public attention. The Trump Administration and
immigration enforcement advocates maintain that the zero tolerance policy is necessary to
disincentivize migrants from coming to the United States and clogging immigration courts with
fraudulent requests for asylum.12 Immigrant advocates contend that migrant families are fleeing
legitimate threats of violence and that family separations resulting from the zero tolerance policy
are cruel and violate fundamental human rights.13
This report briefly reviews the statutory authority for prosecuting persons who enter the United
States illegally between U.S. ports of entry, and the policies and procedures for processing
apprehended illegal border entrants and any accompanying children. It explains enforcement
policies under past Administrations and then discusses the Trump Administration’s zero tolerance
policy on illegal border crossers and the attendant family separations. The report concludes by
presenting varied policy perspectives on the zero tolerance policy and briefly reviews recent
related congressional activity. An appendix examines recent trends in the apprehension of family
units at the U.S. southern border.
This report describes policies and circumstances that are changing rapidly. Information presented
in it is current as of the publication date but may become outdated quickly.

10

Unaccompanied alien children (UAC) are defined in statute as children who lack lawful immigration status in the
United States, who are under the age of 18, and who either are without a parent or legal guardian in the United States or
without a parent or legal guardian in the United States who is available to provide care and physical custody; 6 U.S.C.
§279(g)(2). In this report, children refers to minors under age 18 unless otherwise indicated. For more information, see
CRS Report R43599, Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview.
11 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “HHS Issues Statement on Ms. L, et al., Status Report Regarding
Plan for Compliance for Remaining Class Members,” press release, July 13, 2018. This figure was also reported in
several news reports, including Dan Diamond, “HHS says hundreds more migrant kids may have been separated than
earlier count,” Politico, July 5, 2018; and Caitlin Dickerson, “Trump Administration in Chaotic Scramble to Reunify
Migrant Families,” New York Times, July 5, 2018.
12 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the
Immigration Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration,” May 7, 2018.
13 See, for example, American Immigration Council, “Asylum in the United States, Fact Sheet,” May 14, 2018; and
International Justice Resource Center, Asylum and the Rights of Refugees, accessed by CRS on July 12, 2018, at
https://ijrcenter.org/refugee-law/.

Congressional Research Service

2

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

Enforcement and Asylum Policy for Illegal
Border Crossers
Aliens who wish to enter the United States may request admission legally14 at a U.S. port of entry
or may attempt to enter illegally by crossing the border surreptitiously between U.S. ports of
entry. Aliens who wish to request asylum may do so at a U.S. port of entry before an officer with
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of
Field Operations or upon apprehension between U.S. ports of entry before an agent with CBP’s
U.S. Border Patrol. DHS has broad statutory authority both to detain aliens not legally admitted,
including asylum seekers, and to remove aliens who are found to be either inadmissible at ports
of entry or removable once in the United States. Aliens requesting asylum at the border are
entitled to an interview assessing the credibility of their asylum claims.15

Illegal U.S. Entry
Aliens who enter the United States illegally between ports of entry face two types of penalties.
They face civil penalties for illegal presence in the United States, and they face criminal penalties
for having entered the country illegally. Both types of penalties are explained below.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) establishes civil penalties for persons who are in the
United States unlawfully (i.e., without legal status). These penalties apply to foreign nationals
who entered the United States illegally as well as those who entered legally but subsequently
violated the terms of their admission, typically by “overstaying” their visa duration. Foreign
nationals who are apprehended for such civil immigration violations are generally subject to
removal (deportation) and are placed in formal or streamlined removal proceedings (described
below in “Removal”).
The INA also establishes criminal penalties for (1) persons who enter or attempt to enter the
United States illegally between ports of entry, (2) persons who elude examination or inspection
by immigration officers, or (3) persons who attempt to enter or obtain entry to the United States
through fraud or willful misrepresentation.16 In addition, the INA provides criminal penalties for
persons who unlawfully reenter the United States after they were previously removed from the
country.17 Foreign nationals apprehended for criminal immigration violations are subject to
prosecution by DOJ in federal criminal courts. This report only addresses criminal penalties for
illegal entry and reentry between ports of entry.
Foreign nationals who attempt to enter the United States without authorization often do so
between U.S. ports of entry on the U.S. border. If apprehended, they are processed by CBP. They
are typically housed briefly in CBP detention facilities before being transferred to the custody of
another federal agency or returned to their home country through streamlined removal procedures
(discussed below). All apprehended aliens, including children, are placed into removal
proceedings that occur procedurally after any criminal prosecution for illegal entry. Removal
14

For more information on legal admissions, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10150, An Overview of U.S. Immigration
Laws Regulating the Admission and Exclusion of Aliens at the Border; and CRS Report R45020, A Primer on U.S.
Immigration Policy.
15 INA §235(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(1).
16 INA §275, 8 U.S.C. §1325 treats “improper” entry by aliens (first-time illegal entry) as a federal misdemeanor,
punishable by fines and/or up to six months in prison.
17 INA §276, 8 U.S. C. §1326 treats illegal reentry as a felony, punishable by fines and/or up to two years in prison.
Higher penalties apply for migrants with criminal records.

Congressional Research Service

3

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

proceedings generally involve formal hearings in an immigration court before an immigration
judge, or expedited removal without such hearings (see “Removal” below).
In general, CBP refers apprehended aliens for criminal prosecution if they meet criminal
enforcement priorities (e.g., child trafficking, prior felony convictions, multiple illegal entries).
Such individuals are placed in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service (DOJ’s enforcement arm)
and transported to DOJ criminal detention facilities for pretrial detention. After individuals have
been tried—and if convicted, have served any applicable criminal sentence—they are transferred
to DHS Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody and placed in immigration
detention.18 ICE, which represents the government in removal hearings, commences removal
proceedings.
If CBP does not refer apprehended aliens to DOJ for criminal prosecution, CBP may either return
them to their home countries using streamlined removal processes or transfer them to ICE
custody for immigration detention while they are in formal removal proceedings.19

Asylum
Many aliens at the U.S.-Mexico border seek asylum in the United States. Asylum is not
numerically limited and is granted on a case-by-case basis. Asylum can be requested by foreign
nationals who have already entered the United States and are not in removal proceedings
(“affirmative” asylum) or those who are in removal proceedings and claim asylum as a defense to
being removed (“defensive” asylum). The process in each case is different.20
Arriving aliens who are inadmissible, either because they lack proper entry documents or because
they attempt U.S. entry through misrepresentation or false claims to U.S. citizenship, are put into
a streamlined removal process known as expedited removal (described below in “Removal”).21
Aliens in expedited removal who express a fear of persecution are detained by ICE and given a
“credible fear” interview with an asylum officer from DHS’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS).22 The purpose of the interview is to determine if the asylum claim has
sufficient validity to merit an asylum hearing before an immigration judge. Those who receive a
favorable credible fear determination are taken out of expedited removal, placed into formal
removal proceedings, and given a hearing before an immigration judge, thereby placing the
18

Sentences for first-time illegal entry under INA §275 are typically a matter of days or weeks, with pretrial detention
usually counted as part of the sentence; Tim O’Shea, Theresa Cardinal Brown, “Why Are families Being Separated at
the Border? An Explainer,” Bipartisan Policy Center, June 13, 2018.
19 For more information on formal and streamlined removal processes, see CRS Report R43892, Alien Removals and
Returns: Overview and Trends.
20 For more information on the two ways of obtaining asylum, see U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
“Obtaining Asylum in the United States,” updated October 19, 2015, accessed by CRS on July 15, 2018 at
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-united-states.
21 INA §212(a)(7) and §212(a)(6)(C) are inadmissibility sections that apply to expedited removal. Expedited removal
was introduced as part of the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. According to the statute
(INA §235(b)(1)(A)(iii)), expedited removal can be applied to an alien who meets the expedited removal
inadmissibility criteria described above, has not been admitted or paroled, and cannot affirmatively show continuous
physical presence for the prior two years. As a matter of policy, however, expedited removal to date has been limited to
persons apprehended within 100 miles of the U.S. border and who have been present in the United States for less than
14 days. Executive Order 13767 issued on January 25, 2017, instructs the DHS Secretary to implement the expansion
of expedited removal to the full extent of the statute. That implementation has not yet occurred.
22 Credible fear means that there is “a significant possibility,” taking into account the credibility of the statements made
by the alien in support of the alien’s claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could establish
eligibility for asylum; INA §235(b)(1)(B)(v); 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(1)(B)(v).

Congressional Research Service

4

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

asylum seeker on the defensive path to asylum. Those who receive an unfavorable determination
may request that an immigration judge review the case. Aliens in expedited removal who cannot
demonstrate a credible fear are promptly deported.

Detention
The INA provides DHS with broad authority to detain adult aliens who are in removal
proceedings.23 However, child detention operates under different policies than that of adults. All
children are detained according to broad guidelines established through a court settlement
agreement (applicable to all alien children) and two statutes (applicable only to unaccompanied
alien children).
The 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) established a nationwide policy for the detention,
treatment, and release of all alien children, both accompanied and unaccompanied. The Homeland
Security Act of 2002 charged ORR with providing temporary care and ensuring custodial
placement of UAC with suitable and vetted sponsors.24 Finally, the William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) directed DHS to ensure
that all UAC be screened by DHS for possible human trafficking.25 The TVPRA mandated that
UAC from countries other than Mexico or Canada—along with all UAC apprehended in the U.S.
interior—be transferred to the care and custody of ORR, and then be “promptly placed in the least
restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child.”26 In the course of being referred to ORR,
UAC are also put into formal removal proceedings, ensuring they can request asylum or other
types of immigration relief before an immigration judge.
As a result of a 2015 judicial interpretation of the Flores Settlement Agreement, children
accompanying apprehended adults cannot be held in family immigration detention with their
parents for more than 20 days, on average. If the parents cannot be released with them, such
children are typically treated as UAC and referred to ORR.

Removal
Under the formal removal process, an immigration judge from DOJ’s Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR) determines whether an alien is removable. The immigration judge
may grant certain forms of relief (e.g., asylum, cancellation of removal), and removal decisions
are subject to administrative and judicial review.
Under streamlined removal procedures, which include expedited removal and reinstatement of
removal (i.e., when DHS reinstates a removal order for a previously removed alien), opportunities
for relief and review are generally limited. Under expedited removal (INA §235(b)), an alien who
lacks proper documentation or has committed fraud or willful misrepresentation to gain
23

For background information, see archived CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention.
P.L. 107-296, §462, codified, as amended, at 6 U.S.C. §279(g)(2).
25 P.L. 110-457, §235.
26 For unaccompanied alien children from Mexico or Canada, CBP personnel must screen each child within 48 hours of
apprehension to determine if he or she (1) is at risk of becoming a trafficking victim, (2) has a possible asylum claim,
and (3) is unable to make an independent decision to voluntarily return to his/her country of nationality or last habitual
residence. If any response is affirmative, CBP must refer the child to ORR within 72 hours of this determination. If
CBP personnel determine the minor to be inadmissible under the INA (i.e., if responses are not affirmative), they can
permit the minor to voluntarily return to his/her country of nationality or last habitual residence. For more information,
see CRS Report R43599, Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview.
24

Congressional Research Service

5

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

admission into the United States may be removed without any further hearings or review, unless
he or she indicates a fear of persecution in their home country or an intention to apply for
asylum.27
If apprehended foreign nationals are found to be removable, ICE and CBP share the responsibility
for repatriating them.28 CBP handles removals at the border for unauthorized aliens from the
contiguous countries of Mexico and Canada, and ICE handles all removals from the U.S. interior
and removals for all unauthorized aliens from noncontiguous countries.29

Prosecution of Aliens Charged with Illegal Border
Crossing in Prior Administrations
Prior to the Trump Administration, aliens apprehended between ports of entry who were not
considered enforcement priorities (e.g., a public safety threat, repeat illegal border crosser,
convicted felon, suspected child trafficker) were typically not criminally prosecuted for illegal
entry but would be placed directly into civil removal proceedings for unauthorized U.S.
presence.30
In addition, aliens apprehended at and between ports of entry who sought asylum and were found
to have credible fear generally were not held in immigration detention if DHS did not assess them
as public safety risks. Rather, they were administratively placed into removal proceedings,
instructed by DHS to appear at their immigration hearings, and then released into the U.S.
interior. This policy became more prevalent after 2015 when a federal judge ruled that children
could not be kept in immigration detention for more than 20 days.31
DHS officials justified the “catch and release” approach in the past because of the lack of
detention bed space and the considerable cost of detaining large numbers of unauthorized aliens
and family units for the lengthy periods, often stretching to years, between apprehension by CBP
and removal hearings before an EOIR judge.32 Immigration enforcement advocates criticized the
catch and release policy because of the failure of many apprehended individuals to appear
subsequently for their immigration hearings.33

Two other removal options, often referred to as “returns”—voluntary departure and withdrawal of petition for
admission—require aliens to leave the United States promptly but exempt them from certain penalties associated with
other types of removal. For background information, see CRS Report R43892, Alien Removals and Returns: Overview
and Trends.
28 Ibid.
29 For more detail on laws governing border enforcement, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10150, An Overview of U.S.
Immigration Laws Regulating the Admission and Exclusion of Aliens at the Border.
30 CRS consultation with ICE Legislative Affairs, June 8, 2018.
31 The federal judge ruled that under the Flores Settlement Agreement, minors detained as part of a family unit cannot
be detained in unlicensed facilities for longer than “a presumptively reasonable period of 20 days,” at which point, such
minors must be released or transferred to a licensed facility. Since most jurisdictions do not offer licensure for family
residential centers, and because none of ICE’s family detention centers is licensed, DHS rarely detains families for
more than 20 days. See Flores v. Lynch, 212 F. Supp. 3d 907 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
32 Lori Robertson, “Did the Obama Administration Separate Families,” FactCheck.org, June 20, 2018.
33 For more information, see Mark Metcalf, “Absent attendance and absent enforcement in America’s immigration
courts,” Center for Immigration Studies, March 19, 2017.
27

Congressional Research Service

6

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

According to some observers, prior Administrations made more use of alternatives to detention
that permitted DHS to monitor families who were released into the U.S. interior.34 Such practices
are needed to monitor the roughly 2 million aliens in removal proceedings given that ICE’s
current budget funds less than 50,000 beds, which are prioritized for aliens who pose public
safety or absconder risks.35
Data are not available on the rate and/or absolute number of family separations resulting from
illegal border crossing prosecutions under prior Administrations, limiting the degree to which
comparisons can be made with the Trump Administration’s zero tolerance policy.36
DHS states that the agency referred an average of 21% of all illegal border crossing “amenable
adults” for prosecution from FY2010 through FY2016.37 DHS maintains that it has an established
policy of separating children from adults when it




cannot determine the family relationship or otherwise verify identity,
determines that the child is being smuggled or trafficked or is otherwise at risk
with the parent or legal guardian, or
determines that the parent or legal guardian may have engaged in criminal
conduct and refers them for criminal prosecution.38

Prosecution of Aliens Charged with Illegal Border
Crossing in the Trump Administration
On April 6, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero tolerance” policy under
which all illegal border crossers apprehended between U.S. ports of entry would be criminally
prosecuted for illegal entry or illegal reentry.39 This “100% prosecution” policy makes no
See, for example, Ana Campoy, “The $36-a-day alternative to jailing immigrant families favored by Obama,”
Quartz, June 23, 2018; Alex Nowrasteh, “Alternatives to Detention Are Cheaper than Universal Detention,” Cato
Institute, June 20, 2018; and Alexia Fernández Campbell, “Trump doesn’t need to put families in detention centers to
enforce his immigration policy. There are better options,” Vox, June 22, 2018. For more information on alternatives to
detention, see United Nations High Commission for Refugees, “Guiding Questions for the assessment of Alternatives
to Detention,” UNHCR Beyond Detention Toolkit, May 2018; and American Immigration Lawyers Association, “The
Real Alternatives to Detention,” Document 17071103, July 11, 2017. For a critical perspective on alternatives to
detention, see Dan Cadman, “Are ‘Alternative to Detention’ Programs the Answer to Family Detention?”, Center for
Immigration Studies, June 28, 2018.
35 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, “U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement’s Alternatives to Detention (Revised),” OIG-15-22, February 4, 2015. For FY2019, ICE is requesting
funding for 47,000 detention beds (44,500 for adults, 2,500 for families); see U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, FY2109 Congressional Budget Justification, Operations and Support, pp. 13-14.
36 As of this writing, CRS has open requests with DHS for data on family separations under the Obama Administration.
Other observers have similar pending requests. See, for example, Lori Robertson, “Did the Obama Administration
Separate Families,” FactCheck.org, June 20, 2018.
37 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Myth vs. Fact: DHS Zero-Tolerance Policy,” press release, June 18, 2018.
However, as some observers note, this percentage does not reveal how many children were separated from the adults
who were referred for prosecution. See Lori Robertson, “Did the Obama Administration Separate Families?”,
FactCheck.org, June 20, 2018.
38 Ibid.
39 Office of the Attorney General, Memorandum for Federal Prosecutors Along the Southwest Border, “Zero-Tolerance
for Offenses Under 8 U.S.C. §1325(a),” April 6, 2018. The policy was implemented on May 7, 2018; U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration
Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration,” May 7, 2018.
34

Congressional Research Service

7

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

exceptions for asylum seekers and/or family units.40 To facilitate this policy, the Attorney General
announced that he would send 35 additional prosecutors to U.S. Attorney’s Offices along the
southwest border and 18 additional immigration judges to adjudicate cases in immigration courts
near the southwest border.41
Consequently, if a family unit is apprehended crossing illegally between ports of entry, the zero
tolerance policy mandates that CBP refer all illegal adult entrants to DOJ for criminal
prosecution. Accompanying children, who are not permitted to be housed in adult criminal
detention settings with their parents, are to be processed as unaccompanied alien children in
accordance with the TVPRA. They are transferred to the custody of ORR, which houses them in
agency-supervised, state-licensed shelters. If feasible given the circumstances, ORR attempts to
place them with relatives or legal guardian sponsors or place them in temporary foster care.42
ORR has over 100 shelters in 17 states,43 and they are reportedly at close to full capacity.44
Consequently, the agency is currently evaluating options for housing children on Department of
Defense (DOD) installations to handle the surge of separated children resulting from increased
prosecution of parents crossing between ports of entry.45
As noted earlier, after adults have been tried in federal courts for illegal entry—and if convicted,
have served their criminal sentences—they are transferred to ICE custody and placed in
immigration detention. It is expected that parents can then be reunited in ICE family detention
facilities with their children who have either remained in ORR custody or have been placed with
a sponsor. Requests for asylum can also be pursued at this point.

Statistics on Family Separation
In FY2017, CBP apprehended 75,622 alien family units and separated 1,065 (1.4%) of them. Of
those separations, 46 were due to fraud and 1,019 were due to medical and/or security concerns.
In the first five months of FY2018, prior to enactment of the zero tolerance policy, CBP
40

Immigration and human rights advocates caution that prosecuting persons who cross into the United States in order
to present themselves before a CBP officer and request asylum raises concerns about whether the United States is
abiding by a number of human rights and refugee-related international protocols. See, for example, Jonathan Blitzer,
“The Trump Administration Is Completely Unravelling the U.S. Asylum System,” The New Yorker, June 11, 2018.
41 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Justice Department Announces Additional Prosecutors and
Immigration Judges For Southwest Border Crisis,” May 2, 2018.
42 Most unaccompanied alien children who arrive at the southwest border alone are placed with sponsors or in ORRarranged foster care; for more information, see CRS Report R43599, Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview. It
is not clear whether such placements are as likely for UAC who arrive with parents. During the peak of the UAC
apprehension surge in 2014, UAC spent an average of 35 days in ORR shelters. Most recently, ORR reported that the
average length of stay in its shelters was 57 days. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Fact Sheet, “Unaccompanied Alien Children Program,” June
15, 2018.
43 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, “Unaccompanied Alien Children
Frequently Asked Questions,” website, July 9, 2018, accessed by CRS on July 11, 2018.
44 One article at the end of May 2018 reported ORR shelter capacity at 95%; see Nick Miroff, “Trump’s ‘zero
tolerance’ at the border is causing child shelters to fill up fast,” Washington Post, May 29, 2018. CRS was unable to
obtain a figure for current ORR shelter capacity as of this writing.
45 Letter from Alex M. Azar II, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to The Honorable Jim
Mattis, Secretary of Defense, March 8, 2018. Similar arrangements were made in June 2014, when apprehensions of
UAC reached an all-time high. ORR coordinated with DOD to temporarily allow UAC to be housed at Lackland Air
Force Base in San Antonio, TX, and at Naval Base Ventura County in Oxnard, CA. Arrangements at both sites ended
August 2014.

Congressional Research Service

8

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

apprehended 31,102 alien family units and separated 703 (2.2%), of which 191 resulted from
fraud and 512 from medical and/or security concerns.46
Under the Administration’s zero tolerance policy, 658 children were separated from 638 adults
who were referred for prosecution between May 7 and May 21, 2018, according to CBP
testimony.47 DHS subsequently reported that 1,995 children had been separated from their parents
between April 19 and May 31.48 DHS updated these figures in June 2018, reporting that 2,342
children were separated from their parents between May 5 and June 9.49 DHS subsequently
reported that CBP had since reunited with their parents 538 children who were never sent to ORR
shelters.50 HHS Secretary Alex Azar then reported that “under 3,000” minor children (under age
18) had been separated from their families in total, including roughly 100 under age 5.51 As of
July 13, 2018, HHS reported that 2,551 children ages 5 to 17 remained separated (see “Recent
Developments” below).52

Recent Developments
On June 20, 2018, following considerable and largely negative public attention to family
separations stemming from the zero tolerance policy, President Trump issued an executive order
(EO) mandating that DHS maintain custody of alien families “during the pendency of any
criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their member,” to the extent
permitted by law and appropriations.53 The EO instructs DOD to provide and/or construct
additional shelter facilities, upon request by ORR, and it instructs other executive branch agencies
to assist with housing as appropriate to implement the EO.54 The EO mandates that the Attorney
General prioritize the adjudication of detained family cases, and it requires the Attorney General
to ask the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which oversees the Flores
Settlement Agreement, to modify the agreement to permit detained families to remain together.
On June 25, 2018, CBP announced that, because of ICE’s lack of family detention bed space, it
had temporarily halted the policy of referring adults who cross the border illegally with children

46

Email correspondence from CBP Legislative Affairs to CRS, June 8, 2018. Figures represent separated family units,
not the number of separated children; the latter is likely higher given that some family units consist of more than one
child.
47 Testimony of Richard Hudson, Deputy Chief of the Operations Program, Law Enforcement Operations Directorate,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Border
Security and Immigration, TVPRA and Exploited Loopholes Affecting Unaccompanied Alien Children, 115th Cong., 2nd
sess., May 23, 2018.
48 These figures were obtained from DHS by the Associated Press on June 15, 2018. See Colleen Long, “DHS reports
about 2,000 minors separated from families,” Associated Press, June 16, 2018.
49 On June 18, Senator Dianne Feinstein reportedly released DHS statistics showing that 2,342 children were separated
from their parents between May 5 and June 9. See Arit John and Jennifer Epstein, “All About the U.S. Separating
Families at Its Border,” Bloomberg, June 18, 2018.
50 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification,” June
23, 2018.
51 Dan Diamond, “HHS says hundreds more migrant kids may have been separated than earlier count,” Politico, July 5,
2018; and Caitlin Dickerson, “Trump Administration in Chaotic Scramble to Reunify Migrant Families,” New York
Times, July 5, 2018.
52 Dan Diamond, “Trump administration expedites reunifications for 2551 migrant children,” Politico, July 13, 2018.
53 The White House, Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation, Executive Order, June 20,
2018.
54 Thus far, only DOD has made arrangements with ORR to provide housing for alien families and children.

Congressional Research Service

9

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

to DOJ for criminal prosecution.55 According to a White House announcement, the zero tolerance
policy is expected to be reinstituted once additional family detention bed space becomes
available.56 Also on June 25, 2018, DOD announced plans to permit four of its military bases to
be used by other federal agencies to shelter up to 20,000 UAC and family units.57 DOD
subsequently announced that 12,000 persons would be housed on its facilities,58 before another
report appeared suggesting the number was 32,000 UAC and family units.59
In addition to leasing facilities to DHS or HHS when those agencies’ detention or shelter facilities
are insufficient to meet surges of border crossers,60 DOD is deploying National Guard personnel
under “Operation Guardian Support.”61 DOD reportedly is also sending active duty military
officers to serve as Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys (also known as judge advocate generals or
JAGs) to assist in U.S. Attorney offices along the border for six-month tours of duty.62
On June 26, 2018, as the result of a class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties
Union,63 Judge Dana Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
issued an injunction against the Administration’s practice of separating families and ordered that
all separated families be reunited within 30 days.64 The judge ruled that children under age 5 must
be reunited with their parents within 14 days, all children must have phone contact with their
parents within 10 days, children could be separated at the border only if accompanying adults
presented an immediate danger to them, and parents were not to be removed unless they had been
reunited with their separated children.65
In response, the Trump Administration has reportedly instructed DHS to provide all parents who
have final orders of removal and whose children have been separated from them with two
options.66 The first is to return to their countries of origin with their children. This option fulfills
Ron Nixon, Erica L. Green and Michael D. Shear, “Border Officials Suspend Handing Over Migrant Families to
Prosecutors,” New York Times, June 25, 2018.
56 Ibid.
57 Michael D. Shear, Helene Cooper and Katie Benner, “U.S. Prepares to House Up to 20,000 Migrants on Military
Bases,” New York Times, June 21, 2018. It remains unclear what proportion of the DOD facilities will be used for UAC
shelters versus immigration detention for families.
58 U.S. Department of Defense, “DHS Requests DoD House Up to 12,000 Migrants,” Defense.gov, June 28, 2018.
59 Lara Seligman, “Pentagon Says It Won’t Pay for Housing of Immigrants,” Foreign Policy, July 9, 2018.
60 Secretary of Health and Human Services, letter to the Honorable Jim Mattis, Secretary of Defense, March 8, 2018.
61 For more information, see U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “Operation Guardian Support Begins for Del Rio
Border Patrol Sector,” press release, April 13, 2018. According to CBP, support includes “logistical and administrative
support, aerial support, surveillance efforts, border-related intelligence analysis efforts, and mechanical support.”
62 Alex Johnson and Courtney Kube, “Pentagon sending military lawyers to border to help prosecute immigration
cases,” nbcnews.com, June 20, 2018.
63 The ACLU case was filed on behalf of two families separated at the southwest border: a woman from the Democratic
Republic of the Congo who, at a port of entry, was separated from her 6-year-old daughter for five months; and a
woman from Brazil who, crossing into the United States illegally between ports of entry, was separated from her 14year-old son for eight months.
64 Ms. L. v. U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2018 WL 3129486 (S.D. Cal. 2018).
65 Michael D. Shear, Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Thomas Kaplan, and Robert Pear, “Federal Judge in California Halts
Splitting of Migrant Families at Border,” New York Times, June 26, 2018.
66 Immigration advocates contend that the new form being used misleads parents who have outstanding asylum claims
into thinking that they must leave the United States without their children, despite the fact that the forms indicate that
they apply only to parents with final orders of removal. DHS responds that “it is ‘long-standing policy’ to offer parents
facing deportation the option of leaving their [children] behind, noting it is ‘not uncommon’ for parents to elect to do
so, historically. Any child who remains in the United States in the custody of the government or with a family member
is allowed to pursue their own right to stay, and ICE ‘does not interfere’ in that decision.” Nick Valencia and Tal
55

Congressional Research Service

10

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

the mandate from the June 26 court order to reunite families but also forces parents and children
to abandon any claims for asylum. The second option is for parents to return alone to their
country of origin. This option would leave the children in the United States to apply for asylum
on their own. Parental decisions are to be recorded on a new ICE form.67
On July 9, 2018, Judge Dolly Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
which oversees the Flores Settlement Agreement, ruled against DOJ’s request to modify the
agreement. Judge Gee held that no basis existed for amending the court’s original decision
requiring the federal government to release alien minors in immigration detention after 20 days,
regardless of any unlawful entry prosecution of the parents.68
On July 10, ICE officials reportedly indicated that parents reunited with their children would be
enrolled in an alternative detention program, such as the use of ankle bracelets that permit
electronic monitoring, and then released into the U.S. interior, essentially reverting to the prior
policy that has been labeled by some as “catch and release.” DOJ maintains that its zero tolerance
policy remains in effect.69
DHS and HHS have publicized their efforts to reunify families.70 News reports indicate that Judge
Sabraw’s June 26 order mandating the reunion of all children under age 5 with their parents
within two weeks will not be met.71 On July 12, 2018, the Trump Administration reported that 57
of 103 children under the age of 5 who had been separated from their parents had been reunited,
while the other 46 had been deemed ineligible for reunification for reasons including parental
deportation and criminal histories of some of the adults.72
On July 16, 2018, in response to concerns expressed by the American Civil Liberties Union about
potential abrupt deportations following family reunification, Judge Sabraw stated that he will
temporarily halt deportations, for one week, of parents who have been reunited with their
children.73 The judge issued the stay of deportations to provide parents slated for removal with a
week’s time to better understand their legal rights regarding asylum or other forms of
immigration relief for themselves and their children.
On July 16, 2018, Jonathan White, Deputy Director for Children’s Programs at the Office of
Refugee Resettlement, testified before Judge Sabraw that ORR had identified 2,551 separated
Kopan, “The options parents facing deportation have after they've been separated from their kids,” CNN, July 3, 2018;
and Julia Ainsley and Jacob Soboroff, “New Trump admin order for separated parents: Leave U.S. with kids or without
them,” nbcnews.com, July 3, 2018; and Jeremy Raff, “ICE Is Pressuring Separated Parents to Choose Deportation,” The
Atlantic, July 6, 2018.
67 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations, Separated Parent’s Removal
Form, July 2018. CRS could not locate the form or accompanying instructions on the ICE or DHS websites.
68 Miriam Jordan and Manny Fernandez, “Federal Judge Rules that Trump Administration Cannot Hold Migrant
Families in Long-Term Detention,” New York Times, July 9, 2018.
69 Miriam Jordan, Katie Benner, Ron Nixon, and Caitlin Dickerson, “As Migrant Families Are Reunited, Some
Children Don’t Recognize Their Mothers,” New York Times, July 10, 2018.
70 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification,” press
release, June 23, 2018; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “HHS Is Executing On Its Mission With Care
And Compassion,” press release, July 6, 2018; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Unaccompanied
Alien Children Frequently Asked Questions,” website, July 9, 2018, accessed by CRS on July 12, 2018.
71 Tal Kopan, “Trump administration falls short on first family reunification deadline,” CNN, July 10, 2018.
72 Brittny Mejia, “Trump administration reunites just over half of migrant children under 5 with parents, says others are
‘ineligible’,” Los Angeles Times, July 12, 2018.
73 Caitlin Dickerson, “Court Orders Temporary Halt to Migrant Family Deportations,” New York Times, July 16, 2018;
and Ted Hesson, “Judge will temporarily halt deportations of reunited families,” Politico, July 16, 2018.

Congressional Research Service

11

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

children in its custody ages 5 to 17 and had matched 2,480 to their parents, while 71 children’s
parents remain unidentified.74 ORR is undertaking intensive background checks to ensure that
separated children are reunited with their actual parents and do not face personal security risks
such as child abuse.75 According to White, 1,609 parents of separated children remain in ICE
custody. White noted that ICE is also conducting its own security checks and thus far had cleared
918 parents, failed 51 parents, and had 348 parents with pending clearances. As of July 16, 2018,
ICE had approved about 300 children for release to be reunited with their parents.76
As of July 19, 2018, the Administration had reportedly reunified 364 of the 2,551 children ages 5
to 17. Apart from the parents of those children, 1,607 parents were eligible to be reunited with
their children, 719 of whom have final orders of deportation. Another 908 parents are reportedly
not expected to be eligible for reunification because they possessed criminal backgrounds or
required “further evaluation.”77

Policy Perspectives
Perspectives on the zero tolerance policy generally divide into two groups. Those who support
greater immigration enforcement point to recent surges in family unit migration and a substantial
backlog of asylum cases that are straining DHS and DOJ resources, potentially compromising the
agencies’ abilities to meet their outlined missions. Those who advocate on behalf of immigrants
decry the Administration’s treatment of migrants as unnecessarily harsh and counterproductive.

Enforcement Perspectives
DHS and DOJ contend that the policy enforces existing law and is needed to reduce illegal
immigration.78 DHS notes that foreign nationals attempting to enter the United States between
ports of entry or “without inspection” are committing a crime punishable under the INA as a
misdemeanor on the first occasion and a felony for every attempt thereafter.
DHS maintains that it has a long-standing policy of separating children from adults when children
are at risk because of threats from human trafficking or because the familial relationship is
suspect. DHS also maintains that it does not have a formal policy of separating parents from
children for deterrence purposes, and it follows a standard policy of keeping families together “as
long as operationally possible.”79 According to DHS, the agency has “a legal obligation to protect
74

Ibid.
Nick Miroff, Maria Sacchetti and Amy Goldstein, “In D.C. command center, officials work to reunite migrant
children by court deadline,” Washington Post, July 19, 2018.
76 Ibid.
77 Julia Ainsley and Jacob Soboroff, “Facing deadline, government reunified 364 of 2,500-plus migrant children,”
nbcnews.com, July 19, 2018.
78 Sari Horwitz and Maria Sacchetti, “Sessions vows to prosecute all illegal border crossers and separate children from
their parents,” Washington Post, May 7, 2018. Senior immigration and border officials had reportedly issued a
confidential memo to DHS Secretary Nielsen supporting the policy as the “most effective” way to reduce illegal entry.
79 Testimony of the Honorable Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, in U.S. Congress, House Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, FY 2019 Budget Hearing - Department of Homeland
Security, , 115th Cong., 2nd sess., April 11, 2018 (hereinafter, “Nielsen testimony, April 11, 2018”). Other observers
contend that Attorney General Sessions explicitly justified the zero tolerance policy on the basis of deterring migrants
from coming to the United States. See, for example, Christopher Ingraham, “Sessions says family separation is
‘necessary’ to keep the country from being ‘overwhelmed.’ Federal immigration data says otherwise,” Washington
Post, June 18, 2017; and U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Attorney General Sessions Delivers
75

Congressional Research Service

12

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

the best interests of the child whether that is from human smugglings, drug traffickers, or
nefarious actors who knowingly break [U.S.] immigration laws and put minor children at risk.”80
Accordingly, DHS considers it appropriate to treat children of apprehended parents as UAC.81
DHS posits that while family separation is an unfortunate outcome of stricter enforcement of
immigration laws and criminal prosecution of illegal entry and reentry, it is no different than the
family separation that occurs in the U.S. criminal justice system when parents of minor children
commit a crime and are taken into criminal custody.82 Attorney General Sessions has stated that
parents who do not want to be separated from their children should simply not attempt to cross
the U.S. border illegally.83
DHS Secretary Nielsen justified the zero tolerance policy with statistics showing a 223% increase
in illegal border crossings and inadmissible cases along the southwest border between April 2017
and April 2018.84 Similar increases in monthly apprehensions between years were cited for family
units and unaccompanied alien children. Secretary Nielsen also stated that while the apprehension
figures “are at times higher or lower than in years past, it makes little difference,” characterizing
them as unacceptable either way.85 DHS officials cite results of policies imposed at the Border
Patrol’s El Paso sector (covering West Texas and New Mexico) for part of 2017, where a similar
family separation policy reduced the number of illegal family border crossings by 64%.86
DHS notes that its policy reflects President Trump’s January 2017 Executive Order 1376787 on
border security directing executive branch departments and agencies to “deploy all lawful means
to secure the Nation’s Southern border, to prevent further illegal immigration into the United
States, and to repatriate illegal aliens swiftly, consistently, and humanely.”88 DHS further
contends that parents who attempt to cross illegally into the United States with their children not
only put their children at grave risk but also enrich transnational criminal organizations to whom
they pay smuggling fees. DHS argues that some parents, aware of the limited amount of family
Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration,” May 7, 2018.
80 Maria Sacchetti, “Top Homeland Security officials urge criminal prosecution of parents crossing border with
children,” Washington Post, April 26, 2018.
81 For more information on ORR processing of UAC, see CRS Report R43599, Unaccompanied Alien Children: An
Overview.
82 Nielsen testimony, April 11, 2018.
83 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the
Immigration Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration,” May 7, 2018.
84 Nielsen testimony, April 11, 2018. CBP apprehended 15,766 unauthorized migrants at the Southern border in April
2017 and 50,923 in April 2018. See U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “Southwest Border Migration FY2018,”
website, updated July 5, 2018.
85 Because monthly apprehensions can fluctuate substantially between years, average monthly apprehensions may
provide a more accurate measure of illegal border crossing activity. Average monthly apprehensions of all border
crossers in FY2016, FY2017, and the first eight months of FY2018 were 46,934, 34,599, and 42,503, respectively. See
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “Southwest Border Migration FY2018,” website updated July 5, 2018.
86 Maria Sacchetti, “Top Homeland Security officials urge criminal prosecution of parents crossing border with
children,” Washington Post, April 26, 2018. That statistic has been criticized as inaccurate and misleading by at least
one news report; see Dara Lind, “Trump’s DHS is using an extremely dubious statistic to justify splitting up families at
the border,” Vox, May 8, 2018. In addition, other reports suggest that family separation was occurring because of
increased prosecution of illegal border crossing since the summer of 2017; see Jonathan Blitzer, “How the Trump
Administration Got Comfortable Separating Immigrant Kids from Their Parents,” The New Yorker, May 30, 2018.
87 Executive Order 13767, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” 82 Federal Register 87938797, January 25, 2017.
88 Email communication to CRS from CBP Legislative Affairs, June 4, 2018.

Congressional Research Service

13

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

detention space, intentionally use their children as shields from detention and anticipate that they
will be viewed, as they had been in prior years, as low security risks.89 DHS points to unpublished
intelligence reports describing cases where unrelated adults have used or trafficked children in
order to avoid immigration detention.90 DHS and other observers also note that asylum requests
have increased considerably, a trend that raises concerns about possible fraudulent asylum claims
and the misuse of asylum claims to enter and remain in the United States.91
DHS notes that ICE and ORR both play a role in family reunification and characterizes the
process as “well-coordinated.”92 DHS maintains that it has procedures in place to connect
separated family members and ensure that parents know the location of minors and can regularly
communicate with them. Mechanisms to facilitate such communication include posted
information notices in ICE detention facilities, an HHS Adult Hotline and email inquiry address,
and an ICE call center and email inquiry address.93 DHS and ORR are using DNA testing to
confirm familial ties between parents and children.94

Immigrant Advocacy Perspectives
Immigrant advocacy organizations argue that migrant families are fleeing a well-documented
epidemic of gang violence from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras.95 They have criticized the practice of family separation because it seemingly punishes
people for fleeing dangerous circumstances and seeking asylum in the United States. They posit
that requesting asylum is not an illegal act,96 Congress created laws that require DHS to process
and evaluate claims for humanitarian protection, DHS must honor congressional intent by
humanely processing and evaluating such claims, and many who request asylum have valid
claims and compelling circumstances that merit consideration.97

89

Ibid.
Ariane de Vogue and Tal Kopa, “ACLU class action lawsuit seeks to block immigrant family separations,” CNN,
March 9, 2018.
91 See, for example, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “USCIS to Take Action to Address Asylum Backlog,”
press release, January 31, 2018.
92 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification,” press
release, June 23, 2018. In some cases, expedited DOJ hearings resulted in family reunification occurring in CBP
holding facilities because children had not yet been transported to ORR custody. In such cases, family reunification
occurs in CBP custody before the family unit is transported to an ICE immigration detention facility for family units.
93 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Myth vs. Fact: DHS Zero-Tolerance Policy,” press release, June 18, 2018.
94 Email correspondence from ORR Legislative Affairs, July 11, 2018; and U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, “Unaccompanied Alien Children Frequently Asked Questions,” website, July 9, 2018, accessed by CRS on
July 12, 2018.
95 See CRS Report RL34112, Gangs in Central America.
96 See, for example, American Immigration Council, “Asylum in the United States, Fact Sheet,” May 14, 2018; and
International Justice Resource Center, Asylum and the Rights of Refugees, accessed by CRS on July 12, 2018, at
https://ijrcenter.org/refugee-law/.
97 According to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, countries should not punish asylum-seekers who
violate immigration laws if they present themselves to authorities. Although not a party to this convention, the United
States is a party to a 1967 Protocol to the Convention, provisions of which are found in the 1980 Refugee Act. Under
current U.S. policy, most aliens arriving in the United States without proper documentation who claim asylum are held
until their “credible fear” hearing, but some asylum seekers are held until their asylum claims have been adjudicated.
For background information, see archived CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention.
90

Congressional Research Service

14

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

Immigrant advocates have also criticized the Administration for creating what they consider to be
a debacle of its own making, characterized by frequently changing policies and justifications,98
what some describe as an uncoordinated implementation process, and the absence of an effective
plan to reunify separated families.99 In some cases, records linking parents to children reportedly
may have disappeared or been destroyed, hampering efforts to establish relationships between
family members.100 Media reports have described obstacles to reuniting families after separation,
including a lack of communication between federal agencies, the absence of information about
accompanying children collected by CBP at the time of apprehension, the inability of ICE
detainees to receive phone calls without special arrangements, and a cumbersome vetting process
to ensure children’s safe placement with parents.101 In addition, while DOJ typically detains and
prosecutes parents for illegal entry at federal detention centers and courthouses near the U.S.Mexico border, ORR houses their children at shelters geographically dispersed in 17 states, in
some cases thousands of miles away from the parents.
Child welfare professionals assert that family separation has the potential to cause lasting
psychological harm for adults102 and especially for children.103 Some point to the findings of a
DHS advisory panel as well as those of other organizations that discourage family detention as
neither appropriate nor necessary for families and as not being in children’s best interests.104
Some immigration observers question the Administration’s ability to marshal resources required
to prosecute all illegal border crossers given that Congress has not appropriated additional
funding to support the zero tolerance policy. One news report, for example, noted that 3,769
foreign nationals were convicted of illegal entry in criminal courts during March 2018, a month in
Maria Sacchetti, “DHS proposal would change rules for minors in immigration detention,” Washington Post, May 9,
2018. This proposal was first publicly suggested by then DHS Secretary John Kelly in March, 2017. See Daniella Diaz,
“Kelly: DHS is considering separating undocumented children from their parents at the border,” CNN, March 7, 2017.
Following the ensuing controversy over his interview, he subsequently stated that DHS would not implement such
policies. See Tal Kopan, “Kelly says DHS won’t separate families at the border,” CNN, March 29, 2017.
99 See, for example, Kevin Sieff, “The chaotic effort to reunite immigrant parents with their separated kids,”
Washington Post, June 21, 2018; Erik Hanshew, “Families will no longer be separated at the border. But where are my
clients’ kids?,” Washington Post, June 20, 2018; and Jonathan Blitzer, “The Government has no plan for reuniting the
immigrant families it is tearing apart,” The New Yorker, June 18, 2018.
100 Caitlin Dickerson, “Trump Administration in Chaotic Scramble to Reunify Migrant Families,” New York Times,
July 5, 2018.
101 See, for example, Ian Lovett and Louise Radnofsky, “Amid Chaos at Border, Some Immigrant Families Reunite,”
Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2018; Jonathan Blitzer, “The Government has no plan for reuniting the immigrant
families it is tearing apart,” The New Yorker, June 18, 2018; Ted Hesson and Dan Diamond, “As deadline looms,
Trump officials struggle to reunite migrant families,” Politico, July 2, 2018; Ritu Prasad, “Undocumented migrant
families embark on chaotic reunion process,” BBC, June 25, 2018; and Caitlin Dickerson, “Trump Administration in
Chaotic Scramble to Reunify Migrant Families,” New York Times, July 5, 2018.
102 See, for example, DHS Advisory Committee on Family Residential Centers, “Report of the DHS Advisory
Committee on Family Residential Centers,” September 30, 2016; and Alexander Miller, Julia Meredith Hess, Deborah
Bybee, and Jessica R. Goodkind, “Understanding the mental health consequences of family separation for refugees:
Implications for policy and practice,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 88 (2018), pp. 26-37.
103 See, for example, American Academy of Pediatrics, Letter from Colleen A. Kraft, President, to The Honorable
Kirstjen M. Nielsen, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, March 1, 2018; Julie M. Linton, Marsha Griffin, Alan J.
Shapiro, and Council on Community Pediatrics, “Detention of Immigrant Children,” Pediatrics, vol. 139 (April 2017),
pp. 1-13; and Kimberly Howard, Anne Martin, Lisa J. Berlin, and Jean Brooks-Gunn, “Early Mother-Child Separation,
Parenting, and Child Well-Being in Early Head Start Families,” Attachment & Human Development, vol. 13 (2011), pp.
5-26.
104 DHS Advisory Committee on Family Residential Centers, “Report of the DHS Advisory Committee on Family
Residential Centers,” September 30, 2016. This report cites similar findings by Government Accountability Office, the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the American Bar Association, among others.
98

Congressional Research Service

15

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

which 37,383 foreign nationals were apprehended for illegal entry.105 Given the relative size of
the task they face, observers question how DOJ and DHS can channel fiscal resources to meet
this objective without compromising their other missions. They contend that the policy is
counterproductive because it prevents CBP from using risk-based strategies to pursue the most
egregious crimes, thereby making the southern border region less safe and more prone to criminal
activity.106 Some have suggested that the zero tolerance policy is diverting resources from, and
thereby hindering, other DHS operations.107
Some in Congress have criticized the family separation policy because of its cost in light of
alternative options, such as community-based detention programs. They cite, for example, the
Family Case Management Program (FCMP), which monitored families seeking asylum and
demonstrated a reportedly high compliance rate with immigration requirements such as court
hearings and immigration appointments.108 The FCMP, which began in January 2016,109 was
terminated by the Trump Administration in April 2017.110 According to DHS, the FCMP average
daily cost of $36 reportedly exceeded that of “intensive supervision” programs ($5-$7 daily),111
although both programs are considerably lower than the average daily cost of family detention
($319).112
More broadly, immigration advocates contend that the Administration is engaged in a concerted
effort to restrict access to asylum and reduce the number of asylum claims.113 They caution that
prosecuting persons who cross into the United States in order to present themselves before a CBP
officer and request asylum raises concerns about whether the United States is abiding by human
rights- and refugee-related international protocols.114 They note a considerable current backlog of
pending defensive asylum cases, which numbered almost 325,000 (45%) of the roughly 720,000
total pending immigration cases in EOIR’s docket as of June 11, 2018.115 They also cite Attorney
General Sessions’s recent decision to substantially limit the extent to which immigration judges
can consider gang or domestic violence as sufficient grounds for asylum.116 Such efforts could
Alan Bersin, Nate Bruggeman and Ben Rohrbaugh, “Trump’s ‘zero tolerance’ bluff on the border will hurt security,
not help,” Washington Post, May 31, 2018.
106 Ibid.
107 Nick Mirnoff, “Seeking a split from ICE, some agents say Trump’s immigration crackdown hurts investigations and
morale,” Washington Post, June 28, 2018.
108 DHS Office of Inspector General, “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Award of the Family Case
Management Program Contract (Redacted),” OIG-18-22, November 30, 2017.
109 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Fact Sheet, Stakeholder Referrals to the ICE/ERO Family Case
Management Program,” January 6, 2016.
110 Frank Bajak, “ICE Shutters Detention Alternative for Asylum-Seekers,” U.S. News and World Report, June 9, 2017.
111 Ibid. Intensive supervision programs monitor aliens in deportation proceedings who have been released from
detention. They often involve electronic monitoring devices such as GPS ankle bracelets or voice recognition software
for telephone-based reporting, and intensive case management.
112 DHS currently oversees three family detention facilities. Berks Family Residential Center in Berks County, PA;
Karnes Residential Center in Karnes City, TX; and South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, TX.
113 Simon Romero and Miriam Jordan, “On the Border, a Discouraging New Message for Asylum Seekers: Wait,” New
York Times, June 12, 2018; and Jonathan Blitzer, “The Trump Administration Is Completely Unravelling the U.S.
Asylum System,” The New Yorker, June 11, 2018. For a contrary view on the weakening of the asylum system, see Dan
Cadman, “Asylum in the United States,” Center for Immigration Studies, March 26, 2014.
114 Jonathan Blitzer, “The Trump Administration Is Completely Unravelling the U.S. Asylum System,” The New
Yorker, June 11, 2018.
115 Email correspondence to CRS from DOJ Legislative Affairs, June 28, 2018.
116 Matter of A-B-, Respondent, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), Interim Decisions #3929. The ruling vacated a 2016
decision by DOJ’s Board of Immigration Appeals, the immigration appeals court for EOIR, granting asylum to a
105

Congressional Research Service

16

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

have the unintended effect of sustaining illegal immigration flows of desperate foreign nationals
fleeing violent circumstances, particularly from Northern Triangle countries.

Congressional Activity
A number of bills have been introduced in the 115th Congress in response to family separation
resulting from the Administration’s zero tolerance policy regarding the prosecution of illegal
border crossing. With the exception of H.R. 6136, which failed to pass in the House by a vote of
121-301, none of the bills introduced have seen congressional action as of this writing.
Given that this topic is developing rapidly, bills discussed below do not reflect all legislation or
amendments introduced to date, or more recent developments. Instead, the bills presented here are
intended to illustrate the range of legislative proposals to address family separation in the current
context.
Bills that emphasize immigration enforcement include H.R. 6182, the Codifying President
Trump’s Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation Executive Order Act,
which provides statutory authority for President Trump’s executive order within the INA; H.R.
6173;117 and Section 3102 of H.R. 6136, the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of
2018, which would permit children accompanied by parents to remain in DHS custody during the
pendency of a parent’s criminal prosecution, rather than being referred to ORR and treated as
UAC. On July 11, 2018, similar amendment language was included in an appropriations bill to
fund the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, that was approved
by the House Appropriations Committee.118 H.R. 6204, the Families First Act of 2018, includes
similar provisions and would also implement asylum reforms and provide increased funding for
family unit facilities, personnel, and judges, among other provisions.
Bills that intend to prevent or limit family separation include H.R. 6135/S. 3036, the Keep
Families Together Act, and H.R. 6236, the Family Unity Rights and Protection Act, both of which
contain provisions to keep families together during all stages of processing following
apprehension at a U.S. border; H.R. 6232, the Preventing Family Separation for Immigrants with
Disabilities Act, which would prohibit family separation for individuals with developmental
disabilities; and H.R. 6172, the Reunite Children with Their Parents Act, which would require
DHS and DOJ to reunite minor children already separated from their parents.
Other bills, such as H.R. 6181/H.R. 6190 /S. 3093, the Keep Families Together and Enforce the
Law Act, would maintain family unity by making the Flores Settlement Agreement and related
laws and regulations inapplicable to children who are accompanied by adults when they are
apprehended at a U.S. border. H.R. 6195/S. 3091, the Protect Kids and Parents Act, would limit
the separation of families seeking asylum by mandating that they be housed together, and
facilitate asylum processing (e.g., by adding additional immigration judges and DHS personnel
and establishing asylum processing deadlines), among other provisions.

woman who experienced sexual, emotional, and physical abuse. See Ted Hesson and Josh Gerstein, “Sessions moves to
block asylum for most victims of domestic, gang violence,” Politico, June 11, 2018; and Katie Benner and Caitlin
Dickerson, “Sessions Says Domestic and Gang Violence Are Not Grounds for Asylum,” New York Times, June 11,
2018.
117 The title of H.R. 6173 is “To amend section 235 of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008 to clarify the standards for family detention, and for other purposes.”
118 A number has not yet been assigned to this bill. See Andrew Siddons and Kellie Mejdrich, “Labor-HHS-Education
Bill OK'd; Family Separation Changes Added,” CQ News, July 11, 2018.

Congressional Research Service

17

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

Appendix. Trends in Alien Apprehensions
Increasing numbers of apprehensions of Central American family units are occurring within the
context of relatively low historical levels of total alien apprehensions (Figure A-1).
Figure A-1.Total CBP Alien Apprehensions at the Southwest Border, FY1975-FY2018*

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Border Patrol, “Stats and Summaries,”
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/media-resources/stats.
Notes: *FY2018 includes October 2017 through June 2018, or three-fourths of the fiscal year.

Apprehensions had peaked at 1.7 million in 1986, the year Congress enacted the Immigration
Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which gave legal status to roughly 2.7 million unauthorized
aliens residing in the United States.119 After dropping for multiple years, apprehensions increased
again, climbing from 1.13 million in FY1991 to 1.68 million in FY2000. Apprehensions generally
fell after that (with the exception of FY2004-FY2005), reaching a 40-year low of 327,577 in
FY2011. They have fluctuated since that point. For the first nine months of FY2018,
apprehensions reached 286,290.120
The national origins of apprehended aliens have shifted considerably during the past two decades
(Figure A-2). In FY2000, for example, almost all aliens apprehended at the southwest border
(98%) were Mexican nationals. As recently as FY2011, Mexican nationals made up 84% of all
apprehensions. However, beginning in FY2012 foreign nationals from countries other than
Mexico began to comprise a growing percentage of total apprehensions, even as total
119

For more information, see CRS Report R42138, Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry.
Border patrol apprehensions data count events rather than people. Thus, an unauthorized alien who is caught trying
to enter the country three times in one year counts as three apprehensions.
120

Congressional Research Service

18

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

apprehensions declined since FY2005.121 Most recently, in the first eight months of FY2018,
“other-than-Mexicans” comprised the majority (52%) of total alien apprehensions on the
southwest border.
Figure A-2.Total CBP Alien Apprehensions at the Southwest Border by Country of
Origin, FY2000-FY2018*
(Country of origin is either Mexico or other-than-Mexico)

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Border Patrol, “Stats and Summaries,”
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/media-resources/stats.
Notes: *FY2018 includes October 2017 through May 2018, or two-thirds of the fiscal year. CRS was unable to
locate these data through June 2018, in contrast with data presented in Figure A-1 and Figure A-3.

Family units are making up a growing share of total alien apprehensions at the southern border.
According to CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan, single adult males made up over 90% of
arriving aliens in the past; however, families and children make up roughly 40% of all arriving
aliens currently.122 CBP data on family unit apprehensions at the southern border are publicly
available starting in FY2012, when they numbered just over 11,000 (Figure A-3). Since then,
family unit apprehensions have increased considerably, reaching a peak of 77,674 in FY2016. In
the first nine months of FY2018, CBP apprehended 68,560 family units, which, if the monthly
average is extrapolated to the remainder of FY2018, would yield a total (91,400) exceeding those
of all prior fiscal years.
121

The rise in both total apprehensions and family unit apprehensions of other-than Mexicans mirrors that of
unaccompanied alien children over this recent period. See CRS Report R43599, Unaccompanied Alien Children: An
Overview, Figure 1.
122 Testimony of Kevin McAleenan, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, Border Security, Commerce and
Travel: Commissioner McAleenan’s Vision for the Future of CBP, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., April 25, 2016.

Congressional Research Service

19

The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

Since FY2012, the composition of family unit apprehensions by origin country has shifted from
mostly Mexican (80%) to mostly El Salvadoran, Guatemalan, and Honduran (97%). Among these
Northern Triangle countries, the proportion of apprehensions from El Salvador has recently
declined, from 35% of all family unit apprehensions in FY2016 to 12% in FY2018.
Figure A-3.Total CBP Alien Family Unit Apprehensions at the Southwest Border,
FY2012-FY2018*

Source: For FY2008-FY2013: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Border Patrol, “Juvenile and
Adult Apprehensions—Fiscal Year 2013.” For FY2014-FY2016, “Customs and Border Protection, Southwest
Border Unaccompanied Alien Children.” For FY2017-FY2018, “U.S. Border Patrol Southwest Border
Apprehensions by Sector FY2018,” https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/usbp-sw-border-apprehensions.
Notes: *FY2018 includes October 2017 through June 2018, or three-fourths of the fiscal year.

Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Analyst in Immigration Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov7-....
,

Congressional Research Service

20

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.