Policy guidebook |
Previous | 1 of 7 | Next |
|
|
Small
Medium
Large
Extra Large
Full-size
Full-size archival image
|
This page
All
|
This study was prepared under contract with the Arizona Department of Commerce with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. Policy Guidebook Arizona military regional compatibility project July 2006 Prepared for: Prepared by: This document was prepared under contract with the Arizona Department of Commerce with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................1-1 2. OVERVIEW OF ARIZONA’S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS .....................................................................2-1 3. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY...............................................3-1 4. REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE .................................................................................4-1 5. TRENDS AND ISSUES ...........................................................5-1 6. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR COMPATIBLE LAND USE..................................................................... 6-1 On behalf of the Arizona Department of Commerce, sincere appreciation is extended to the dedicated staff from communities, counties and military installations across the state of Arizona who participated in the development and research of this document. JULY 2006 i ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK LIST OF TABLES Table 5-1: Population Change for Arizona Counties ............................. 5-1 Table 5-2: Projected Population for Arizona Counties 2010 to 2050 ....... 5-3 Table 5-3: Estimated Housing Units for Arizona Counties 2000 to 2004.. 5-4 Table 5-4: Arizona State Trust Land Sales FY 2004 ........................... 5-12 Table 6-1: Recommended Planning Policies and Practices..................... 6-3 Table 6-2: Recommended Coordination / Public Participation Policies and Practices...................................................................... 6-11 Table 6-3: Recommended Notification Policies and Practices............... 6-18 Table 6-4: Recommended Regulation Policies and Practices................ 6-21 Table 6-5: Recommended Acquisition Policies and Practices ............... 6-28 Table 6-6: Recommended Miscellaneous Policies and Practices ........... 6-38 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Military Lands in Arizona................................. 1-2 APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF ARIZONA LAND USE COMPATIBILITY LEGISLATION ............................................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDANCE ...................................................................................... B-1 APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS.......................................................C-1 APPENDIX D: REFERENCES.................................................................................. D-1 APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PRACTICES............................................................................E-1 JULY 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS i i ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION This Policy Guidebook has been prepared under the Arizona Military Regional Compatibility Project, which was conceived as a proactive statewide endeavor to convene the stakeholders around each military installation — the relevant jurisdictions, military personnel, landowners, and other interested parties — to address land use compatibility issues. Arizona is home to a network of United States military airports, installations, and ancillary facilities that include Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Luke Air Force Base, Yuma Proving Ground and Yuma Marine Air Corps Station, Fort Huachuca, and the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) Complex (see Figure 1-1). As issues of growth and development have moved to the forefront in many parts of Arizona, the installations and jurisdictions where the installations are located play key roles in addressing compatibility. Through the statewide Compatibility Project, the State endeavors to provide the tools to address land use conflicts that might impact the ability of each facility to conduct its mission, and to ensure land use compatibility around active military facilities. Development of incompatible land uses in the vicinity of Arizona’s military facilities constrains their ability to perform current and future missions. These incompatible uses expose people to safety and noise effects ranging from nuisance to physical harm. In response to these issues in the vicinity of air bases, State legislation amending Title 28, Article 7, Airport Zoning & Regulation (ARS §28-8480, §28-8481, and §28-8482) mandated that areas within high-noise or accident potential zones be addressed in municipal general plans and county comprehensive plans and required that land development within the high-noise or accident potential zones be compatible with military airport operations. The State of Arizona, through amendments to existing law, including ARS §9-461.05, §9-461.06, §9-462.04, §11-806, §11- 821, §11-824 and §11-826 enacted Growing Smarter and Growing Smarter Plus measures that address growth and land development issues through changes in community planning and rezoning processes. JULY 2006 1 - 1 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Figure 1-1: Military Lands in Arizona JULY 2006 1 -2 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION These measures require political jurisdictions with property within territory in the vicinity of a military airport, as defined in ARS §28-8461, to include consideration of military airport operations in their General Plans and Comprehensive Plans, and to allow an opportunity for official comment by the military airport officials on the General Plans. The Growing Smarter statute requires that plans provide for a rational pattern of land development and an extensive public participation program. Compliance with these Growing Smarter and Growing Smarter Plus objectives serves as a key guiding principle for the overall Arizona Military Regional Compatibility Project. In 1973, the U.S. Department of Defense created the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Program. The Installation Compatible Use Zone (ICUZ) Program was created post-1980. These programs were created to assist communities around military installations in planning for compatible land use. Elements from these national programs were also considered in developing the recommendations in this Guidebook. The Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) program was created by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1985 to further address problems of urban encroachment through a process of joint planning activities involving civilian and military installation representatives. Nationwide, the JLUS program, administered by the DoD’s Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), has involved over 70 bases with their surrounding communities in cooperative land use planning. The Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC) was awarded a grant from OEA in 2002 to prepare Joint Land Use Studies for Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Luke Auxiliary Field #1 and Barry M. Goldwater Range under the Arizona Military Regional Compatibility Project (AMRCP). This partnering between ADOC and OEA built upon the AMRPC’s previous experience in preparing the Western Maricopa County / Luke Air Force Base Regional Compatibility Plan, which was completed in 2003. The adoption of the three Joint Land Use Studies and the Western Maricopa County / Luke Air Force Base Regional Compatibility Plan by the local jurisdictions (municipalities and counties) surrounding each of the installations was an important step in achieving land use compatibility to support and protect the missions of the State’s military installations. JULY 2006 1 -3 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE POLICY GUIDEBOOK The purpose of the Policy Guidebook is to facilitate the implementation of compatible land uses around military installations through a cooperative program that includes the local jurisdictions, who have the authority and responsibility to implement compatible land use planning and regulation, the military installations, and other interested and affected parties, including institutions, corporations, and individuals. The challenge for each community is to protect the installation’s mission and its economic benefits while ensuring the economic diversity and viability of the community through facilitating development in ways that are compatible with the installation’s mission. To accomplish this, the Policy Guidebook provides information related to issues of land use compatibility and recommends policies and practices based upon sound compatibility criteria and experience in achieving compatibility in various contexts. 1.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR COMPATIBILITY PLANNING The Arizona Military Regional Compatibility Project defined the following guiding principles for the compatibility planning process. These principles have become a foundation of the Policy Guidebook and apply to each element and phase of the compatibility process. • Create feasible and sustainable solutions that are consistent with Arizona’s compatibility legislation, including Title 28, Article 7, Airport Zoning and Regulation and the Growing Smarter and Growing Smarter Plus legislation • Address areas within the vicinity of military installations in municipal general plans and county comprehensive plans to ensure development is compatible with areas of high-noise or accident potential or other impacts from installation operations, including those defined under ARS §28-8481 • Ensure openness to varying viewpoints throughout the process • Focus on fair and equitable solutions for all affected parties • Establish, maintain, and enhance consistency and continuity in the decision-making process JULY 2006 1 -4 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION • Achieve consent among the stakeholders on the means to control encroachment • Devise compatible land use solutions that accommodate reasonable development while preserving the installations’ military missions. 1.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Because of the importance of implementation of recommended policies and practices by the communities around military installations, public participation at the local level should provide meaningful opportunities for interested parties to contribute to shaping the policies and practices to meet local needs. The vision for public participation is that no one interest dominates the public process, but that all stakeholders in the affected area and all other interested parties have timely access to information, meaningful and convenient methods of participation, and timely notification in advance of public meetings. Recommended policies and practices related to public participation are contained in Section 6.2 of this Guidebook. 1.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PRACTICES The recommended policies and practices contained in Chapter 6 of this Guidebook are the foundation for future action by a variety of public and private entities as it relates to compatible land use around a military installation. The policies and practices are designed to be implemented at several levels, including the State of Arizona and local political jurisdictions, and by cooperative efforts among local jurisdictions, military installations, and public / private partnerships. JULY 2006 1 - 5 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2. ARIZONA’S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS This chapter of the Policy Guidebook presents information about Arizona’s military installations as a foundation for understanding the need to address encroachment and land use compatibility issues.1 The first section discusses the importance of the installations to the nation’s defense and to the state and local economies. The second section provides a summary overview of the individual installations and their missions. 2.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF ARIZONA’S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS Arizona’s network of military facilities positions the State at the forefront of the current transformation of the U.S. military and represents an essential component of the State economy. The network comprises an integrated array of bases, testing and training facilities, ranges, and airspace that operate within a physical environment that is uniquely suited to their individual and combined mission objectives and to the nation’s defense. The importance of Arizona’s military facilities and operations to the U.S. military cannot be understated: their emphasis on joint and combined operations and cutting-edge intelligence gathering and exploitation lie at the heart of the new role for the nation’s military organizations, and position Arizona to satisfy the needs of the Department of Defense for many years to come. Furthermore, Arizona’s military industry generates thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in economic activity, and hundreds of millions of dollars in State and local tax revenue. According to a study of the economic impact of Arizona’s military facilities prepared in 2002 by The Maguire Company and ESI Corporation, direct military employment in Arizona in 2000 was 41,647, which was more than the combined employment in 1 The material in this section was adapted from The Report of the Governor’s Military Facilities Task Force (December 2003). JULY 2006 2-1 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS Arizona for Honeywell, Motorola and Wal-Mart.2 The stability of employment and tax revenues produced by the Arizona military industry are indispensable to the fiscal health of the State. The 2002 Maguire study also states that total employment impact, total output, and total annual tax revenues for Arizona’s military industry equaled 83,506 jobs, $5.66 billion, and $233.6 million respectively for Tax Year 2000. The stable nature and high-pay-scale value of military jobs make them a fundamental part of the State economy. The long-term retention of Arizona’s network of military facilities and the sustainability of their missions are thus vital to the security of the nation and the strength of the State economy. 2.2 OVERVIEW OF ARIZONA’S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS Arizona’s military facilities are located on over a dozen separate sites that range in size from less than 100 acres to over two million acres. These sites, as shown on Figure 1-1, include: • Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma • U. S. Army Yuma Proving Ground • Fort Huachuca (including Libby Army Airfield) • Davis-Monthan Air Force Base • Luke Air Force Base (including Luke Auxiliary Field #1) • Barry M. Goldwater Range (including Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field) • Arizona Air National Guard, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport • Arizona Air National Guard, Tucson International Airport • Silverbell Army Heliport • Florence Military Reservation (Arizona Army National Guard) 2 Economic Impact of Arizona’s Principal Military Installations, May 2002, prepared by The Maguire Company in collaboration with ESI Corporation. JULY 2006 2-2 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS • Camp Navajo (Arizona Army National Guard) • Papago Park Military Reservation (Arizona Army National Guard) • United States Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station In addition to these sites, there are extensive areas of airspace in the State that are used in conjunction with the State’s military facilities. This airspace includes Military Operating Areas (MOAs) that are dedicated to military use, and over 5,000 miles of designated Military Training Routes (MTRs) that crisscross the State and are used for high-speed, low-level training. These sites and areas of airspace constitute a network of interrelated facilities that are essential to the nation’s defense. The following sections present an overview of the State’s military facilities. 2.2.1 Marine Corps Air Station Yuma Located adjacent to the City of Yuma, MCAS Yuma covers over 4,800 acres and has over 5,000 personnel (including civilian and active-duty military personnel). The mission of MCAS Yuma is to support aerial weapons training for the Atlantic and Pacific Fleet Marine Forces and Navy. The base is only three miles from the western border of the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR), and units training at the base also have access to the Yuma Training Range Complex, including the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range in California, and five Military Operating Areas. MCAS Yuma is the busiest air station in the Marine Corps. In addition to Marine Corps aviation training, the base conducts joint training with other services, as well as training for allied units (including Dutch, Belgian, German, and British units). MCAS Yuma also serves as the scheduling authority for the Yuma Training Range Complex, which includes over 10,000 square miles of restricted special-use airspace designated for military training. MCAS Yuma is a joint military / civilian-use airfield. The Yuma County Airport Authority (YCAA) is responsible for a commercial operation at MCAS Yuma that serves general aviation and scheduled commercial airlines. Under the operating agreement between MCAS Yuma and YCAA, civilian aircraft use the base’s runways and taxiways but have their own terminal and maintenance facilities. JULY 2006 2 -3 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS 2.2.2 U. S. Army Yuma Proving Ground Occupying over 800,000 acres north of the City of Yuma, U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground conducts tests on medium and long range artillery; aircraft target acquisition equipment and armament; armored and wheeled vehicles; a variety of munitions; and personnel and supply parachute systems. Testing programs are conducted for all United States military services, as well as allied countries and private industry. Yuma Proving Ground is the Army’s center for desert natural environment testing and the Yuma Test Center, which is more than 1,300 square miles in size, is a multi-purpose test facility able to test nearly every weapon system in the nation’s ground combat arsenal. In addition, Yuma Proving Ground provides unique capabilities for joint training exercises in a realistic desert combat environment. Laguna Army Airfield, used for both testing and training operations, has two runways, and can accommodate all currently operating military cargo aircraft, including the C-5, C-17, and C-130. 2.2.3 Fort Huachuca (including Libby Army Airfield) Occupying 73,272 acres in Cochise County and within the City of Sierra Vista, Fort Huachuca is the largest and primary Army Installation in Arizona, supporting Army Reserve and Arizona Army National Guard, as well as a number of other military activities throughout the State. Fort Huachuca is home to over 11,000 personnel (including civilian and active-duty military) and an average of 1,000 students at any given time. Fort Huachuca is the home of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center which is the originator of the Army’s military intelligence structure, the source of all its trained manpower, and the developer and tester of its systems and equipment. The Center is the focal point of the Army’s effort to meet its present and future intelligence collection and processing requirements. In addition to the U.S. Army Intelligence Center, there is a synergy between unique high-tech Department of Defense organizations that reside on Fort Huachuca, including: • The United States Army Network Enterprise Technology Command / 9th Army Signal Command (NETCOM/9th ASC); JULY 2006 2-4 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS • The U.S. Army Information Systems Engineering Command (ISEC); • The Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC); • The Electronic Proving Ground (EPG) The Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Testing Directorate (IEWTD) of the Operational Test Command (OTC); • The Department of Defense Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Test Center; • The U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command Communications Security Logistics Activity (USACCSLA); and • The Defense Coordination Office-Huachuca. These units are located at Fort Huachuca to take advantage of its remote location, vast area, and electromagnetic interference-free environment for testing ground and airborne electronics. The units also use Libby Army Airfield at the Fort as part of training and testing missions related to airborne electronics. Libby Army Airfield is unique to the Army because it is used jointly by military and civilian activities. In addition to UAV operations, Libby Army Airfield is used by the Arizona Air National Guard for F-16 training and for training of A-10 pilots from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. It is also a joint-use airfield, with the runways, taxiways, navigational aids, and air-traffic control shared by military and civilian operations. Civilian operations are concentrated on the northern side of the airfield, accessible from the City of Sierra Vista, while military operations are concentrated on the southern side. The 12,000- foot runway will accommodate any military or civilian aircraft, and Fort Huachuca also has control of over 700 square miles of restricted airspace from the surface to 30,000 feet. 2.2.4 Davis-Monthan Air Force Base Davis-Monthan Air Force Base is a key Air Combat Command (ACC) installation occupying 10,600 acres in the City of Tucson, approximately 10 miles southeast of downtown. Davis- Monthan Air Force Base is home to over 7,000 personnel (including civilian and active-duty military), and an average of 100 students at any given time. All A-10 and OA-10 pilots as well as all EC-130H pilots are trained at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. The Air Force 355th Wing is the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base host unit and provides medical, logistical, and JULY 2006 2-5 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS operational support to all Davis-Monthan Air Force Base units. With six flying squadrons, and one geographically separated unit, the 355th Wing is one of the largest wings in the Air Force. The 55th ECG, based at Davis-Monthan, operates EC-130H aircraft, a specially configured version of the C-130 transport to support tactical air, ground, and naval operations by confusing the enemy’s defenses and disrupting its command and control capabilities. To execute its unique operations, the aircraft were modified with electronic countermeasures systems, specialized jamming equipment, and aerial refueling capability, as well as upgraded engines and avionics. The 12th Air Force, headquartered at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, directs seven combat wings, five direct-reporting units in the Midwestern and Western U.S., and numerous Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard units. The fighter and bomber wings possess 430 aircraft and more than 33,000 active-duty military and civilian people. The 12th Air Force is the air component of the U.S. Southern Command, which is a joint-service command with Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps components. A unique facility for storing excess Department of Defense and Coast Guard aircraft, the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AMARC) has more than 5,000 aircraft stored on 2,600 acres at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. AMARC annually in-processes about 400 aircraft for storage and out-processes about the same number for return to active service, either as remotely controlled drones or for sale to friendly foreign governments. Almost 70 different types of aircraft are currently stored at AMARC (including 4,500 viable aircraft), ranging from U.S. Army and Navy helicopters to the Air Force’s Vietnam War-era F-4s with a total acquisition value of almost $27 billion. 2.2.5 Luke Air Force Base (including Luke Auxiliary Field #1) Located in the western portion of the metropolitan Phoenix area within the City of Glendale, Luke Air Force Base occupies approximately 4,200 acres and has over 8,000 personnel (including civilian, military reserve, and active-duty military). The most diversified training center in the Air Education and Training Command (AETC), Luke Air Force Base provides technical, field, medical, and flight training. Luke Air Force Base is the largest fighter pilot training base in the world and is the main provider of fighter pilots to the ACC, conducting JULY 2006 2-6 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS more than 10,000 flight operations monthly and training more than 1,000 pilots annually. All F-16 training for the USAF is consolidated at Luke Air Force Base and all active F-16 pilots were trained at the base. In addition, training units from Singapore and Taiwan are stationed at Luke. The 56th Fighter Wing is the Luke Air Force Base host unit and provides medical, logistical, and operational support to all Luke Air Force Base units. With 190 assigned aircraft, the 56th Fighter Wing is the largest fighter wing in the world, and is responsible for scheduling, managing, and ensuring environmental compliance for the eastern portion the 2.7- million-acre Barry M. Goldwater Range located 50 miles south of Luke Air Force Base. (The U.S. Marine Corps manages, schedules and ensures environmental compliance on the western portion of the Range.) The 56th Fighter Wing has scheduling and operational control of Special Use Airspace and for eight low-level Military Training Routes, which start to the east, south, and north of Luke Air Force Base and all terminate at the Barry M. Goldwater Range. Auxiliary Field #1 is located about 15 miles northwest of Luke Air Force Base and occupies 400 acres of Department of Defense-owned land and approximately 705 acres of land leased from the State of Arizona. About 12,000 operations per year are conducted at Auxiliary Field #1 for training in which pilots use the instrument landing systems at Auxiliary Field #1 to simulate approaches under poor weather conditions. Auxiliary Field #1 is one of only a few locations in the U.S. for training with Precision Approach Radar, which is commonly used in overseas locations. 2.2.6 Barry M. Goldwater Range (including Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field) Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) occupies approximately 2.7-million-acres in Yuma, Pima, and Maricopa Counties and is located approximately three miles east of MCAS Yuma, 50 miles southwest of Luke Air Force Base, and 30 miles west of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. BMGR is operated jointly by the Air Force and Marine Corps, with MCAS Yuma responsible for the western part of BMGR and Luke Air Force Base responsible for the eastern part. BMGR supports the military in Arizona with air-to-air, air-to-ground, and live drop areas, and it is the only low-altitude night-vision training area in Arizona. At roughly the size of Connecticut, the range’s vast JULY 2006 2-7 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS acreage allows for simultaneous training activities on nine air-to- ground and two air-to-air ranges. The key value of the Goldwater Range is that it is authorized for live-fire training, which is essential to the abilities of aircrews to survive and win in combat. Above BMGR are 57,000 cubic miles of airspace where pilots practice air-to-air maneuvers and engage simulated battlefield targets on the ground. More than 50 aircraft can simultaneously operate on the range while performing independent training missions. The range is within the unrefueled flight radius of twelve military installations and the U.S. Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers. Pilots fly over 68,000 sorties in the range annually. However, only about six percent of the range is used for roads, targets, and support areas; the remaining 94 percent is relatively undisturbed, and most of the land is a safety buffer for low-flying fighter aircraft. Approximately 822,000 acres of BMGR were set aside as part of the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. Military activities in the Cabeza Prieta portion of BMGR are limited to four remotely located radio transmitters and flight-training operations in the overlying airspace. Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field (AFAF) is an integral part of operations at BMGR and is jointly managed with BMGR. Adjacent to the northern boundary of BMGR, Gila Bend AFAF occupies 1,886 acres adjacent to the northern boundary of BMGR and is three miles south of the Town of Gila Bend. Its primary mission is to support BMGR, used by all branches of the military for air-to-air and air-to-ground training. Military aircraft, including F-16s, A-10s, and rotary-wing aircraft routinely use Gila Bend AFAF for practicing traffic pattern and emergency simulated engine flameout procedures. Other training conducted at Gila Bend Auxiliary Airfield includes night-vision device-assisted landings and Marine weapons tactics instructor exercises, including non-combatant evacuation operations. The airfield is also used for emergency recoveries of military aircraft that experience malfunctions on BMGR and diversion of aircraft due to factors such as bad weather at their home base, unsafe ordnance, or low fuel. Those aircraft are repaired at the airfield by maintenance crews that travel from their home base. JULY 2006 2-8 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS 2.2.7 Arizona Air National Guard, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport The 161st Air Refueling Wing (AFW) of the Arizona Air National Guard, whose mission is worldwide refueling, is based at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, which is the newest Air National Guard base in the U.S. The Arizona Air National Guard occupies 62 acres leased from the Airport, with facilities constructed in 2002 as a part of Sky Harbor’s expansion program for construction of a third runway and paid for by airport user fees. The Wing has 900 personnel (including part-time and full-time) and flies 10 KC-135E aircraft, the oldest model in the current U. S. Air Force inventory. The 161st Air Refueling Wing has more aircraft refueling areas within a short distance from its base than any other refueling unit, including eight air refueling areas within a 15-minute flight time of Sky Harbor, from which the Wing can serve over 400 receiver aircraft. 2.2.8 Arizona Air National Guard, Tucson International Airport The 162nd Fighter Wing of the Arizona Air National Guard is based at Tucson International Airport on a 92-acre site and has over 1,600 personnel (full-time and part-time). Its primary mission is International Military Training (IMT) for F-16 pilots from countries that purchase F-16s from the U.S., including air-to-air and air-to-ground tactical operations, as well as air-to- ground bombing. Mobile Training Teams from the 162nd Fighter Wing have also conducted training at individual client nations, including Turkey, the Netherlands, and Thailand. The Wing also trains International maintenance technicians on F-16 systems. 2.2.9 Silverbell Army Heliport Silverbell Army Heliport (AHP), located on a 161-acre site in rural Pima County approximately 25 miles northwest of Tucson, is the home of the Western Army Air Training Site (WAATS), which is operated by the Arizona Army National Guard. The WAATS mission is to conduct flight training, enlisted training, specialty training, and to provide regional simulation support. Flight training is conducted for the OH 58A/C “Kiowa” and AH-64A “Apache” aircraft, and the WAATS has responsibility for all AH-64A training for the Army. Specialty training courses meet unique requirements by offering training JULY 2006 2-9 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS specifically designed to enhance or improve an area of unit operations not taught at other Army training facilities. Specialty courses conducted at the WAATS include the Combat Lifesaver Course and several Readiness Enhancement Training courses. Flight-simulation capabilities at the WAATS include a Combat Mission Simulator and a Flight Weapons Simulator, both of which provide Instructor Operator courses and Aircrew Trainer courses. The WAATS has access to a local tactical training area of 3,600 square miles, allowing for low-level tactical flight. This training area is primarily public land with low population densities, extensive landing rights, and excellent variation of terrain relief. Silverbell Army Heliport operations also utilize outlying training areas. Picacho Stagefield, located to the west of Picacho Peak, has four helicopter landing lanes (each 1,500 feet long), an air traffic control tower, and on-site crash / rescue facilities. Picacho Stagefield is the primary location for trauma and emergency procedure training. In the Phoenix area, operations are conducted at the Rittenhouse Stagefield east of Queen Creek; the Deer Valley, Sycamore Creek, Granite Mountain, and Saguaro Lake training sites, which are located in the north and northeastern portion of the Phoenix area; and the heliport at Papago Park Military Reservation, located between Phoenix and Scottsdale. 2.2.10 Florence Military Reservation (Arizona Army National Guard) Florence Military Reservation (FMR) is located along Arizona Route 79, approximately six miles north of the Town of Florence and 60 miles southeast of metropolitan Phoenix. FMR occupies over 26,000 acres of low Sonoran Desert land, including 19,000 acres leased from the State Lands Trust and 6,000 acres owned by the federal government. FMR has several ranges, simulator buildings for artillery firing, live-fire areas, and impact areas for artillery rounds are also present at FMR, along with a large maintenance facility and a vehicle storage area. With its location in close proximity to the Phoenix metropolitan area, over 75 percent of the Arizona Army National Guard are stationed, trained, or deployed at FMR. JULY 2006 2-10 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS 2.2.11 Camp Navajo (Arizona Army National Guard) Camp Navajo is located on over 28,000 acres near Flagstaff. It was constructed in 1942 as Navajo Ordnance Depot. Camp Navajo was transferred to the Arizona Army National Guard following the closing of the Active Army ordnance storage mission. It has been operated by the Arizona Army National Guard since 1993, under an indefinite license through the Army Corps of Engineers. The main mission of Camp Navajo is to serve as a training site for the Arizona Army National Guard, but the base also maintains an industrial storage mission with a customer base that includes the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard, as well as private corporations and public agencies such as the U.S. General Services Administration and Northern Arizona University. Approximately 11,000 acres are in the storage area, and 17,000 acres are in training and buffer areas. The Camp also has a railroad with 38 miles of track and two locomotives that serve the storage area. Revenue from the industrial storage supports the National Guard training operations. 2.2.12 Papago Park Military Reservation (Arizona Army National Guard) Papago Park Military Reservation (PPMR) consists of 419 acres of land located at 52nd Street and McDowell Road between Phoenix and Scottsdale. The site was reserved for use by the Arizona National Guard by the U.S. Congress in 1930. PPMR is the headquarters and operational focal point of the Arizona Army National Guard and the Arizona Air National Guard. The Reservation is home to the Arizona Military Institute, which features classrooms supplied with state-of–the-art video-and computer-projected instruction equipment, a distance-learning center with video conferencing capabilities, and dormitories to house personnel attending classes. Also located at PPMR are an Army Aviation heliport, a 3,000-foot-long runway, an Air Force Battle Management training center, a rifle range, a land navigation course, a rappel site, four large armories, and several maintenance facilities. 2.2.13 United States Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station Established in 1955 a few miles west of downtown Flagstaff, Arizona, the Flagstaff Station is the U.S. Naval Observatory’s dark-sky site for optical and near-infrared astronomy. The Station has four telescopes, including the Kaj Strand JULY 2006 2-1 1 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS Astrometric Reflector which is the largest optical telescope operated by the U.S. Navy. It was designed to produce extremely accurate astrometric measurements in small fields, and has been used to measure parallaxes and therefore distance for faint stars. Over 1,000 of the world’s most accurate stellar distances were measured with this telescope since 1964, and in recent years this telescope has also served as a test-bed for the development of state-of-the-art near-infrared detectors. The Station also operates the Navy Prototype Optical Interferometer (NPOI), which is a cooperative project with the Naval Research Laboratory and Lowell Observatory, in addition to the U.S. Naval Observatory. Located on Anderson Mesa southeast of Flagstaff, the interferometer makes use of separate telescopes that are widely spaced rather than a single large mirror as is used in conventional telescopes. A unique program at the Station is the Precision Measuring Machine, or PMM, which is a large, fast, highly precise photographic plate measuring engine. The goal of the PMM program is to produce very high-quality catalogues of stars, based on digitization of the major photographic surveys. 2.2.14 Military Operating Areas (MOAs) and Restricted Airspace In addition to facilities on the ground, airspace is a vital resource for the missions of Arizona’s military facilities. The airspace available to these facilities has the capacity to support all missions and aviation needs of all of the services. This airspace environment is not duplicated elsewhere in the U.S. and optimizes the training operations at the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR), the ranges that are part of the Yuma Training Range Complex, Yuma Proving Ground and Fort Huachuca. Under the Special Use Airspace (SUA) Program, which designates airspace for military use, various types of airspace were designated, with the objective of segregating military traffic from civilian traffic. The vertical limits of SUA are measured by designated altitude floors and ceilings within which limitations are imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of the military operations. The principal types of SUA are: • Restricted Airspace, within which the flight of civil aircraft is subject to restrictions due to military operations considered hazardous to other aircraft, JULY 2006 2-1 2 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS including weapons firings and airdrop operations. Restricted airspace in Arizona is associated with BMGR, the Yuma Training Range Complex (YTRC), Yuma Proving Ground, and Ft. Huachuca. In this restricted airspace non-military aircraft operation is not forbidden but is subject to various restrictions, and during periods of active military operations, civilian aircraft are not permitted to enter the airspace. • A Military Operating Area (MOA) is airspace below a certain altitude that is established to segregate civilian flight activities from military activities, which may involve multi-aircraft formations, high-speeds just short of supersonic, and steep climb and descent rates. The ceiling of a MOA is 17,999 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). • Air Traffic Controlled Assigned Airspace (ATCAA), is airspace attached to the MOA airspace, within which operations above the MOA altitude are controlled by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to support the military mission. Civilian air traffic using Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) is routed around active MOAs or is vertically separated from military air traffic. Civilian air traffic using Visual Flight Rules (VFR) may enter the MOA at any time without a specific clearance but at a risk. • Military Training Routes, are airspace corridors used by military aircraft for low-level navigation and tactical training. The principal MOA / ATCAAs in Arizona are: • Gladden / Bagdad MOA / ATCAA, located approximately 50 miles northwest of Phoenix. This area supports air-to- air, basic flight maneuvers, air combat tactics, and formation training for the 56th and 944th Fighter Wings at Luke Air Force Base. One of the three Air Refueling Routes used by the 161st Air Refueling Wing overlies this MOA / ATCAA.. • Outlaw / Jackal MOA / ATCAA, located approximately 60 miles northwest of Tucson and 30 miles east of Phoenix. This area supports air-to air and night training missions for Luke Air Force Base and the 162nd Fighter Wing based at Tucson International Airport. • Sunny MOA / ATCAA, located approximately 70 miles northeast of Phoenix. This area is used as a holding JULY 2006 2-1 3 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS area for exercises with large forces and supports Luke Air Force Base and Nellis Air Force Base (in Nevada). The primary Air Refueling Route used by the 161st Air Refueling Wing also overlies the Sunny MOA / ATCAA. • Sells MOA / ATCAA, located approximately 40 miles south of Phoenix and 20 miles west of Tucson, adjacent to the eastern boundary of BMGR. This area supports intensive training for Luke Air Force Base, Davis- Monthan Air Force Base, the 162nd Fighter Wing, and MCAS Yuma. One of the Air Refueling Routes used by the 161st Air Refueling Wing overlies this MOA / ATCAA. Other MOAs are the Dome MOA, located just south of MCAS Yuma; the Ruby and Fuzzy MOAs, located adjacent to the Sells MOA east of BMGR; the Tombstone MOA, located just east of Fort Huachuca; and the Turtle and Quail MOAs, located on the California-Arizona border west of the Gladden / Bagdad MOA / ATCAA. There are over 20 Military Training Routes crisscrossing Arizona, totaling approximately 5,000 miles in length. These routes are used by the military to practice high-speed, low-altitude maneuvers (generally below the 10,000-foot altitude and at airspeeds greater than 400 miles per hour). Eight of the routes provide essential access to BMGR. Civilian air traffic is not prohibited from flying along or across the routes, but the route designation alerts aircraft to the presence of military operations. JULY 2006 2-14 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The ability of any military installation to maintain its operational capabilities is related in large part to the compatibility of the land uses around the installation. Recognizing local communities have interests both in preserving the capabilities of the installation as well as furthering their own development, it is essential to define land uses that are compatible with the operations of installation, while also contributing to the balanced growth of the local communities. The following sections discuss the considerations involved in determining compatibility of land uses, and define principles for achieving compatible land use around military installations based on those considerations. 3.1 NOISE CONSIDERATIONS Noise is “unwanted sound” and can be perceived as a nuisance that disturbs our routine activities or our peace, and that at louder levels may cause feelings of mounting annoyance, irritation, or anger. The loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content, and within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable. Sounds that are perceived as noise may vary among listeners and sounds that are not objectionable to some can be bothersome to others. Aircraft or artillery noise may be experienced as particularly annoying because it may startle people, cause windows to rattle and houses to shake, or cause people to fear a crash or explosion. In addition to varying levels of annoyance, adverse impacts associated with exposure to noise may include interruption of sleep and conversation. Some common terms used in assessing the effects of noise are: • The Decibel (dB) is the unit used to measure the magnitude or intensity of sound. Decibel means 1/10 of a Bel (named after Alexander Graham Bell). The decibel uses a logarithmic scale to cover the very large range of sound pressures that can be heard by the human ear. Under the decibel unit of measure, a 10 dB increase will be perceived by most people to be a JULY 2006 3 -1 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY doubling in loudness (80 dB seems twice as loud as 70 dB). • The A-weighted Decibel (dBA) is the most common unit used for measuring environmental sound levels. It adjusts, or weights, the frequency components of sound to conform to the normal response of the human ear at conversational levels. dBA is an international metric that is used for assessing environmental noise exposure of most noise sources. • The C-weighted Decibel (dBC) is used for measuring sound levels of heavy weapons operation and sonic booms, because it adjusts or weights the frequency components to emphasize higher and lower frequencies and therefore provides a way of capturing the most annoying characteristic of tank guns and artillery, which are house vibrations induced by low frequency sound. Sound levels are plotted in decibels (abbreviated dB), a logarithmic measure of the magnitude of a sound, and may be plotted as either “A-weighted” (dbA) or as “C-weighted” (dbC). The “A-weighting” accounts for the fact that humans do not hear low frequencies and high frequencies as well as they hear middle frequencies. The A-weighting corrects for the relative efficiency of the human ear at the different frequencies. Conversely, the “C-weighting” accounts for the fact that low frequencies cause vibration, which is the principal noise impact of heavy weapons firing. An additional important factor in measuring a sound environment is the occurrence of sound events at night. People are normally more sensitive to intrusive sound events at night and background sound levels are normally lower at night because of decreased human activity. Therefore, a “penalty” may be added to sound levels that occur during night hours. By accepted scientific convention, a 10-decibel penalty is added to sound levels occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following morning. This 10 dB penalty means that one nighttime sound event is equivalent to 10 daytime events of the same level. The 24-hour average sound level, including the 10 dB penalty, is known as the day-night average sound level (Ldn). Extensive research has found that the day-night average sound level correlates very well with community annoyance from most environmental noise sources, and Ldn is used by all Federal agencies and internationally in the assessment of potential noise impacts. JULY 2006 3 -2 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Relying on a considerable body of scientific research on noise impacts, federal agencies have adopted guidelines for compatible land uses and environmental sound levels. Compatible land uses are normally determined by planning and zoning regulations that segregate types of activities, such as residential, industrial, or commercial. Noise levels that are unacceptable for homes may be quite acceptable for other uses, such as agriculture or certain industries. General guidelines for noise compatibility identify sound levels from aircraft operations between 55 and 60 dB as “moderate exposure” and as generally acceptable for residential uses. Both the Department of Defense’s Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) guidance and the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Toolkit discourage residential use in the 65 Ldn contour and higher. The Army Operational Noise Management Program uses a classification system of Zones I, II and III (Zone III being the worst) to define noise-impacted areas. Noise levels in Zone II are roughly equivalent to those within the AICUZ and FAA 65 Ldn contour. 3.2 SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS The primary safety considerations for areas surrounding military installations relate to the operation of military aircraft and their associated weaponry and ordnance. There are two types of airspace environment – the environment surrounding airfields and the environment surrounding ranges, which is a non-airfield environment. Aircraft overflights, take-offs and landings, expose areas around military airports to the possibility of accidents even with well-maintained aircraft and highly specialized flight crews. Despite stringent maintenance requirements and intense pilot and crew training programs, history demonstrates that aircraft related accidents will occur around airports. Risk may be defined as: The potential for realization of unwanted, adverse consequences to human life, health, property, or the environment; estimation of risk is usually based on the expected value of the conditional probability of the event occurring times the consequence of the event given that it has occurred.3 3The Society for Risk Analysis, Risk Glossary, accessed at http://www.sra.org. JULY 2006 3 -3 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Although the risk to people on the ground of being killed or injured by a military aircraft accident is very small, such an event is by its nature of high consequence and may be catastrophic in the breadth and extent of its impact. In order to address the issue of public exposure to safety hazards related to flight, the Department of Defense undertook an accident study based on crash patterns for reported incidents between 1968 and 1972. The combined DoD study indicated that: a. The majority of accidents occur along the extended runway centerline. Percentages ranged from 65% within five miles for the Navy to 75% within 10 miles for the Air Force, and 97% within one mile for the Army. The analysis supported corridor widths of 3,000 feet for the Navy and Air Force and 1,000 feet for the Army. b. Fighter and training type aircraft accounted for over 55% of the total aircraft accidents c. Approximately 20% of all accidents occurred on or near the runway. For accidents occurring between the runway thresholds, but off the runway surface, over 94% were within 1,000 ft of the centerline and 1.9% were between 1,000 and 4,500 ft. The Army accident plot showed no accidents occurring outside the existing Army runway lateral clearance zone of 500 ft from the runway centerline, threshold to threshold. d. More accidents occurred during the landing phase of flight than the departure phase. Both the Air Force and the Navy experienced nearly twice as many of its accidents during this phase of flight as during the departure phase. e. Beyond a distance of 15,000 feet along the extended runway centerline, the number o f accidents became in significant. f. The impact areas (areas over which debris is scattered) varied according to aircraft type. The smallest crash areas covered slightly more than two acres,while the impact for heavy bombers in some instances exceeded eight acres. The average impact area was 5.06 acres. g. Accident plots for various classes of aircraft varied; therefore accident potential zones of different sizes are appropriate for each class of aircraft. JULY 2006 3 -4 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY As a result of the study, it was concluded that the designation of safety zones around the airfield and restriction of incompatible land uses could reduce the public’s exposure to safety hazards. Recommended dimensions for these zones are based on distribution of accidents and the debris scatter. The land use recommendations for each zone are based on the level of risk; the area of highest risk has the most restrictions, while areas of lesser risk have lesser restrictions. Although safety zones are areas where there is the highest potential for an aircraft mishap based upon historical locations of accidents, these zones do not reflect the totality of the locations where accidents may happen. The safety zones are also discussed in Sections 3.5.1 and 4.1.1 of this document. In a subsequent Air Force accident study, data was plotted in relation to the airfield for 838 major accidents at U.S. Air Force bases from 1968 through 1995. These were all Class A accidents (defined as involving a loss of life or more than $1 million worth of damage) that occurred within 10 nautical miles of the airfield. This study showed that the accidents clustered along the runway and its extended centerline. Approximately 43% of the accidents occurred within the clear zones and APZs, approximately 25% occurred on the runway, and approximately 32% occurred in other areas within 10 nautical miles of the airfield. The study also showed that the majority of accidents were associated with landing (61%) vs. takeoff (30%) and that 80% of the accidents were associated with fighter / training aircraft. 3.3 AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Navigable airspace in the U.S. is under the control of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which classifies airspace based upon factors such as the complexity or density of aircraft movements; the nature of the operations conducted within the airspace; and the level of safety required. The airspace within which the FAA exercises air traffic control is divided into six categories (Classes A through E). Class A is airspace generally above 18,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Classes B, C and D define the airspace around airports and airfields, with Class B airspace being located around the busiest airports and classes C and D being located around airports with lesser activity. Class E airspace is all of the remaining airspace subject to FAA air control. There is also a category of airspace (Class G), which although subject to FAA regulation is not under FAA air traffic control. JULY 2006 3 -5 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Structures that penetrate the airspace can create hazards for aircraft operations. The most critical locations with regard to the height of objects are those within the airport approach zones. Part 77 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 14, Part 77 CFR) provides the height limits for structures within FAA-controlled airspace. Under this guidance, the height of structures considered to be obstructions within airspace other than Classes B, C and D is 200 feet or more above ground level. Within Classes B, C and D the height of structures considered to be obstructions is related to a series of “imaginary surfaces”, which establish a three-dimensional space in the air above an airport. As an example of how imaginary surfaces appear in isometric view, the imaginary surfaces for a Class A Visual Fight Rules Runway at DoD installations are shown below. Source: Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Unified Facilities Criteria: Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design (UFC 3-260-01), Figure 3.8. 01 November 01, with changes through 19 May 2006. JULY 2006 3 -6 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Whether a particular object constitutes an airspace obstruction depends upon the height of the object and its proximity to the airport. Generally, the closer the proximity to the airport and to the runway approaches, the less the height that would be considered an obstruction. Any object that penetrates these imaginary surfaces is considered an obstruction and may affect the aeronautical use of the airspace. The land area and height standards defined in the Tri-Service Unified Facilities Criteria: Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design (UFC 3-260-01) are used for purposes of defining height obstruction criteria around military airfields. UFC 3-260-01 is available on the web at: http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_260_01.pdf These standards are similar to those used by the FAA under Title 14, Part 77 CFR. U.S. standard instrument approach and departure procedures (Terminal Instrument Procedures Manual - TM 95-226,OPNAVINST 3722.16C, AFM 11-226), prescribe flight path area and vertical clearances from terrain and manmade obstructions. The restrictions limit the height of buildings and other structures in the vicinity of the airfield in order to ensure the safety of pilots, aircraft and individuals and structures on the ground. Federal law requires that prior notification must be given to the FAA, as the manager of the nation’s airspace, regarding any construction or alteration of structures that meet specific criteria. Those structures may include, but are not limited to: buildings, highways, bridges, signs and billboards, antennas and utility poles, as well as temporary-use construction materials or equipment. In addition to the controlled and uncontrolled airspace, the FAA defines several classes of Special Use airspace. (See Section 2.12 of this Policy Guidebook for a discussion of Special Use airspace in Arizona.) 3.4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS In addition to airspace obstructions, compatibility of surrounding land uses with military operations can be affected by other considerations. These include electromagnetic interference, light emissions, particulate emissions and radar reflectivity. JULY 2006 3 -7 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 3.4.1 Electromagnetic Interference Because military installations in Arizona are highly dependent on the proper operation of sophisticated communication systems, electromagnetic interference is an important consideration. This is particularly true for installations such as Fort Huachuca, where an environment free of electromagnetic interference is essential to carry out its training and testing mission using a wide range of electronic equipment and systems. Electromagnetic interference (EMI) (or radio frequency interference) occurs when an electromagnetic field interferes with the normal operation of an electronic device. Any device that transmits, distributes or processes any form of electrical energy can be a source of EMI. Such interference typically is generated on a small scale due to the operation of everyday items such as cell phones or fluorescent lights, but because the reach of the field from such devices is small, it does not result in problems. However, larger sources of interference, such as telecommunication signal facilities, or other transmitters can create significant problems for other devices using the radio frequencies. With the growth of the telecommunications industry, the increase in dependence on electronic control and guidance systems for aircraft, and the generally increased use of the radio frequency spectrum by an expanded number of users, the potential for adverse effects will likely increase in the future. Transmitters are designed to emit electromagnetic energy to convey radio frequency signals to receiving devices; interference occurs when the emitted energy is picked up by a receiver that is not the intended recipient of the emissions. Typically, the operating frequency of the transmitter and receiver of the unwanted emissions are in the same frequency bandwidth; the potential for interference decreases as the frequency separation between a transmitter and receiver increases. Interference can also occur when unintended leakage occurs from a device that is not intended to emit energy. For example, properly maintained television cable carrier systems do not radiate much electromagnetic energy. However, malfunctioning of the system may result in significant leakage and consequent interference. Electromagnetic interference from surrounding land uses can adversely affect military operations in numerous ways. Among these are interference with aircraft guidance systems (including those on the ground as well as in the aircraft itself); JULY 2006 3 -8 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY interference with the proper functioning of computer hardware; disruption of communications between units during training exercises; and interference with testing of electronic systems and devices. Military operations that transmit electromagnetic energy can also potentially interfere with civilian activities around the installation, such as television and radio reception and operation of computers. An important consideration for avoiding electromagnetic interference is that electronic fields operate according to the inverse square law of physics, which states that a quantity of something such as electromagnetic energy is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from a source point. For example, at twice the distance, ¼ of the emissions would be received, while at 10 times the distance, only 1/100 would be received. For this reason, distance is one of the best methods to avoid electromagnetic interference as the effects decrease more rapidly than the distance increases. 3.4.2 Light Emissions As development around military installations increases, the potential for incompatibility due to uncontrolled light emissions also increases. A variety of military training and testing operations depend upon “night-sky” conditions that can be disrupted by sky-glow and glare from unshielded light sources. As a form of energy, light emissions are also subject to the inverse square law of physics (as discussed in Section 3.4.1 above), which means that the more distant the light source, the greater the relative level of reduction in the effects of emitted light. However, the proliferation of light sources in both urban and rural areas increases the likelihood that increased uncontrolled light emissions will create light pollution, especially sky-glow, even when the sources are some distance away. A common method of reducing the potential for light pollution is to require shielding of exterior light fixtures, so that the light is directed downward rather than out or up. Shielded lights result in less sky-glow and glare and can prevent “light trespass”, which occurs when light falls on property outside that where the light source is located. Cochise County is currently considering adoption of an ordinance to address light pollution, among the provisions of which are requirements for shielding of lighting. The ordinance also provides for limits on total light output or luminance (the amount of light falling on a JULY 2006 3 -9 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY surface); limits on internal lighting of signs; prohibition of searchlights and laser lights for commercial purposes; and prohibition on installation of new mercury vapor light fixtures. The draft Cochise County Light Pollution Ordinance may be accessed at: http://www.co.cochise.az.us/P&Z/. 3.4.3 Particulate Emissions Particulate emissions (such as dust and smoke) generated by certain types of activities can affect the compatibility of land uses with military installation operations. Some industrial and resource extraction uses have the potential for producing smoke or dust, particularly from outdoor operations. If located adjacent to an installation such emissions, in sufficient quantity and depending on the prevailing winds, could adversely affect visibility or interfere with the operation or testing of equipment. Conversely, training or other operations on an installation may create dust or other particulate matter that due to prevailing winds is carried off the installation. Uses sensitive to dust or smoke, such as residential uses, public facilities and certain kinds of “clean” industries (such as manufacture of computer components or precision instruments) could be adversely affected. Temporary construction activities are also a potential source of particulate emissions, primarily in the form of fugitive dust. Locations that are downwind under prevailing wind conditions are more likely to be affected by particulate emissions. In Arizona, as in much of the continental United States, the prevailing winds tend to be from the west. These can be northwesterly or southwesterly depending upon the locality and season. However, particulate matter can be carried aloft and deposited at considerable distance from its source. There are standard methods to control dust emissions that may be employed for construction and resource extraction activities. Application of these methods can substantially reduce, although not necessarily eliminate the potential for adverse impacts. 3.5 PRINCIPLES FOR LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Two critical issues define compatibility of uses: first, exposure of areas outside the installation to safety and noise hazards resulting from installation operations; and second, the potential for interference with installation operations due to certain characteristics of land uses around the installation JULY 2006 3 -10 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY (such as airspace obstructions or electro-magnetic interference.) 3.5.1 Noise and Safety Hazards A fundamental goal of compatibility criteria is to avoid concentrations of people exposed to noise and safety hazards, and is achieved in principle by: • limiting exposure of people and noise-sensitive activities to high noise levels, and • limiting concentrations of people and safety-sensitive activities in areas of highest probable accident impact. Each of these critical principles can be translated into specific types of land uses that are affected by military operations. • Noise-sensitive land uses that are incompatible with high noise levels, particularly within the high-noise zones defined as the 65 Ldn contour and higher (or within Army Noise Zone II, Noise Zone III and Land Use Planning Zone). Noise-sensitive uses include: • Residences and places where people normally sleep such as hotels, hospitals, and nursing homes. • Uses such as schools, libraries, churches, museums, cultural centers, theaters, hotels, outdoor auditoriums, and concert halls, where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, music, meditation, and concentration on reading or visual material. Noise attenuation may mitigate the effects of the average noise exposure (as expressed in Ldn), on these uses; however, it is important to note that single-event noise levels at significantly higher decibels may not be fully mitigated by attenuation. • Land uses that result in concentrations of people or that have special safety considerations are generally incompatible with high hazard areas around military airports. These areas typically include the Clear Zones, APZ-I, and APZ-II as defined under AICUZ guidance, or hazard zones defined under similar criteria. Note that the Navy/Marine Corps Clear Zones have different dimensions than the Air Force Clear Zones. Uses that result in concentrations of people include the following: JULY 2006 3 -1 1 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY • Residences and similar uses where people reside, such as hotels and nursing homes. • Employment uses with a high density of employees such as offices and labor-intensive industrial use. • Uses where people may gather in large numbers such as churches, schools, shopping centers, retail establishments, bars and restaurants, auditoriums, sports arenas, and spectator sports. • Land uses that have special safety considerations include the following: • Uses involving significant quantities of hazardous materials or explosives. • Critical public health and safety uses, such as hospitals, fire stations, and police communications facilities. • Landfills and agricultural row crops that are attractive to large flocks of birds. 3.5.2 Obstructions and Interference Land use compatibility is also affected by the potential that exists for land uses around an installation to create obstructions or have characteristics that would interfere with the installation’s operation. Compatibility problems due to obstruction or interference can be avoided by following principles concerning obstructions and sources of interference, and by submitting proposals for these kinds of uses to the installation for review. • The height of structures and other objects (such as trees) in critical airspace should be restricted in accordance with relevant FAA and DoD guidance to avoid obstructions. (See Section 3.3 above for a discussion of guidance concerning airspace obstructions.) The critical areas are: • Airfield approach/departure areas at the ends of the runway, along with the transitional areas on the sides of the runway, as defined by the imaginary surfaces under FAA and DoD guidance (See Section 3.3 above) • Military Operating Areas (MOAs) and Military Training Routes, where aircraft operations may JULY 2006 3 -1 2 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY occur at low elevations (e.g. below 200 ft above ground level) • Uses that transmit electromagnetic energy should be located at sufficient distance from any receivers on the installation to avoid interference with the operation of the receivers. Such uses may include: • Telecommunications signal facilities • Television and radio transmitting towers • High-voltage electric transmission lines • Uses that are sensitive to electromagnetic interference should not be located within areas subject to interference generated by transmitters on an installation. These uses include: • Residential uses • Educational facilities • Public safety facilities • Data processing facilities • Uses involving explosives or storage of flammable gases • All sources of light around the installation should be shielded to avoid adverse effects of light pollution (such as light trespass, glare or sky-glow) on installation operations. • Uses that emit particulate matter should be located at sufficient distance downwind from any activities on the installation that are sensitive to particulate matter to avoid interference with installation operations of the receivers. Such uses may include: • Resource extraction (e.g. surface or open-pit mining or quarrying) • Construction activities • Uses that are sensitive to particulate matter should be located at sufficient distance downwind from any activities on the installation that generate particulate matter. Such uses may include: • Residential Uses • Schools and Recreation Facilities • Public Facilities JULY 2006 3 -13 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY • Offices • Manufacture of electronic components or precision instruments JULY 2006 3 -14 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4. REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE State, county and municipal laws may regulate land use compatibility around a military installation. In addition, Department of Defense (DoD) guidance under the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) program, Installation Compatible Use Zone (ICUZ) program or Range Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (RAICUZ) program may apply, and the DoD Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) Program provides a framework for installations and local communities to deal with urban encroachment. The nature and status of the existing land use compatibility guidance (including federal, State and local guidelines and regulations) are addressed in Sections 4.1 through 4.3. 4.1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE The Department of Defense (DoD) recognized the problem of urban encroachment around installations, and in 1973 initiated the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ). The Navy and Air Force use the AICUZ program. The ICUZ program, initiated post-1980 and used by the Army, is now an integral part of a more comprehensive Operational Noise Management Program (ONMP). In addition, the Navy has added a Range Air Installation Compatible Use Zone study (RAICUZ) to delineate noise impacts from aerial firing ranges at Navy and Marine Corps installations. The RAICUZ is intended to address encroachment around ranges used for air-to-ground combat training and is similar to the AICUZ program 4.1.1 Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Program The Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Program4 was implemented in 1973 by the U.S. Department of Defense to promote compatible land use development around military airfields. The AICUZ Program creates standard land-use 4Guidance for the United States Air Force AICUZ program is contained in Air Force Instruction 32-7063, Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Program; guidance for the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps AICUZ program is contained in OPNAV Instruction 11010.36B, Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Programs. This guidance implements Department of Defense Instruction 4165.57, Air Installations Compatible Use Zones. JULY 2006 4-1 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE guidelines for areas affected by possible noise exposure and accident potential combinations and provides local government jurisdictions with information that can be used to regulate land use and development. Included in the AICUZ program is a table of accident potential zones, noise zones, and guidance concerning the compatibility of various uses. The Department of Defense adopted the NOISEMAP computer model to describe noise impacts created by aircraft operations. NOISEMAP is one of two Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved models. The other is the Integrated Noise Model (INM), which is used by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for civilian airports. In 1974, EPA designated the noise descriptor “Ldn,” or Day- Night Average Sound Level as the standard measurement for noise impacts. Ldn refers to the average sound level exposure, measured in decibels, over a 24-hour period, with a 10-decibel penalty added to sound levels for operations occurring during the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. This penalty is applied due to the increased annoyance created by noise events that occur during this time. Accident Potential Zones (APZs) are one aspect of the AICUZ program where military application differs from civilian airfields. An analysis of aircraft accidents worldwide within 10 nautical miles of a military airfield for the period of 1968–1972 led to defining areas of high accident potential known as the Clear Zone (CZ), Accident Potential Zone I (APZ-I), and Accident Potential Zone II (APZ-II). The majority of these accidents (about 52 percent) occurred within the Clear Zones or APZs, while about 23 percent were associated with the runway and 25 percent occurred in other areas within 10 nautical miles. It was concluded from the Department of Defense accident study that the Clear Zone warranted special attention due to the high potential for accidents that severely limited acceptable land uses. (Note that the Navy/Marine Corps Clear Zones have different dimensions than the Air Force Clear Zones.) The percentages of accidents within the two APZs are such that some land use control is essential. The Department of Defense recommendation for the APZs is to limit the number of people exposed to noise and safety hazards through appropriate land use planning. Structures, whether permanent or temporary, that intrude into airspace are also a form of encroachment that the AICUZ program also addresses. An AICUZ report will include a JULY 2006 4-2 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE depiction of “airspace control surfaces” and height obstructions around military airfields, based upon DoD criteria. (See Section 3.3 of this Guidebook for a discussion of airspace control surfaces and criteria for airspace obstructions.) 4.1.2 Installation Compatible Use Zone Program and Operational Noise Management Program Under the Army’s Operational Noise Management Program, as defined by Army Regulation AR 200-1, the Installation Operational Noise Management Plan (IONMP) is a primary tool for achieving compatible land use around Army installations. Elements of an IONMP include education, complaint management, noise and vibration mitigation, noise abatement procedures, and noise assessment. The Installation Compatible Use Zone (ICUZ) Program provides a methodology for assessing the effects of noise generated by installation operations. AR 200-1 is being revised to improve methods to evaluate and document the impact of noise produced by ongoing and proposed Army actions and activities and to minimize annoyance to humans to the extent practicable. Noise descriptors (metrics) appropriate for determination of compatible land use and assessment procedures are based on the best available scientific information. The Army uses day-night level (DNL) as the primary descriptor for military impulsive noise, except for small arms noise. DNL is the time weighted energy average sound level with a 10- decibel (dB) penalty added to the nighttime levels (2200 to 0700 hours). The DNL noise metric may be further defined, as appropriate, by an Army installation with a specific, designated time period (for example, annual average DNL or average busy month DNL). The typical assessment period over which the noise energy is averaged is 240 days for Active Army installations and 104 days for Army Reserve and National Guard installations. The use of average busy month DNL is appropriate when the tempo of operations is significantly different during certain peak periods of the year. For future land use planning and encroachment assessment purposes, a reasonable annual growth factor in activity (e.g. 10 or 15 %) may be assumed. Supplemental metrics, such as single event noise data (for example, Peak, Pk15(met) or CSEL) discussed below, may be employed where appropriate. A-weighted maximum noise levels are used to assess aviation low-level military training routes (MTRs) and/or flight tracks. JULY 2006 4-3 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE Experience has demonstrated that the use of average noise levels over a protracted time period generally does not adequately assess the probability of community noise complaints at Army installations. Therefore Army guidance recommends that the risk of noise complaints from large caliber impulsive noise resulting from testing and training activities, ex. armor, artillery, mortars and demolition activities, be assessed in terms of a single event metric, either peak sound pressure level expressed as Pk15(met) or C-weighted sound exposure level (CSEL). The metric Pk15(met) accounts for statistical variation in received single event peak noise level that is due to weather. It is the calculated peak noise level, without frequency weighting, expected to be exceeded by 15 percent of all events that might occur. If there are multiple weapon types fired from one location, or multiple firing locations, the single event level used should be the loudest level that occurs at each receiver location. Noise from small arms ranges would be assessed using a single event metric, either Pk15(met) or A-weighted sound exposure level (ASEL). For additional discussion of A-weighted and C-weighted noise levels, see Section 3.1 of this Policy Guidebook. Army guidance also recommends the use of available noise assessment software as the primary means of noise impact assessment rather than field measurements because spot measurements do not adequately capture variation in received noise level over time due to weather. Impacts due to blast noise emitted by large guns and explosions are assessed by means of the BNOISE2™ software, while impacts due to small arms noise are assessed by means of the SARNAM™ software. Four noise zones are defined in terms of noise metric levels under Army guidance, (see Table 4.1.) The day-night sound levels used by the Army to define the noise zones represent an annual average based upon the total number of operations divided by the number of days in a year that the noise-generating events occur. However, operations at an installation are typically subject to daily and seasonal variations, and therefore, in order to provide a planning tool that could be used to account for days of higher than average operations, the Land Use Planning Zone (LUPZ) is included as part of the ICUZ methodology. It encompasses areas where, during periods of increased operations, community annoyance levels can reach those levels associated with Zone II. The contours for the LUPZ are established by considering the increased noise exposure that higher levels of operations would generate in relation to the noise exposure for Zone II. For JULY 2006 4-4 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE example, if operations are 3 times more numerous than the normal daily firing, and average noise levels increase by 5 dB, the LUPZ would be defined as the area between 70 and 65 dBA and 62 and 57 dBC. The Land Use Planning Zone (LUPZ) contour is also used to better predict noise impacts when levels of operations at airfields or large caliber weapons ranges are above average. Single event noise limits in Table 4-2 correspond to areas of low to high risk of noise complaints from large caliber weapons and weapons systems. These should be used to supplement the noise zones defined in Table 4-1 for land use compatibility decisions. Noise sensitive land uses are strongly discouraged in areas equal to or greater than Pk15(met) = 130 dB. For infrequent noise events, installations should determine if land use compatibility within these areas is necessary for mission protection. In the case of infrequent noise events, such as the detonation of explosives, the installation should communicate with the public. Under Army guidance, noise-sensitive land uses, such as housing, schools, and medical facilities, are considered acceptable within the LUPZ and noise zone I, normally not recommended in noise zone II, and not recommended in noise zone III. While recognizing that local conditions regarding the need for housing may require noise-sensitive land uses in Noise Zone II, on or off post, this type of land use is strongly discouraged under Army guidance. It is recommended that the absence of viable alternative development options should be determined and an evaluation should be conducted locally prior to local approvals indicating that a demonstrated community need for the noise-sensitive land use would not be met if development were prohibited in Noise Zone II. Where the community determines that these uses must be allowed, Army guidance recommends that measures to achieve an outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB to 30 dB in Noise Zone II, from small arms and aviation noise, be incorporated into building codes and be in individual approvals. Because scientific studies to accomplish this NLR in communities subject to large caliber weapons and weapons system noise, noise-sensitive land uses are strongly discouraged in Noise Zone II where the noise source is large caliber weapons. Normal permanent construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB for small arms and aircraft; thus the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10 or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation, JULY 2006 4-5 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE upgraded Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings in windows and doors and closed windows year round. Additional Army guidance with respect to noise reduction includes the following: • Additional consideration should be given to modifying NLR levels based on peak noise levels or vibrations. • Although NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems, building location and site planning, and design and use of berms and barriers, can help mitigate outdoor noise exposure, particularly from ground level aircraft sources. However, barriers are generally not effective in noise reduction for large arms such as artillery and armor or large explosions. It should be noted that Arizona Statutes (ARS §28-8481 and §28-8482) regulate land uses in the high noise zones defined for Military Airports and Ancillary Military Facilities under those Statutes and the regulations for these zones in some cases are more restrictive than the Army guidance. In addition, the Arizona Statues (ARS §28-8481 and §28-8482) also contain requirements for noise attenuation that may be more stringent than the Army guidance. (See Section 4.2 of this Policy Guidebook for a discussion of the Arizona regulations.) Army guidance defines single event noise limits corresponding to areas of low to high risk of noise complaints from large caliber weapons and weapons systems, and recommends that these be used to supplement the noise zones for land use compatibility decisions. For infrequent noise events, such as the detonation of explosives, it is recommended that installations determine if land use compatibility within these areas is necessary for mission protection and communicate with the public. The ICUZ program also incorporates the definition of Accident Potential Zones (APZs) for Army airfields and also addresses airspace obstructions as well as other safety hazards that can affect aircraft operation, such as activities that produce air, light or electromagnetic emissions. The criteria used for the APZs, obstructions and safety hazards under the ICUZ program are essentially similar to those for the AICUZ program. 4.1.3 Range Installation Compatible Use Zone Program The Navy and Marine Corps instituted the Range Installation Compatible Use Zone (RAICUZ) program in 1998 to address JULY 2006 4-6 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE encroachment issues around ranges used for air-to-ground combat training and is similar to the AICUZ program. The RAICUZ program includes range safety and noise analyses, and identifies land use recommendations that will be compatible with range safety zones and noise levels associated with the military operations. The RAICUZ program also considers the special use airspace that is associated with air-to-ground ranges, including restricted areas, military operating areas (MOAs), and military training routes (MTRs). The Department of the Navy’s Naval Aviation Simulation Model (NASMOD) is used to enable planners to evaluate complex airfield, range, and airspace scenarios to ensure that sufficient range and airspace capacity will be available to support existing and future mission requirements. The Marine Corps utilizes the Training Range Encroachment Information System (TREIS) and Range Environmental Vulnerability Assessment (REVA) programs to track and report range encroachment and its impacts on an installation's abilities to fulfill existing and future mission requirements. Under the RAICUZ program three Range Safety Zones (RSZ) are defined for varying levels of safety hazard concerns due to potential weapons impact. RSZ A defines the maximum safety hazard. It is the area described by the weapons safety footprints and represents the weapons impact area (including potential ricochet.) RSZ B is the area of armed overflight. RSZ C is the minimum restricted airspace for aircraft to maneuver on the range. These RSZs, in combination with noise zones define the RAICUZ footprint, for which compatible land use guidance is provided. Aircraft noise zones for the RAICUZ are defined similarly to those for an AICUZ, except that for ranges with run-ins (approaches) that are not on a fixed heading, as well as for restricted airspace, MOAs and MTRs, the MOA and Range Noise Map program (MRNMAP) is used to define noise contours instead of the NOISEMAP program. In addition, where noise-sensitive uses are present, a RAICUZ study considers noise impacts from ordnance delivery (blast noise), based on data developed using the Department of Defense Noise-B Program, which is designed for noise that is impulsive and of short duration. JULY 2006 4-7 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE 4.1.4 Encroachment Control Program The Marine Corps uses an Encroachment Control Program (ECP) where installation-specific ECPs are prepared that include an analysis of a Marine Corps installation’s current and future encroachment situation, and an action plan presenting control strategies and actions for reducing the encroachment threat to installations. The Range Complex Management Plans (RCMPs), TREIS, and REVA programs are tools in the ECP program used to identify, analyze, and report on encroachment and its impacts on an installation’s abilities to support mission essential tasks. Moreover, they assist in the development of strategies to engage federal, state, and local agencies in finding encroachment solutions. Encroachment partnering is an important tool in implementation of the ECP program, whereby the Marine Corps partner with public and private conservators to acquire undeveloped land adjacent/proximate to Marine Corps installations to prevent incompatible development. 4.1.5 Joint Land Use Study Program The Department initiated the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) program in 1985 in an effort to achieve greater application of the AICUZ / ONMP / RAICUZ program recommendations. The JLUS program utilizes the AICUZ /ONMP / RAICUZ data in a participatory planning context. Program objectives are twofold: • To encourage cooperative land use planning between military installations and the surrounding communities so that future community growth and development are compatible with the training or operational missions of the installation; and • To seek ways to reduce the operational impacts on adjacent land. The JLUS program encourages communities and the military installation to study the issues in an open forum, taking into consideration both community and military viewpoints. As an incentive for communities to participate in a joint planning process, the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) offers matching grants for a Joint Land Use Study. Recommendations in a study are used to guide local jurisdictions in the development and implementation of land development controls and other measures to ensure that future public and private development around the military JULY 2006 4-8 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE installation will be compatible with both the military mission and the development needs of the community.5 4.2 STATE OF ARIZONA From the 1990s through 2005, the State of Arizona passed legislation to address the issue of residential development and other compatibility issues around Arizona’s military facilities. The major statutes, including ARS §28-8481 and ARS §28- 8461, were most recently amended in 2004 through the enactment of House Bill 2140 and House Bill 2141. With the passage of these bills, the State requires political subdivisions in the vicinity of a military airport, and in the vicinity of “ancillary military facilities” to adopt land use plans and enforce zoning regulations that assure development compatible with the high-noise and accident potential generated by military airport operations. (ARS §28-8461 defines military airports as Luke AFB, Davis-Monthan AFB, MCAS Yuma, Libby AAF at Ft. Huachuca, and Laguna AAF at Yuma Proving Ground; ancillary military facilities are defined as Luke Air Force Base Auxiliary Field #1, Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field and Marine Corps Air Station Yuma Auxiliary Field #2). Compatibility with high-noise and accident potential is defined through a land use compatibility table included in ARS §28-8481. Under the ARS §28-8481 definitions, residential uses are generally considered incompatible in the high-noise and accident zones, while many non-residential uses are considered compatible in high-noise zones, and certain non-residential uses may be considered compatible in accident zones. State legislation, specifically ARS §28-8481, also regulates land uses in hazard zones and high-noise areas, but allows a landowner to undertake development of property for which a development plan was approved before December 31, 2000, (or for lands subsequently added to “territory within the vicinity of a military airport or ancillary military facility”, December 31 of the year the land was added) even though the uses may not be compatible with the regulations under ARS §28-8481. It is the responsibility of the local jurisdiction and landowner to work cooperatively on these “grandfathered” plans to mitigate potential future development conflicts where possible. 5 The Joint Land Use Study Program Guidance Manual, issued by the Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment in August 2002, provides guidance in the preparation of Joint Land Use Studies. This discussion was adapted from the Manual. JULY 2006 4-9 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE Arizona Statutes (ARS §28-8481 and §28-8482) require that any city, town or county that has territory with the vicinity of a military airport or ancillary military facility as defined under ARS §28-8461 incorporate sound attenuation standards in their building codes for residential and other noise-sensitive uses in high-noise zones, in order to achieve an indoor noise level of 45 dB. For residential buildings within the defined territory in the vicinity of a military airport or ancillary military facility but outside the high-noise zones, ARS §28- 8482 requires construction with a minimum of R18 exterior wall assembly, a minimum of R30 roof and ceiling assembly, dual-glazed windows and solid wood, foam-filled fiberglass or metal doors to the exterior (or alternative means to achieve a 45 dB interior noise level). In December 2003, the Governor’s Military Facilities Task Force put forth twenty-seven recommendations to ensure long-term retention of the State’s military facilities so that they may continue to perform their vital national defense functions and maintain their critical role in the State economy. Included in these recommendations were establishment of a permanent Military Affairs Commission, and establishment of a Military Installation Fund with a dedicated stream of funding. On May 17, 2004, the Governor signed House Bill (HB) 2140, a comprehensive military bill that included a number of the Task Force’s recommendations, including the establishment of the Military Affairs Commission as a permanent body and the establishment of the Military Installation Fund (MIF). Under ARS §28-8482 the Military Affairs Commission is comprised of fifteen voting members, three appointed by the President of the Senate, three appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and nine appointed by the Governor: The Commission’s duties are to: • Regularly meet with the Governor, President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives to provide recommendations on military issues and report on the progress of the Commission. • Develop criteria, including accountability, for awarding monies from the Military Installation Fund. • Annually recommend a priority listing of monies with available resources. • Recommend how the monies in the Military Installation Fund should be awarded. JULY 2006 4-10 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE Beginning in fiscal year 2004-2005 and continuing in each successive fiscal year, $4.825 million dollars will be appropriated from the state general fund for the MIF. ARS §41- 1512.01 identifies specific disbursement components that must be adhered to including: • Eighty percent of the monies in the fund shall be used for private property acquisition for the purpose of preserving a military installation; acquisition of real estate and rights to real estate and otherwise preserving real estate from development or mitigating impacts on development in high noise or accident potential zones and in areas as required to support a military installation; and, acquisition of real estate, property rights and related infrastructure that is vital to the preservation or enhancement of a military installation. Twenty percent of this amount may be awarded to cities, towns and counties for land acquisition purposes. • Twenty percent of the monies in the fund shall go to cities, towns and counties for military installation preservation and enhancement projects. • Monies in the MIF may be awarded for debt service on bonds issued by a political subdivision for the purpose of acquisition of private property for preserving a military airport or ancillary military facility. In 2004, legislation was also enacted that required that the public report issued by the State Commissioner of Real Estate prior to sale of land include disclosure of location of the property under a Military Training Route, and directed the State Real Estate Department and State Land Department maintain maps of the Military Training Routes. The legislation also provided that in each county that includes land under a Military Training Route, the Real Estate Commissioner record a document disclosing the that the land is under a Military Training Route. Enactment of House Bill (HB) 2308 in 2005 amended ARS §33- 422 to amend the disclosure requirements for sellers of five lots or fewer (other than subdivided land) in unincorporated areas to include location of such property in clear zones, high noise zones or APZs as defined in ARS §28-8461or under restricted airspace. HB 2308 also directs the State Land Department to prepare a map of restricted airspace and transmit a copy to all counties. JULY 2006 4-1 1 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE Appendix A summarizes the provisions of the various statutes related to the operation of military installations. A comparison of the land use compatibility guidance contained in ARS §28- 8481 with that of the Air Installation Compatible Land Use (AICUZ) Program is contained in Appendix B. 4.3 LOCAL JURISDICTIONS Regulations that typically are implemented by local political jurisdictions include zoning (including military airport zoning, airport impact and noise overlay districts), notification and disclosure requirements, and building code requirements for noise attenuation). In addition, local political jurisdictions adopt General Plans (for cities and towns) and Comprehensive Plans (for counties) that are required to address land use compatibility around military installations. Local jurisdictions may also adopt Area Plans or Specific Plans; these also may address issues of encroachment and land use compatibility. The following discussion presents examples of the types of regulations and land use compatibility guidance adopted by Arizona’s local jurisdictions. 4.3.1 Zoning The City of Tucson and Pima County addressed their similar issues of land use compatibility by passing zoning regulations that focused on regulating development around commercial and military airports. The City of Tucson adopted the Airport Environs Zone (AEZ) in 1990 and amended it in 2005 to conform to the recommendations of the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base / Pima County / City of Tucson Joint Land Use Study (JLUS), which was completed in 2004. The AEZ is part of the City’s Land Use Code and defines allowed and prohibited uses in the various zones and districts defined within the ordinance, which correspond to the noise and safety zones defined in the JLUS. In addition to regulating types of land use, the AEZ also regulates the intensity of development (lot coverage and floor area ratio) and density of population in the various zones. Similarly, Pima County specifically addresses permitted and prohibited land uses within the environs of civilian and military airports through overlay zones in its Zoning Code. Originally adopted in 1985, these regulations were amended in 2005 to conform to the recommendations of the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base / Pima County / City of Tucson JLUS. Thus, JULY 2006 4-1 2 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE there is a consistency between the City of Tucson and Pima County regulations for development around the Base The City of Tucson Airport Environs Zone regulations may be found at: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/planning/codes/luc/art2div8.pdf The Pima County zoning regulations for Airport Environs and Facilities may be found at: http://www.co.pima.az.us/cob/code/c18a34.html#3941 4.3.2 Notification and Disclosure Several jurisdictions have adopted notification and disclosure requirements for real estate transactions around military installations. • The City of Surprise has adopted a requirement that a copy of the City’s “Surprise / Luke Notification Map” be posted in all real estate and model home sales offices in the City. The Map contains a notice that all homes within the City of Surprise are subject to aircraft overflights from Luke Air Force Base and shows the noise contours for Luke Air Force Base. • Both the City of Yuma and Yuma County require disclosure statements for property located within restricted airspace. This disclosure is recorded to acknowledge on behalf of the grantor and its successors that a property is within the restricted airspace. • Maricopa County also has requirements for notification to future homeowners regarding military aircraft operations, including posting various forms of notification in model home sales offices, notification on plats and public reports, and disclosure in Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) for new housing developments. 4.3.3 Noise Attenuation The Uniform Building Code (UBC) adopted by most local jurisdictions in Arizona addresses interior noise level reductions related to noise generated by the operation of military aircraft. Typical methods to achieve interior noise reduction include use of noise-insulating windows; placement of noise-absorbing material in exterior walls; and baffling or JULY 2006 4-13 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE other measures to prevent the entry of noise through exterior vents. As an example, the City of Goodyear noise attenuation standards require that: • Exterior walls shall be at least four inches in nominal depth and shall be finished on the outside with block, siding, sheathing or stucco on one-inch Styrofoam. Fiberglass or cellulose insulation at least three and one-half inches thick shall be installed continuously throughout the cavity space behind the wall. Exterior wall penetrations by pipe ducts or conduits shall be caulked. • Mailboxes shall not be placed through the door or wall. • Windows shall have two panes of glass and minimum sound transmission rating of STC-22. All operable windows shall be weather stripped and airtight in accordance with ASRM R-283-84-T Standard. Perimeter window frames shall be sealed to air tight specifications. • Perimeter doorframes shall be sealed to airtight specifications. • Fireplaces shall be provided with well fitting dampers, unless otherwise prohibited elsewhere in the Code. • All non-glazed portions of exterior side-hinged doors shall be solid core wood or insulated hollow metal or at least one and three-quarter inch thick and fully weather-stripped. • Roof rafter space of at least eight inches in depth shall be fiberglass or cellulose insulated at least eight inches in depth in the cavity space between the rafters. Goodyear has gone beyond the State's standards to require these increased noise attenuation standards for homes outside of the high noise contours as well. The added benefit of energy efficiency makes the requirements attractive to prospective homebuyers, as well. (See the City of Goodyear’s Website at http://www.ci.goodyear.az.us/index.asp?NID=359.) 4.3.4 General and Comprehensive Plans Local jurisdictions have adopted General and Comprehensive Plans that address compatibility with the high-noise and accident potential generated by military airport operations, as required under State Statutes. As an example, the City of Goodyear’s General Plan Land Use Element includes policies to JULY 2006 4-14 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE continue to partner with Luke AFB and the City of Phoenix to protect Luke’s Accident Potential Zones and critical noise contours (including denial of new residential development within the 65 dB noise contour). The plan also includes a policy to require notification and disclosure statements for residential development within the defined “territory within the vicinity” of Luke AFB. The Goodyear Land Use Plan includes a Luke Compatible Use Area (LUCA) land use designation, which denotes areas within the 65 dB and higher Luke AFB noise contours, and allows for Community Commercial, Light Industrial, (excluding commercial office developments and / or complexes), Prisons, and Open Space uses that comply with adopted State legislation. Local jurisdictions may also choose to address land use compatibility with military operations outside the areas of high-noise and accident potential defined under State Statutes. By amending its General Plan in 2004, provided for compatible use in expanded noise and accident potential zones (beyond those defined in ARS §28-8461). The 2004 General Plan Amendment provides for predominantly non-residential uses in these zones, and in addition, provides for an Airport Preservation land use designation, which extends beyond the expanded noise and accident potential zones, and provides for low-density residential development (up to 2 dwelling units per acre). 4.3.5 Area and Specific Plans Cities, towns and counties also may adopt area and specific plans that include policies and land use designations that address land use compatibility with military installations. As an example, the Babocomari Area Plan adopted by Cochise County in 2005 included specific policies for compatibility of development with operations on Fort Huachuca’s East Range, particularly at the Hubbard Assault Airstrip which lies just south of the Babocomari area. In the Plan, land adjacent to Fort Huachuca was designated for Rural Residential use and policies included for additional controls on residential density; notification to potential buyers of impacts from the airstrip operations; and limitations on special uses that could have an effect on the military missions of the Fort’s East Range. (See the Cochise County website at: http://www.cochisecounty.com/P&Z/Comprehensive.htm.) JULY 2006 4-1 5 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE 4.4 REVIEW OF LEGISLATION / REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF MILITARY FACILITIES IN OTHER STATES6 4.4.1 Overview Military installations in the United States provide significant contributions to political jurisdictions at all levels, from federal to municipal. These installations create thousands of jobs and generate billions of dollars in direct and indirect economic activities as well as tax revenues. Because of the widening awareness of the importance of military installations to state and local economies and to our national defense, many states and local political jurisdictions are taking steps to deal with encroachment and land use compatibility issues that frequently arise in the vicinity of these facilities. In recent years, a number of steps have been taken to ensure the missions of these military installations are protected from encroachment. These steps include the following: • Several states, including California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois and Oklahoma, in addition to Arizona, have passed legislation or issued Executive Orders that require local communities to address land use compatibility around military installations. • Local political jurisdictions in Arizona, California, Colorado, and Florida, as well as other states, have established zoning, planning, density of use, and interior noise reduction requirements in territories adjacent to military bases. • Several states are considering use of existing statutory language to designate military installations as protected “Areas of Critical State Concern.” The advantages of this approach are an existing legal framework that many states have previously adopted and that it formally recognizes land surrounding military installations as requiring regulation owing to special circumstances of national security, public health (noise impacts) and public safety (in terms of hazards generated by normal military operations). Among the 6 Sources for this section include the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, State Strategies to Address Encroachment at Military Installations; March 2003; and numerous State Government web sites.(see the list of references at the end of this Guidebook for addresses of specific sites) JULY 2006 4-16 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE disadvantages are that not all states have appropriate statutory language in place and amending an existing statute requires legislative action and executive approval. Among the states considering use of the “Areas of Critical State Concern” legislation are California, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming. • Political jurisdictions at various levels and in many states have initiated programs to acquire property surrounding a military installation through fee-simple purchase, transfer of development rights, purchase of development rights, and density transfers. Political jurisdictions that have initiated these programs include Arizona, Florida, Oklahoma, Nevada, and North Carolina. As an example, Florida has instituted a grant program to support military installations. The Defense Infrastructure Grant Program was established in 1999 to improve military base infrastructure and to provide dual-use benefits to local communities throughout the State. In recognition of the importance of military facilities to Florida’s economy, the program has received steady support from the Legislature, which has joined with the Governor to address the needs of the State's military facilities. • California, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, in addition to Arizona, have created state military advisory commissions or have added offices of military affairs to the duties of existing agencies. 4.4.2 Review of Specific Legislation and Executive Orders Specific legislation created by the States of California, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Florida and Colorado with respect to planning / real estate and the impacts generated by military facilities, as well as the Executive Order issued by the Governor of Illinois are briefly reviewed below. California In California, Aviation Noise Disclosure legislation (AB 2776) which passed in the 2002–2003 regular legislative session and was signed by the Governor, amends the real estate transfer disclosure statute (California Civil Code, Division 2 – Property, Part 4 – Acquisition of Property, Title 4, Chapter 2 – Transfer JULY 2006 4-17 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE of Real Property) to require sellers / lessors to disclose the fact that a house for sale or lease is “near” an airport if the house falls within an airport influence area (that could be several miles from an existing or proposed airport). An airport influence area is defined as the area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The intent of the legislation is to notify buyers that they could experience airport noise, vibration, odor, annoyances, or other inconveniences at some time in the future as a result of the normal operation of an existing or proposed airport. This legislation is similar in intent to Arizona’s requirements under ARS §28-8484 and ARS §28-8485 for notification of owners or potential buyers of property that the area is currently subject to aircraft noise and overflights. California passed legislation in 2002 (amending Section 1; Section 65302 of the Government Code) that required the land use element of General Plans prepared by cities and counties to consider the importance of military facilities to national defense when proposing zoning ordinances or designating land uses covered by the General Plan for land or other territory near or around military facilities. In addition, the legislation required the land use element to contain a noise element that appraises noise problems in the community from a variety of sources, including military airport operations. The noise is required to be measured and contours prepared and used as a guide for establishing land use patterns that minimize the exposure of community residents to excessive noise. Oklahoma Oklahoma has passed legislation (Title 11: Cities and Towns; Section 43-101.1 – Municipalities with Active Duty United States Air Force Military Installation) in 2002 based in large part on the compatible land use guidelines contained in the U.S. Air Force Air Installation Compatible Zone Program. The act restricts use of property within five miles from the corporate boundary of a military installation that may constitute hazards in terms of aircraft operations. Under provisions of the statute, prohibited or restricted land uses include airborne releases of substances that impair visibility, light emissions that interfere with pilot vision, activities that attract birds or waterfowl, and structures located within 10 feet of aircraft approach or departure surfaces. Minimal residential development is allowed and is limited to single- JULY 2006 4-18 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE family use on lots of one acre or more. The statute does not require that local political jurisdictions enact an ordinance enforcing these provisions. Florida Florida has several statutes related to land use compatibility around military installations. • Under §163.3175, local governments in which a military installation is located must transmit to the installation commander for review and comment, information related to any change in comprehensive plans, plan amendments and proposed changes to land development regulations that would affect the intensity, density or use of land adjacent to or in close proximity to the installation. • All city or county future land use plan elements must consider compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or in close proximity to military installations and must include criteria to be used to achieve the compatibility of these lands. The state land planning agency also must consider land use compatibility issues adjacent or in close proximity to military installations in coordination with the Department of Defense. • The state has created a Defense Infrastructure Grant Program to be implemented by the Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic Development. The program is intended to provide grants that support local infrastructure projects deemed to have a positive impact on the military value of installations within the state. Projects that can be funded include those related to encroachment as well as transportation and access, utilities, communications, housing, environment and security. There is no limit on the amount of a grant, although local matching funds may be required. • The State of Florida currently operates the largest and most aggressive land acquisition program in the nation, with $300 million allocated annually to purchase environmentally sensitive lands through the Florida Forever program. The Florida Forever program, enacted by the Florida Forever Act, provides for land acquisition to protect environmentally significant lands, protect ground and surface water, provide high quality recreational opportunities in urban areas, and help local governments implement their comprehensive plans. As JULY 2006 4-19 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE part of the Florida Forever program, the Florida Department of Community Affairs assists in identifying and coordinating land acquisition opportunities that meet the goals of the Florida Forever Act and work to protect existing military bases. Colorado The Colorado Land Use Act (Colorado Revised Statutes Title 24, Article 65) encourages local governments to designate “areas and activities of State interest” which include “areas around key facilities in which development may have a material effect upon the key facility or the surrounding community.” The act defines the term “key facility” to include airports or major public utility facilities, such as central office buildings of telephone facilities, power plants, natural gas storage areas, etc. The following provisions of the Act [Part 2; §65-202, (4)] apply to areas around key facilities: • If the operation of a key facility may cause a danger to public health and safety or to property, as determined by local government, the area around the key facility shall be designated and administered so as to minimize such danger; and • Areas around key facilities shall be developed in a manner that will discourage traffic congestion, incompatible uses, and expansion of the demand for government services beyond the reasonable capacity of the community or region to provide such services as determined by local government. Compatibility with non-motorized traffic shall be encouraged. A development that imposes burdens or deprivation on the communities of a region cannot be justified on the basis of local benefit alone. In addition, the following provisions are applicable to areas around particular airports: • Areas around airports shall be administered so as to: • Encourage land use patterns for housing and other local government needs that will separate uncontrollable noise sources from residential and other noise-sensitive areas; and • Avoid danger to public safety and health or to property due to aircraft crashes. JULY 2006 4-20 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE North Carolina Under §153A-323 and §160A-364 of the General Statues, counties and cities in North Carolina must notify a military base commander of any adoption or modification of an ordinance that would result in changes to the zoning map or would change or affect the permitted uses of land within five miles or less from the perimeter boundary of the base. If the military provides comments or analysis concerning the compatibility of the proposed ordinance or amendment with military operations at the base, the respective county board of commissioners or city council must take the comments or analysis into consideration before making a final determination on the ordinance. In its 2004 session, the North Carolina General Assembly authorized the issuance of bonds to acquire up to 17,000 acres (conservation easement or fee simple) near the state’s military bases to prevent encroachment by incompatible development. In the same session, the General Assembly created a Study Commission on Residential and Urban Development Encroachment on Military Bases and Training Areas. This commission was charged with submitting a report to the General Assembly in 2005, after studying the restriction of zoning in areas around installations; the effect of encroachment on deed registration; purchase of development rights and buffers around military installations; and other issues the Commission would deem relevant. Illinois In April 2005, Governor Rod Blagojevich issued an Executive Order on Land-Use Planning and Military Installation Compatibility (Executive Order 2005-4). This requires that all state agencies involved with land use planning to ensure that development is compatible with or enhances the military value of the state’s installations, and in addition encourages local governments to consider the impact of new growth on installations when preparing zoning ordinances or designating land uses. Texas In 2003, the Texas Military Preparedness Commission (TMPC) was created to take the place of the Office of Defense Affairs and the Texas Strategic Military Planning Commission both of which were created in 1997. The new Commission, under the Governor's Office, contains nine members appointed by the JULY 2006 4-2 1 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE Governor, with appropriate staff, and its mission is to develop a pro-active statewide strategy to assist defense dependent communities. The Office of the TMPC develops and publishes an Annual Master Plan Report, which identifies objective and recommendations for maintaining and enhancing the military preparedness of the state and its military installations, and in addition sets strategies for attracting and retaining military missions in the state. The Office of the TMPC also administers the Texas Military Value Revolving Loan Fund. Established in 2003, funding for the Fund is provided through issuance by the state of up to $250 million in general obligation bonds. Loans may be made available to local governments for economic development projects that enhance the military value of their installations. The application process includes preparation by the local government of a Military Value Enhancement Statement (MVES) that identifies how the proposed project will enhance the military value of the installation. Loans may also be provided to local governments to develop a Comprehensive Defense Installation and Community Strategic Impact Plan that states the community’s long-range goals and development proposals related to controlling negative effects of future growth and minimizing encroachment; enhancing military value while reducing operating costs, and; identifying property and services that can be shared by the installation and the community.7 State statutes (§397.005 of the Local Government Code) also require that if a county, municipality or special district that is adjacent to, is near, or encompasses any part of a military installation, determines that an ordinance, rule or plan proposed by the jurisdiction may impact the installation or its operations, the jurisdiction is required to seek comments from installation authorities before making a final determination on the proposal. 7 Additional information about the content of the Comprehensive Defense Installation and Community Strategic Impact Plan may be found in §397.003 of the State of Texas Local Government Code (see http://www.state.tx.us/) JULY 2006 4-22 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 5. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AND ISSUES Growth trends and increased tempo of development around military installations can generate demand for new housing and related facilities, thereby creating issues of compatibility that
Object Description
TITLE | Arizona Military Regional Compatibility Project |
CREATOR | Parsons |
SUBJECT | Military bases--Arizona; Land use--Government policy--Arizona; Regional planning--Arizona; |
Browse Topic |
Military and war |
DESCRIPTION | This title contains one or more publications. |
Publisher | Arizona Department of Commerce. |
Material Collection |
State Documents |
Source Identifier | COM 1.2:M 45 |
Location | ocn654927506 |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives, and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
Description
TITLE | Policy guidebook |
DESCRIPTION | 152 pages (PDF version). File size: 8884014 Bytes. |
TYPE | Text |
Acquisition Note | Publication or link to publication sent to reports@lib.az.us |
RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
DATE ORIGINAL | 2006-07 |
Time Period |
2000s (2000-2009) |
ORIGINAL FORMAT | Born digital |
Source Identifier | COM 1.2:M 45 G 84 |
DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | Arizona_MRCP_Policy_Guidebook.pdf |
DIGITAL FORMAT |
PDF (Portable Document Format) |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
Full Text | This study was prepared under contract with the Arizona Department of Commerce with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. Policy Guidebook Arizona military regional compatibility project July 2006 Prepared for: Prepared by: This document was prepared under contract with the Arizona Department of Commerce with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................1-1 2. OVERVIEW OF ARIZONA’S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS .....................................................................2-1 3. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY...............................................3-1 4. REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE .................................................................................4-1 5. TRENDS AND ISSUES ...........................................................5-1 6. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR COMPATIBLE LAND USE..................................................................... 6-1 On behalf of the Arizona Department of Commerce, sincere appreciation is extended to the dedicated staff from communities, counties and military installations across the state of Arizona who participated in the development and research of this document. JULY 2006 i ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK LIST OF TABLES Table 5-1: Population Change for Arizona Counties ............................. 5-1 Table 5-2: Projected Population for Arizona Counties 2010 to 2050 ....... 5-3 Table 5-3: Estimated Housing Units for Arizona Counties 2000 to 2004.. 5-4 Table 5-4: Arizona State Trust Land Sales FY 2004 ........................... 5-12 Table 6-1: Recommended Planning Policies and Practices..................... 6-3 Table 6-2: Recommended Coordination / Public Participation Policies and Practices...................................................................... 6-11 Table 6-3: Recommended Notification Policies and Practices............... 6-18 Table 6-4: Recommended Regulation Policies and Practices................ 6-21 Table 6-5: Recommended Acquisition Policies and Practices ............... 6-28 Table 6-6: Recommended Miscellaneous Policies and Practices ........... 6-38 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Military Lands in Arizona................................. 1-2 APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF ARIZONA LAND USE COMPATIBILITY LEGISLATION ............................................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDANCE ...................................................................................... B-1 APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS.......................................................C-1 APPENDIX D: REFERENCES.................................................................................. D-1 APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PRACTICES............................................................................E-1 JULY 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS i i ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION This Policy Guidebook has been prepared under the Arizona Military Regional Compatibility Project, which was conceived as a proactive statewide endeavor to convene the stakeholders around each military installation — the relevant jurisdictions, military personnel, landowners, and other interested parties — to address land use compatibility issues. Arizona is home to a network of United States military airports, installations, and ancillary facilities that include Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Luke Air Force Base, Yuma Proving Ground and Yuma Marine Air Corps Station, Fort Huachuca, and the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) Complex (see Figure 1-1). As issues of growth and development have moved to the forefront in many parts of Arizona, the installations and jurisdictions where the installations are located play key roles in addressing compatibility. Through the statewide Compatibility Project, the State endeavors to provide the tools to address land use conflicts that might impact the ability of each facility to conduct its mission, and to ensure land use compatibility around active military facilities. Development of incompatible land uses in the vicinity of Arizona’s military facilities constrains their ability to perform current and future missions. These incompatible uses expose people to safety and noise effects ranging from nuisance to physical harm. In response to these issues in the vicinity of air bases, State legislation amending Title 28, Article 7, Airport Zoning & Regulation (ARS §28-8480, §28-8481, and §28-8482) mandated that areas within high-noise or accident potential zones be addressed in municipal general plans and county comprehensive plans and required that land development within the high-noise or accident potential zones be compatible with military airport operations. The State of Arizona, through amendments to existing law, including ARS §9-461.05, §9-461.06, §9-462.04, §11-806, §11- 821, §11-824 and §11-826 enacted Growing Smarter and Growing Smarter Plus measures that address growth and land development issues through changes in community planning and rezoning processes. JULY 2006 1 - 1 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Figure 1-1: Military Lands in Arizona JULY 2006 1 -2 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION These measures require political jurisdictions with property within territory in the vicinity of a military airport, as defined in ARS §28-8461, to include consideration of military airport operations in their General Plans and Comprehensive Plans, and to allow an opportunity for official comment by the military airport officials on the General Plans. The Growing Smarter statute requires that plans provide for a rational pattern of land development and an extensive public participation program. Compliance with these Growing Smarter and Growing Smarter Plus objectives serves as a key guiding principle for the overall Arizona Military Regional Compatibility Project. In 1973, the U.S. Department of Defense created the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Program. The Installation Compatible Use Zone (ICUZ) Program was created post-1980. These programs were created to assist communities around military installations in planning for compatible land use. Elements from these national programs were also considered in developing the recommendations in this Guidebook. The Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) program was created by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1985 to further address problems of urban encroachment through a process of joint planning activities involving civilian and military installation representatives. Nationwide, the JLUS program, administered by the DoD’s Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), has involved over 70 bases with their surrounding communities in cooperative land use planning. The Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC) was awarded a grant from OEA in 2002 to prepare Joint Land Use Studies for Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Luke Auxiliary Field #1 and Barry M. Goldwater Range under the Arizona Military Regional Compatibility Project (AMRCP). This partnering between ADOC and OEA built upon the AMRPC’s previous experience in preparing the Western Maricopa County / Luke Air Force Base Regional Compatibility Plan, which was completed in 2003. The adoption of the three Joint Land Use Studies and the Western Maricopa County / Luke Air Force Base Regional Compatibility Plan by the local jurisdictions (municipalities and counties) surrounding each of the installations was an important step in achieving land use compatibility to support and protect the missions of the State’s military installations. JULY 2006 1 -3 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE POLICY GUIDEBOOK The purpose of the Policy Guidebook is to facilitate the implementation of compatible land uses around military installations through a cooperative program that includes the local jurisdictions, who have the authority and responsibility to implement compatible land use planning and regulation, the military installations, and other interested and affected parties, including institutions, corporations, and individuals. The challenge for each community is to protect the installation’s mission and its economic benefits while ensuring the economic diversity and viability of the community through facilitating development in ways that are compatible with the installation’s mission. To accomplish this, the Policy Guidebook provides information related to issues of land use compatibility and recommends policies and practices based upon sound compatibility criteria and experience in achieving compatibility in various contexts. 1.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR COMPATIBILITY PLANNING The Arizona Military Regional Compatibility Project defined the following guiding principles for the compatibility planning process. These principles have become a foundation of the Policy Guidebook and apply to each element and phase of the compatibility process. • Create feasible and sustainable solutions that are consistent with Arizona’s compatibility legislation, including Title 28, Article 7, Airport Zoning and Regulation and the Growing Smarter and Growing Smarter Plus legislation • Address areas within the vicinity of military installations in municipal general plans and county comprehensive plans to ensure development is compatible with areas of high-noise or accident potential or other impacts from installation operations, including those defined under ARS §28-8481 • Ensure openness to varying viewpoints throughout the process • Focus on fair and equitable solutions for all affected parties • Establish, maintain, and enhance consistency and continuity in the decision-making process JULY 2006 1 -4 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION • Achieve consent among the stakeholders on the means to control encroachment • Devise compatible land use solutions that accommodate reasonable development while preserving the installations’ military missions. 1.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Because of the importance of implementation of recommended policies and practices by the communities around military installations, public participation at the local level should provide meaningful opportunities for interested parties to contribute to shaping the policies and practices to meet local needs. The vision for public participation is that no one interest dominates the public process, but that all stakeholders in the affected area and all other interested parties have timely access to information, meaningful and convenient methods of participation, and timely notification in advance of public meetings. Recommended policies and practices related to public participation are contained in Section 6.2 of this Guidebook. 1.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PRACTICES The recommended policies and practices contained in Chapter 6 of this Guidebook are the foundation for future action by a variety of public and private entities as it relates to compatible land use around a military installation. The policies and practices are designed to be implemented at several levels, including the State of Arizona and local political jurisdictions, and by cooperative efforts among local jurisdictions, military installations, and public / private partnerships. JULY 2006 1 - 5 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2. ARIZONA’S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS This chapter of the Policy Guidebook presents information about Arizona’s military installations as a foundation for understanding the need to address encroachment and land use compatibility issues.1 The first section discusses the importance of the installations to the nation’s defense and to the state and local economies. The second section provides a summary overview of the individual installations and their missions. 2.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF ARIZONA’S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS Arizona’s network of military facilities positions the State at the forefront of the current transformation of the U.S. military and represents an essential component of the State economy. The network comprises an integrated array of bases, testing and training facilities, ranges, and airspace that operate within a physical environment that is uniquely suited to their individual and combined mission objectives and to the nation’s defense. The importance of Arizona’s military facilities and operations to the U.S. military cannot be understated: their emphasis on joint and combined operations and cutting-edge intelligence gathering and exploitation lie at the heart of the new role for the nation’s military organizations, and position Arizona to satisfy the needs of the Department of Defense for many years to come. Furthermore, Arizona’s military industry generates thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in economic activity, and hundreds of millions of dollars in State and local tax revenue. According to a study of the economic impact of Arizona’s military facilities prepared in 2002 by The Maguire Company and ESI Corporation, direct military employment in Arizona in 2000 was 41,647, which was more than the combined employment in 1 The material in this section was adapted from The Report of the Governor’s Military Facilities Task Force (December 2003). JULY 2006 2-1 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS Arizona for Honeywell, Motorola and Wal-Mart.2 The stability of employment and tax revenues produced by the Arizona military industry are indispensable to the fiscal health of the State. The 2002 Maguire study also states that total employment impact, total output, and total annual tax revenues for Arizona’s military industry equaled 83,506 jobs, $5.66 billion, and $233.6 million respectively for Tax Year 2000. The stable nature and high-pay-scale value of military jobs make them a fundamental part of the State economy. The long-term retention of Arizona’s network of military facilities and the sustainability of their missions are thus vital to the security of the nation and the strength of the State economy. 2.2 OVERVIEW OF ARIZONA’S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS Arizona’s military facilities are located on over a dozen separate sites that range in size from less than 100 acres to over two million acres. These sites, as shown on Figure 1-1, include: • Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma • U. S. Army Yuma Proving Ground • Fort Huachuca (including Libby Army Airfield) • Davis-Monthan Air Force Base • Luke Air Force Base (including Luke Auxiliary Field #1) • Barry M. Goldwater Range (including Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field) • Arizona Air National Guard, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport • Arizona Air National Guard, Tucson International Airport • Silverbell Army Heliport • Florence Military Reservation (Arizona Army National Guard) 2 Economic Impact of Arizona’s Principal Military Installations, May 2002, prepared by The Maguire Company in collaboration with ESI Corporation. JULY 2006 2-2 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS • Camp Navajo (Arizona Army National Guard) • Papago Park Military Reservation (Arizona Army National Guard) • United States Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station In addition to these sites, there are extensive areas of airspace in the State that are used in conjunction with the State’s military facilities. This airspace includes Military Operating Areas (MOAs) that are dedicated to military use, and over 5,000 miles of designated Military Training Routes (MTRs) that crisscross the State and are used for high-speed, low-level training. These sites and areas of airspace constitute a network of interrelated facilities that are essential to the nation’s defense. The following sections present an overview of the State’s military facilities. 2.2.1 Marine Corps Air Station Yuma Located adjacent to the City of Yuma, MCAS Yuma covers over 4,800 acres and has over 5,000 personnel (including civilian and active-duty military personnel). The mission of MCAS Yuma is to support aerial weapons training for the Atlantic and Pacific Fleet Marine Forces and Navy. The base is only three miles from the western border of the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR), and units training at the base also have access to the Yuma Training Range Complex, including the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range in California, and five Military Operating Areas. MCAS Yuma is the busiest air station in the Marine Corps. In addition to Marine Corps aviation training, the base conducts joint training with other services, as well as training for allied units (including Dutch, Belgian, German, and British units). MCAS Yuma also serves as the scheduling authority for the Yuma Training Range Complex, which includes over 10,000 square miles of restricted special-use airspace designated for military training. MCAS Yuma is a joint military / civilian-use airfield. The Yuma County Airport Authority (YCAA) is responsible for a commercial operation at MCAS Yuma that serves general aviation and scheduled commercial airlines. Under the operating agreement between MCAS Yuma and YCAA, civilian aircraft use the base’s runways and taxiways but have their own terminal and maintenance facilities. JULY 2006 2 -3 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS 2.2.2 U. S. Army Yuma Proving Ground Occupying over 800,000 acres north of the City of Yuma, U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground conducts tests on medium and long range artillery; aircraft target acquisition equipment and armament; armored and wheeled vehicles; a variety of munitions; and personnel and supply parachute systems. Testing programs are conducted for all United States military services, as well as allied countries and private industry. Yuma Proving Ground is the Army’s center for desert natural environment testing and the Yuma Test Center, which is more than 1,300 square miles in size, is a multi-purpose test facility able to test nearly every weapon system in the nation’s ground combat arsenal. In addition, Yuma Proving Ground provides unique capabilities for joint training exercises in a realistic desert combat environment. Laguna Army Airfield, used for both testing and training operations, has two runways, and can accommodate all currently operating military cargo aircraft, including the C-5, C-17, and C-130. 2.2.3 Fort Huachuca (including Libby Army Airfield) Occupying 73,272 acres in Cochise County and within the City of Sierra Vista, Fort Huachuca is the largest and primary Army Installation in Arizona, supporting Army Reserve and Arizona Army National Guard, as well as a number of other military activities throughout the State. Fort Huachuca is home to over 11,000 personnel (including civilian and active-duty military) and an average of 1,000 students at any given time. Fort Huachuca is the home of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center which is the originator of the Army’s military intelligence structure, the source of all its trained manpower, and the developer and tester of its systems and equipment. The Center is the focal point of the Army’s effort to meet its present and future intelligence collection and processing requirements. In addition to the U.S. Army Intelligence Center, there is a synergy between unique high-tech Department of Defense organizations that reside on Fort Huachuca, including: • The United States Army Network Enterprise Technology Command / 9th Army Signal Command (NETCOM/9th ASC); JULY 2006 2-4 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS • The U.S. Army Information Systems Engineering Command (ISEC); • The Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC); • The Electronic Proving Ground (EPG) The Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Testing Directorate (IEWTD) of the Operational Test Command (OTC); • The Department of Defense Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Test Center; • The U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command Communications Security Logistics Activity (USACCSLA); and • The Defense Coordination Office-Huachuca. These units are located at Fort Huachuca to take advantage of its remote location, vast area, and electromagnetic interference-free environment for testing ground and airborne electronics. The units also use Libby Army Airfield at the Fort as part of training and testing missions related to airborne electronics. Libby Army Airfield is unique to the Army because it is used jointly by military and civilian activities. In addition to UAV operations, Libby Army Airfield is used by the Arizona Air National Guard for F-16 training and for training of A-10 pilots from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. It is also a joint-use airfield, with the runways, taxiways, navigational aids, and air-traffic control shared by military and civilian operations. Civilian operations are concentrated on the northern side of the airfield, accessible from the City of Sierra Vista, while military operations are concentrated on the southern side. The 12,000- foot runway will accommodate any military or civilian aircraft, and Fort Huachuca also has control of over 700 square miles of restricted airspace from the surface to 30,000 feet. 2.2.4 Davis-Monthan Air Force Base Davis-Monthan Air Force Base is a key Air Combat Command (ACC) installation occupying 10,600 acres in the City of Tucson, approximately 10 miles southeast of downtown. Davis- Monthan Air Force Base is home to over 7,000 personnel (including civilian and active-duty military), and an average of 100 students at any given time. All A-10 and OA-10 pilots as well as all EC-130H pilots are trained at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. The Air Force 355th Wing is the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base host unit and provides medical, logistical, and JULY 2006 2-5 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS operational support to all Davis-Monthan Air Force Base units. With six flying squadrons, and one geographically separated unit, the 355th Wing is one of the largest wings in the Air Force. The 55th ECG, based at Davis-Monthan, operates EC-130H aircraft, a specially configured version of the C-130 transport to support tactical air, ground, and naval operations by confusing the enemy’s defenses and disrupting its command and control capabilities. To execute its unique operations, the aircraft were modified with electronic countermeasures systems, specialized jamming equipment, and aerial refueling capability, as well as upgraded engines and avionics. The 12th Air Force, headquartered at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, directs seven combat wings, five direct-reporting units in the Midwestern and Western U.S., and numerous Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard units. The fighter and bomber wings possess 430 aircraft and more than 33,000 active-duty military and civilian people. The 12th Air Force is the air component of the U.S. Southern Command, which is a joint-service command with Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps components. A unique facility for storing excess Department of Defense and Coast Guard aircraft, the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AMARC) has more than 5,000 aircraft stored on 2,600 acres at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. AMARC annually in-processes about 400 aircraft for storage and out-processes about the same number for return to active service, either as remotely controlled drones or for sale to friendly foreign governments. Almost 70 different types of aircraft are currently stored at AMARC (including 4,500 viable aircraft), ranging from U.S. Army and Navy helicopters to the Air Force’s Vietnam War-era F-4s with a total acquisition value of almost $27 billion. 2.2.5 Luke Air Force Base (including Luke Auxiliary Field #1) Located in the western portion of the metropolitan Phoenix area within the City of Glendale, Luke Air Force Base occupies approximately 4,200 acres and has over 8,000 personnel (including civilian, military reserve, and active-duty military). The most diversified training center in the Air Education and Training Command (AETC), Luke Air Force Base provides technical, field, medical, and flight training. Luke Air Force Base is the largest fighter pilot training base in the world and is the main provider of fighter pilots to the ACC, conducting JULY 2006 2-6 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS more than 10,000 flight operations monthly and training more than 1,000 pilots annually. All F-16 training for the USAF is consolidated at Luke Air Force Base and all active F-16 pilots were trained at the base. In addition, training units from Singapore and Taiwan are stationed at Luke. The 56th Fighter Wing is the Luke Air Force Base host unit and provides medical, logistical, and operational support to all Luke Air Force Base units. With 190 assigned aircraft, the 56th Fighter Wing is the largest fighter wing in the world, and is responsible for scheduling, managing, and ensuring environmental compliance for the eastern portion the 2.7- million-acre Barry M. Goldwater Range located 50 miles south of Luke Air Force Base. (The U.S. Marine Corps manages, schedules and ensures environmental compliance on the western portion of the Range.) The 56th Fighter Wing has scheduling and operational control of Special Use Airspace and for eight low-level Military Training Routes, which start to the east, south, and north of Luke Air Force Base and all terminate at the Barry M. Goldwater Range. Auxiliary Field #1 is located about 15 miles northwest of Luke Air Force Base and occupies 400 acres of Department of Defense-owned land and approximately 705 acres of land leased from the State of Arizona. About 12,000 operations per year are conducted at Auxiliary Field #1 for training in which pilots use the instrument landing systems at Auxiliary Field #1 to simulate approaches under poor weather conditions. Auxiliary Field #1 is one of only a few locations in the U.S. for training with Precision Approach Radar, which is commonly used in overseas locations. 2.2.6 Barry M. Goldwater Range (including Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field) Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) occupies approximately 2.7-million-acres in Yuma, Pima, and Maricopa Counties and is located approximately three miles east of MCAS Yuma, 50 miles southwest of Luke Air Force Base, and 30 miles west of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. BMGR is operated jointly by the Air Force and Marine Corps, with MCAS Yuma responsible for the western part of BMGR and Luke Air Force Base responsible for the eastern part. BMGR supports the military in Arizona with air-to-air, air-to-ground, and live drop areas, and it is the only low-altitude night-vision training area in Arizona. At roughly the size of Connecticut, the range’s vast JULY 2006 2-7 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS acreage allows for simultaneous training activities on nine air-to- ground and two air-to-air ranges. The key value of the Goldwater Range is that it is authorized for live-fire training, which is essential to the abilities of aircrews to survive and win in combat. Above BMGR are 57,000 cubic miles of airspace where pilots practice air-to-air maneuvers and engage simulated battlefield targets on the ground. More than 50 aircraft can simultaneously operate on the range while performing independent training missions. The range is within the unrefueled flight radius of twelve military installations and the U.S. Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers. Pilots fly over 68,000 sorties in the range annually. However, only about six percent of the range is used for roads, targets, and support areas; the remaining 94 percent is relatively undisturbed, and most of the land is a safety buffer for low-flying fighter aircraft. Approximately 822,000 acres of BMGR were set aside as part of the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. Military activities in the Cabeza Prieta portion of BMGR are limited to four remotely located radio transmitters and flight-training operations in the overlying airspace. Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field (AFAF) is an integral part of operations at BMGR and is jointly managed with BMGR. Adjacent to the northern boundary of BMGR, Gila Bend AFAF occupies 1,886 acres adjacent to the northern boundary of BMGR and is three miles south of the Town of Gila Bend. Its primary mission is to support BMGR, used by all branches of the military for air-to-air and air-to-ground training. Military aircraft, including F-16s, A-10s, and rotary-wing aircraft routinely use Gila Bend AFAF for practicing traffic pattern and emergency simulated engine flameout procedures. Other training conducted at Gila Bend Auxiliary Airfield includes night-vision device-assisted landings and Marine weapons tactics instructor exercises, including non-combatant evacuation operations. The airfield is also used for emergency recoveries of military aircraft that experience malfunctions on BMGR and diversion of aircraft due to factors such as bad weather at their home base, unsafe ordnance, or low fuel. Those aircraft are repaired at the airfield by maintenance crews that travel from their home base. JULY 2006 2-8 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS 2.2.7 Arizona Air National Guard, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport The 161st Air Refueling Wing (AFW) of the Arizona Air National Guard, whose mission is worldwide refueling, is based at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, which is the newest Air National Guard base in the U.S. The Arizona Air National Guard occupies 62 acres leased from the Airport, with facilities constructed in 2002 as a part of Sky Harbor’s expansion program for construction of a third runway and paid for by airport user fees. The Wing has 900 personnel (including part-time and full-time) and flies 10 KC-135E aircraft, the oldest model in the current U. S. Air Force inventory. The 161st Air Refueling Wing has more aircraft refueling areas within a short distance from its base than any other refueling unit, including eight air refueling areas within a 15-minute flight time of Sky Harbor, from which the Wing can serve over 400 receiver aircraft. 2.2.8 Arizona Air National Guard, Tucson International Airport The 162nd Fighter Wing of the Arizona Air National Guard is based at Tucson International Airport on a 92-acre site and has over 1,600 personnel (full-time and part-time). Its primary mission is International Military Training (IMT) for F-16 pilots from countries that purchase F-16s from the U.S., including air-to-air and air-to-ground tactical operations, as well as air-to- ground bombing. Mobile Training Teams from the 162nd Fighter Wing have also conducted training at individual client nations, including Turkey, the Netherlands, and Thailand. The Wing also trains International maintenance technicians on F-16 systems. 2.2.9 Silverbell Army Heliport Silverbell Army Heliport (AHP), located on a 161-acre site in rural Pima County approximately 25 miles northwest of Tucson, is the home of the Western Army Air Training Site (WAATS), which is operated by the Arizona Army National Guard. The WAATS mission is to conduct flight training, enlisted training, specialty training, and to provide regional simulation support. Flight training is conducted for the OH 58A/C “Kiowa” and AH-64A “Apache” aircraft, and the WAATS has responsibility for all AH-64A training for the Army. Specialty training courses meet unique requirements by offering training JULY 2006 2-9 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS specifically designed to enhance or improve an area of unit operations not taught at other Army training facilities. Specialty courses conducted at the WAATS include the Combat Lifesaver Course and several Readiness Enhancement Training courses. Flight-simulation capabilities at the WAATS include a Combat Mission Simulator and a Flight Weapons Simulator, both of which provide Instructor Operator courses and Aircrew Trainer courses. The WAATS has access to a local tactical training area of 3,600 square miles, allowing for low-level tactical flight. This training area is primarily public land with low population densities, extensive landing rights, and excellent variation of terrain relief. Silverbell Army Heliport operations also utilize outlying training areas. Picacho Stagefield, located to the west of Picacho Peak, has four helicopter landing lanes (each 1,500 feet long), an air traffic control tower, and on-site crash / rescue facilities. Picacho Stagefield is the primary location for trauma and emergency procedure training. In the Phoenix area, operations are conducted at the Rittenhouse Stagefield east of Queen Creek; the Deer Valley, Sycamore Creek, Granite Mountain, and Saguaro Lake training sites, which are located in the north and northeastern portion of the Phoenix area; and the heliport at Papago Park Military Reservation, located between Phoenix and Scottsdale. 2.2.10 Florence Military Reservation (Arizona Army National Guard) Florence Military Reservation (FMR) is located along Arizona Route 79, approximately six miles north of the Town of Florence and 60 miles southeast of metropolitan Phoenix. FMR occupies over 26,000 acres of low Sonoran Desert land, including 19,000 acres leased from the State Lands Trust and 6,000 acres owned by the federal government. FMR has several ranges, simulator buildings for artillery firing, live-fire areas, and impact areas for artillery rounds are also present at FMR, along with a large maintenance facility and a vehicle storage area. With its location in close proximity to the Phoenix metropolitan area, over 75 percent of the Arizona Army National Guard are stationed, trained, or deployed at FMR. JULY 2006 2-10 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS 2.2.11 Camp Navajo (Arizona Army National Guard) Camp Navajo is located on over 28,000 acres near Flagstaff. It was constructed in 1942 as Navajo Ordnance Depot. Camp Navajo was transferred to the Arizona Army National Guard following the closing of the Active Army ordnance storage mission. It has been operated by the Arizona Army National Guard since 1993, under an indefinite license through the Army Corps of Engineers. The main mission of Camp Navajo is to serve as a training site for the Arizona Army National Guard, but the base also maintains an industrial storage mission with a customer base that includes the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard, as well as private corporations and public agencies such as the U.S. General Services Administration and Northern Arizona University. Approximately 11,000 acres are in the storage area, and 17,000 acres are in training and buffer areas. The Camp also has a railroad with 38 miles of track and two locomotives that serve the storage area. Revenue from the industrial storage supports the National Guard training operations. 2.2.12 Papago Park Military Reservation (Arizona Army National Guard) Papago Park Military Reservation (PPMR) consists of 419 acres of land located at 52nd Street and McDowell Road between Phoenix and Scottsdale. The site was reserved for use by the Arizona National Guard by the U.S. Congress in 1930. PPMR is the headquarters and operational focal point of the Arizona Army National Guard and the Arizona Air National Guard. The Reservation is home to the Arizona Military Institute, which features classrooms supplied with state-of–the-art video-and computer-projected instruction equipment, a distance-learning center with video conferencing capabilities, and dormitories to house personnel attending classes. Also located at PPMR are an Army Aviation heliport, a 3,000-foot-long runway, an Air Force Battle Management training center, a rifle range, a land navigation course, a rappel site, four large armories, and several maintenance facilities. 2.2.13 United States Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station Established in 1955 a few miles west of downtown Flagstaff, Arizona, the Flagstaff Station is the U.S. Naval Observatory’s dark-sky site for optical and near-infrared astronomy. The Station has four telescopes, including the Kaj Strand JULY 2006 2-1 1 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS Astrometric Reflector which is the largest optical telescope operated by the U.S. Navy. It was designed to produce extremely accurate astrometric measurements in small fields, and has been used to measure parallaxes and therefore distance for faint stars. Over 1,000 of the world’s most accurate stellar distances were measured with this telescope since 1964, and in recent years this telescope has also served as a test-bed for the development of state-of-the-art near-infrared detectors. The Station also operates the Navy Prototype Optical Interferometer (NPOI), which is a cooperative project with the Naval Research Laboratory and Lowell Observatory, in addition to the U.S. Naval Observatory. Located on Anderson Mesa southeast of Flagstaff, the interferometer makes use of separate telescopes that are widely spaced rather than a single large mirror as is used in conventional telescopes. A unique program at the Station is the Precision Measuring Machine, or PMM, which is a large, fast, highly precise photographic plate measuring engine. The goal of the PMM program is to produce very high-quality catalogues of stars, based on digitization of the major photographic surveys. 2.2.14 Military Operating Areas (MOAs) and Restricted Airspace In addition to facilities on the ground, airspace is a vital resource for the missions of Arizona’s military facilities. The airspace available to these facilities has the capacity to support all missions and aviation needs of all of the services. This airspace environment is not duplicated elsewhere in the U.S. and optimizes the training operations at the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR), the ranges that are part of the Yuma Training Range Complex, Yuma Proving Ground and Fort Huachuca. Under the Special Use Airspace (SUA) Program, which designates airspace for military use, various types of airspace were designated, with the objective of segregating military traffic from civilian traffic. The vertical limits of SUA are measured by designated altitude floors and ceilings within which limitations are imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of the military operations. The principal types of SUA are: • Restricted Airspace, within which the flight of civil aircraft is subject to restrictions due to military operations considered hazardous to other aircraft, JULY 2006 2-1 2 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS including weapons firings and airdrop operations. Restricted airspace in Arizona is associated with BMGR, the Yuma Training Range Complex (YTRC), Yuma Proving Ground, and Ft. Huachuca. In this restricted airspace non-military aircraft operation is not forbidden but is subject to various restrictions, and during periods of active military operations, civilian aircraft are not permitted to enter the airspace. • A Military Operating Area (MOA) is airspace below a certain altitude that is established to segregate civilian flight activities from military activities, which may involve multi-aircraft formations, high-speeds just short of supersonic, and steep climb and descent rates. The ceiling of a MOA is 17,999 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). • Air Traffic Controlled Assigned Airspace (ATCAA), is airspace attached to the MOA airspace, within which operations above the MOA altitude are controlled by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to support the military mission. Civilian air traffic using Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) is routed around active MOAs or is vertically separated from military air traffic. Civilian air traffic using Visual Flight Rules (VFR) may enter the MOA at any time without a specific clearance but at a risk. • Military Training Routes, are airspace corridors used by military aircraft for low-level navigation and tactical training. The principal MOA / ATCAAs in Arizona are: • Gladden / Bagdad MOA / ATCAA, located approximately 50 miles northwest of Phoenix. This area supports air-to- air, basic flight maneuvers, air combat tactics, and formation training for the 56th and 944th Fighter Wings at Luke Air Force Base. One of the three Air Refueling Routes used by the 161st Air Refueling Wing overlies this MOA / ATCAA.. • Outlaw / Jackal MOA / ATCAA, located approximately 60 miles northwest of Tucson and 30 miles east of Phoenix. This area supports air-to air and night training missions for Luke Air Force Base and the 162nd Fighter Wing based at Tucson International Airport. • Sunny MOA / ATCAA, located approximately 70 miles northeast of Phoenix. This area is used as a holding JULY 2006 2-1 3 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 2: ARIZONA’ S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS area for exercises with large forces and supports Luke Air Force Base and Nellis Air Force Base (in Nevada). The primary Air Refueling Route used by the 161st Air Refueling Wing also overlies the Sunny MOA / ATCAA. • Sells MOA / ATCAA, located approximately 40 miles south of Phoenix and 20 miles west of Tucson, adjacent to the eastern boundary of BMGR. This area supports intensive training for Luke Air Force Base, Davis- Monthan Air Force Base, the 162nd Fighter Wing, and MCAS Yuma. One of the Air Refueling Routes used by the 161st Air Refueling Wing overlies this MOA / ATCAA. Other MOAs are the Dome MOA, located just south of MCAS Yuma; the Ruby and Fuzzy MOAs, located adjacent to the Sells MOA east of BMGR; the Tombstone MOA, located just east of Fort Huachuca; and the Turtle and Quail MOAs, located on the California-Arizona border west of the Gladden / Bagdad MOA / ATCAA. There are over 20 Military Training Routes crisscrossing Arizona, totaling approximately 5,000 miles in length. These routes are used by the military to practice high-speed, low-altitude maneuvers (generally below the 10,000-foot altitude and at airspeeds greater than 400 miles per hour). Eight of the routes provide essential access to BMGR. Civilian air traffic is not prohibited from flying along or across the routes, but the route designation alerts aircraft to the presence of military operations. JULY 2006 2-14 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The ability of any military installation to maintain its operational capabilities is related in large part to the compatibility of the land uses around the installation. Recognizing local communities have interests both in preserving the capabilities of the installation as well as furthering their own development, it is essential to define land uses that are compatible with the operations of installation, while also contributing to the balanced growth of the local communities. The following sections discuss the considerations involved in determining compatibility of land uses, and define principles for achieving compatible land use around military installations based on those considerations. 3.1 NOISE CONSIDERATIONS Noise is “unwanted sound” and can be perceived as a nuisance that disturbs our routine activities or our peace, and that at louder levels may cause feelings of mounting annoyance, irritation, or anger. The loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content, and within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable. Sounds that are perceived as noise may vary among listeners and sounds that are not objectionable to some can be bothersome to others. Aircraft or artillery noise may be experienced as particularly annoying because it may startle people, cause windows to rattle and houses to shake, or cause people to fear a crash or explosion. In addition to varying levels of annoyance, adverse impacts associated with exposure to noise may include interruption of sleep and conversation. Some common terms used in assessing the effects of noise are: • The Decibel (dB) is the unit used to measure the magnitude or intensity of sound. Decibel means 1/10 of a Bel (named after Alexander Graham Bell). The decibel uses a logarithmic scale to cover the very large range of sound pressures that can be heard by the human ear. Under the decibel unit of measure, a 10 dB increase will be perceived by most people to be a JULY 2006 3 -1 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY doubling in loudness (80 dB seems twice as loud as 70 dB). • The A-weighted Decibel (dBA) is the most common unit used for measuring environmental sound levels. It adjusts, or weights, the frequency components of sound to conform to the normal response of the human ear at conversational levels. dBA is an international metric that is used for assessing environmental noise exposure of most noise sources. • The C-weighted Decibel (dBC) is used for measuring sound levels of heavy weapons operation and sonic booms, because it adjusts or weights the frequency components to emphasize higher and lower frequencies and therefore provides a way of capturing the most annoying characteristic of tank guns and artillery, which are house vibrations induced by low frequency sound. Sound levels are plotted in decibels (abbreviated dB), a logarithmic measure of the magnitude of a sound, and may be plotted as either “A-weighted” (dbA) or as “C-weighted” (dbC). The “A-weighting” accounts for the fact that humans do not hear low frequencies and high frequencies as well as they hear middle frequencies. The A-weighting corrects for the relative efficiency of the human ear at the different frequencies. Conversely, the “C-weighting” accounts for the fact that low frequencies cause vibration, which is the principal noise impact of heavy weapons firing. An additional important factor in measuring a sound environment is the occurrence of sound events at night. People are normally more sensitive to intrusive sound events at night and background sound levels are normally lower at night because of decreased human activity. Therefore, a “penalty” may be added to sound levels that occur during night hours. By accepted scientific convention, a 10-decibel penalty is added to sound levels occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following morning. This 10 dB penalty means that one nighttime sound event is equivalent to 10 daytime events of the same level. The 24-hour average sound level, including the 10 dB penalty, is known as the day-night average sound level (Ldn). Extensive research has found that the day-night average sound level correlates very well with community annoyance from most environmental noise sources, and Ldn is used by all Federal agencies and internationally in the assessment of potential noise impacts. JULY 2006 3 -2 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Relying on a considerable body of scientific research on noise impacts, federal agencies have adopted guidelines for compatible land uses and environmental sound levels. Compatible land uses are normally determined by planning and zoning regulations that segregate types of activities, such as residential, industrial, or commercial. Noise levels that are unacceptable for homes may be quite acceptable for other uses, such as agriculture or certain industries. General guidelines for noise compatibility identify sound levels from aircraft operations between 55 and 60 dB as “moderate exposure” and as generally acceptable for residential uses. Both the Department of Defense’s Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) guidance and the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Toolkit discourage residential use in the 65 Ldn contour and higher. The Army Operational Noise Management Program uses a classification system of Zones I, II and III (Zone III being the worst) to define noise-impacted areas. Noise levels in Zone II are roughly equivalent to those within the AICUZ and FAA 65 Ldn contour. 3.2 SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS The primary safety considerations for areas surrounding military installations relate to the operation of military aircraft and their associated weaponry and ordnance. There are two types of airspace environment – the environment surrounding airfields and the environment surrounding ranges, which is a non-airfield environment. Aircraft overflights, take-offs and landings, expose areas around military airports to the possibility of accidents even with well-maintained aircraft and highly specialized flight crews. Despite stringent maintenance requirements and intense pilot and crew training programs, history demonstrates that aircraft related accidents will occur around airports. Risk may be defined as: The potential for realization of unwanted, adverse consequences to human life, health, property, or the environment; estimation of risk is usually based on the expected value of the conditional probability of the event occurring times the consequence of the event given that it has occurred.3 3The Society for Risk Analysis, Risk Glossary, accessed at http://www.sra.org. JULY 2006 3 -3 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Although the risk to people on the ground of being killed or injured by a military aircraft accident is very small, such an event is by its nature of high consequence and may be catastrophic in the breadth and extent of its impact. In order to address the issue of public exposure to safety hazards related to flight, the Department of Defense undertook an accident study based on crash patterns for reported incidents between 1968 and 1972. The combined DoD study indicated that: a. The majority of accidents occur along the extended runway centerline. Percentages ranged from 65% within five miles for the Navy to 75% within 10 miles for the Air Force, and 97% within one mile for the Army. The analysis supported corridor widths of 3,000 feet for the Navy and Air Force and 1,000 feet for the Army. b. Fighter and training type aircraft accounted for over 55% of the total aircraft accidents c. Approximately 20% of all accidents occurred on or near the runway. For accidents occurring between the runway thresholds, but off the runway surface, over 94% were within 1,000 ft of the centerline and 1.9% were between 1,000 and 4,500 ft. The Army accident plot showed no accidents occurring outside the existing Army runway lateral clearance zone of 500 ft from the runway centerline, threshold to threshold. d. More accidents occurred during the landing phase of flight than the departure phase. Both the Air Force and the Navy experienced nearly twice as many of its accidents during this phase of flight as during the departure phase. e. Beyond a distance of 15,000 feet along the extended runway centerline, the number o f accidents became in significant. f. The impact areas (areas over which debris is scattered) varied according to aircraft type. The smallest crash areas covered slightly more than two acres,while the impact for heavy bombers in some instances exceeded eight acres. The average impact area was 5.06 acres. g. Accident plots for various classes of aircraft varied; therefore accident potential zones of different sizes are appropriate for each class of aircraft. JULY 2006 3 -4 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY As a result of the study, it was concluded that the designation of safety zones around the airfield and restriction of incompatible land uses could reduce the public’s exposure to safety hazards. Recommended dimensions for these zones are based on distribution of accidents and the debris scatter. The land use recommendations for each zone are based on the level of risk; the area of highest risk has the most restrictions, while areas of lesser risk have lesser restrictions. Although safety zones are areas where there is the highest potential for an aircraft mishap based upon historical locations of accidents, these zones do not reflect the totality of the locations where accidents may happen. The safety zones are also discussed in Sections 3.5.1 and 4.1.1 of this document. In a subsequent Air Force accident study, data was plotted in relation to the airfield for 838 major accidents at U.S. Air Force bases from 1968 through 1995. These were all Class A accidents (defined as involving a loss of life or more than $1 million worth of damage) that occurred within 10 nautical miles of the airfield. This study showed that the accidents clustered along the runway and its extended centerline. Approximately 43% of the accidents occurred within the clear zones and APZs, approximately 25% occurred on the runway, and approximately 32% occurred in other areas within 10 nautical miles of the airfield. The study also showed that the majority of accidents were associated with landing (61%) vs. takeoff (30%) and that 80% of the accidents were associated with fighter / training aircraft. 3.3 AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Navigable airspace in the U.S. is under the control of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which classifies airspace based upon factors such as the complexity or density of aircraft movements; the nature of the operations conducted within the airspace; and the level of safety required. The airspace within which the FAA exercises air traffic control is divided into six categories (Classes A through E). Class A is airspace generally above 18,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Classes B, C and D define the airspace around airports and airfields, with Class B airspace being located around the busiest airports and classes C and D being located around airports with lesser activity. Class E airspace is all of the remaining airspace subject to FAA air control. There is also a category of airspace (Class G), which although subject to FAA regulation is not under FAA air traffic control. JULY 2006 3 -5 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Structures that penetrate the airspace can create hazards for aircraft operations. The most critical locations with regard to the height of objects are those within the airport approach zones. Part 77 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 14, Part 77 CFR) provides the height limits for structures within FAA-controlled airspace. Under this guidance, the height of structures considered to be obstructions within airspace other than Classes B, C and D is 200 feet or more above ground level. Within Classes B, C and D the height of structures considered to be obstructions is related to a series of “imaginary surfaces”, which establish a three-dimensional space in the air above an airport. As an example of how imaginary surfaces appear in isometric view, the imaginary surfaces for a Class A Visual Fight Rules Runway at DoD installations are shown below. Source: Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Unified Facilities Criteria: Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design (UFC 3-260-01), Figure 3.8. 01 November 01, with changes through 19 May 2006. JULY 2006 3 -6 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Whether a particular object constitutes an airspace obstruction depends upon the height of the object and its proximity to the airport. Generally, the closer the proximity to the airport and to the runway approaches, the less the height that would be considered an obstruction. Any object that penetrates these imaginary surfaces is considered an obstruction and may affect the aeronautical use of the airspace. The land area and height standards defined in the Tri-Service Unified Facilities Criteria: Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design (UFC 3-260-01) are used for purposes of defining height obstruction criteria around military airfields. UFC 3-260-01 is available on the web at: http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_260_01.pdf These standards are similar to those used by the FAA under Title 14, Part 77 CFR. U.S. standard instrument approach and departure procedures (Terminal Instrument Procedures Manual - TM 95-226,OPNAVINST 3722.16C, AFM 11-226), prescribe flight path area and vertical clearances from terrain and manmade obstructions. The restrictions limit the height of buildings and other structures in the vicinity of the airfield in order to ensure the safety of pilots, aircraft and individuals and structures on the ground. Federal law requires that prior notification must be given to the FAA, as the manager of the nation’s airspace, regarding any construction or alteration of structures that meet specific criteria. Those structures may include, but are not limited to: buildings, highways, bridges, signs and billboards, antennas and utility poles, as well as temporary-use construction materials or equipment. In addition to the controlled and uncontrolled airspace, the FAA defines several classes of Special Use airspace. (See Section 2.12 of this Policy Guidebook for a discussion of Special Use airspace in Arizona.) 3.4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS In addition to airspace obstructions, compatibility of surrounding land uses with military operations can be affected by other considerations. These include electromagnetic interference, light emissions, particulate emissions and radar reflectivity. JULY 2006 3 -7 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 3.4.1 Electromagnetic Interference Because military installations in Arizona are highly dependent on the proper operation of sophisticated communication systems, electromagnetic interference is an important consideration. This is particularly true for installations such as Fort Huachuca, where an environment free of electromagnetic interference is essential to carry out its training and testing mission using a wide range of electronic equipment and systems. Electromagnetic interference (EMI) (or radio frequency interference) occurs when an electromagnetic field interferes with the normal operation of an electronic device. Any device that transmits, distributes or processes any form of electrical energy can be a source of EMI. Such interference typically is generated on a small scale due to the operation of everyday items such as cell phones or fluorescent lights, but because the reach of the field from such devices is small, it does not result in problems. However, larger sources of interference, such as telecommunication signal facilities, or other transmitters can create significant problems for other devices using the radio frequencies. With the growth of the telecommunications industry, the increase in dependence on electronic control and guidance systems for aircraft, and the generally increased use of the radio frequency spectrum by an expanded number of users, the potential for adverse effects will likely increase in the future. Transmitters are designed to emit electromagnetic energy to convey radio frequency signals to receiving devices; interference occurs when the emitted energy is picked up by a receiver that is not the intended recipient of the emissions. Typically, the operating frequency of the transmitter and receiver of the unwanted emissions are in the same frequency bandwidth; the potential for interference decreases as the frequency separation between a transmitter and receiver increases. Interference can also occur when unintended leakage occurs from a device that is not intended to emit energy. For example, properly maintained television cable carrier systems do not radiate much electromagnetic energy. However, malfunctioning of the system may result in significant leakage and consequent interference. Electromagnetic interference from surrounding land uses can adversely affect military operations in numerous ways. Among these are interference with aircraft guidance systems (including those on the ground as well as in the aircraft itself); JULY 2006 3 -8 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY interference with the proper functioning of computer hardware; disruption of communications between units during training exercises; and interference with testing of electronic systems and devices. Military operations that transmit electromagnetic energy can also potentially interfere with civilian activities around the installation, such as television and radio reception and operation of computers. An important consideration for avoiding electromagnetic interference is that electronic fields operate according to the inverse square law of physics, which states that a quantity of something such as electromagnetic energy is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from a source point. For example, at twice the distance, ¼ of the emissions would be received, while at 10 times the distance, only 1/100 would be received. For this reason, distance is one of the best methods to avoid electromagnetic interference as the effects decrease more rapidly than the distance increases. 3.4.2 Light Emissions As development around military installations increases, the potential for incompatibility due to uncontrolled light emissions also increases. A variety of military training and testing operations depend upon “night-sky” conditions that can be disrupted by sky-glow and glare from unshielded light sources. As a form of energy, light emissions are also subject to the inverse square law of physics (as discussed in Section 3.4.1 above), which means that the more distant the light source, the greater the relative level of reduction in the effects of emitted light. However, the proliferation of light sources in both urban and rural areas increases the likelihood that increased uncontrolled light emissions will create light pollution, especially sky-glow, even when the sources are some distance away. A common method of reducing the potential for light pollution is to require shielding of exterior light fixtures, so that the light is directed downward rather than out or up. Shielded lights result in less sky-glow and glare and can prevent “light trespass”, which occurs when light falls on property outside that where the light source is located. Cochise County is currently considering adoption of an ordinance to address light pollution, among the provisions of which are requirements for shielding of lighting. The ordinance also provides for limits on total light output or luminance (the amount of light falling on a JULY 2006 3 -9 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY surface); limits on internal lighting of signs; prohibition of searchlights and laser lights for commercial purposes; and prohibition on installation of new mercury vapor light fixtures. The draft Cochise County Light Pollution Ordinance may be accessed at: http://www.co.cochise.az.us/P&Z/. 3.4.3 Particulate Emissions Particulate emissions (such as dust and smoke) generated by certain types of activities can affect the compatibility of land uses with military installation operations. Some industrial and resource extraction uses have the potential for producing smoke or dust, particularly from outdoor operations. If located adjacent to an installation such emissions, in sufficient quantity and depending on the prevailing winds, could adversely affect visibility or interfere with the operation or testing of equipment. Conversely, training or other operations on an installation may create dust or other particulate matter that due to prevailing winds is carried off the installation. Uses sensitive to dust or smoke, such as residential uses, public facilities and certain kinds of “clean” industries (such as manufacture of computer components or precision instruments) could be adversely affected. Temporary construction activities are also a potential source of particulate emissions, primarily in the form of fugitive dust. Locations that are downwind under prevailing wind conditions are more likely to be affected by particulate emissions. In Arizona, as in much of the continental United States, the prevailing winds tend to be from the west. These can be northwesterly or southwesterly depending upon the locality and season. However, particulate matter can be carried aloft and deposited at considerable distance from its source. There are standard methods to control dust emissions that may be employed for construction and resource extraction activities. Application of these methods can substantially reduce, although not necessarily eliminate the potential for adverse impacts. 3.5 PRINCIPLES FOR LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Two critical issues define compatibility of uses: first, exposure of areas outside the installation to safety and noise hazards resulting from installation operations; and second, the potential for interference with installation operations due to certain characteristics of land uses around the installation JULY 2006 3 -10 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY (such as airspace obstructions or electro-magnetic interference.) 3.5.1 Noise and Safety Hazards A fundamental goal of compatibility criteria is to avoid concentrations of people exposed to noise and safety hazards, and is achieved in principle by: • limiting exposure of people and noise-sensitive activities to high noise levels, and • limiting concentrations of people and safety-sensitive activities in areas of highest probable accident impact. Each of these critical principles can be translated into specific types of land uses that are affected by military operations. • Noise-sensitive land uses that are incompatible with high noise levels, particularly within the high-noise zones defined as the 65 Ldn contour and higher (or within Army Noise Zone II, Noise Zone III and Land Use Planning Zone). Noise-sensitive uses include: • Residences and places where people normally sleep such as hotels, hospitals, and nursing homes. • Uses such as schools, libraries, churches, museums, cultural centers, theaters, hotels, outdoor auditoriums, and concert halls, where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, music, meditation, and concentration on reading or visual material. Noise attenuation may mitigate the effects of the average noise exposure (as expressed in Ldn), on these uses; however, it is important to note that single-event noise levels at significantly higher decibels may not be fully mitigated by attenuation. • Land uses that result in concentrations of people or that have special safety considerations are generally incompatible with high hazard areas around military airports. These areas typically include the Clear Zones, APZ-I, and APZ-II as defined under AICUZ guidance, or hazard zones defined under similar criteria. Note that the Navy/Marine Corps Clear Zones have different dimensions than the Air Force Clear Zones. Uses that result in concentrations of people include the following: JULY 2006 3 -1 1 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY • Residences and similar uses where people reside, such as hotels and nursing homes. • Employment uses with a high density of employees such as offices and labor-intensive industrial use. • Uses where people may gather in large numbers such as churches, schools, shopping centers, retail establishments, bars and restaurants, auditoriums, sports arenas, and spectator sports. • Land uses that have special safety considerations include the following: • Uses involving significant quantities of hazardous materials or explosives. • Critical public health and safety uses, such as hospitals, fire stations, and police communications facilities. • Landfills and agricultural row crops that are attractive to large flocks of birds. 3.5.2 Obstructions and Interference Land use compatibility is also affected by the potential that exists for land uses around an installation to create obstructions or have characteristics that would interfere with the installation’s operation. Compatibility problems due to obstruction or interference can be avoided by following principles concerning obstructions and sources of interference, and by submitting proposals for these kinds of uses to the installation for review. • The height of structures and other objects (such as trees) in critical airspace should be restricted in accordance with relevant FAA and DoD guidance to avoid obstructions. (See Section 3.3 above for a discussion of guidance concerning airspace obstructions.) The critical areas are: • Airfield approach/departure areas at the ends of the runway, along with the transitional areas on the sides of the runway, as defined by the imaginary surfaces under FAA and DoD guidance (See Section 3.3 above) • Military Operating Areas (MOAs) and Military Training Routes, where aircraft operations may JULY 2006 3 -1 2 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY occur at low elevations (e.g. below 200 ft above ground level) • Uses that transmit electromagnetic energy should be located at sufficient distance from any receivers on the installation to avoid interference with the operation of the receivers. Such uses may include: • Telecommunications signal facilities • Television and radio transmitting towers • High-voltage electric transmission lines • Uses that are sensitive to electromagnetic interference should not be located within areas subject to interference generated by transmitters on an installation. These uses include: • Residential uses • Educational facilities • Public safety facilities • Data processing facilities • Uses involving explosives or storage of flammable gases • All sources of light around the installation should be shielded to avoid adverse effects of light pollution (such as light trespass, glare or sky-glow) on installation operations. • Uses that emit particulate matter should be located at sufficient distance downwind from any activities on the installation that are sensitive to particulate matter to avoid interference with installation operations of the receivers. Such uses may include: • Resource extraction (e.g. surface or open-pit mining or quarrying) • Construction activities • Uses that are sensitive to particulate matter should be located at sufficient distance downwind from any activities on the installation that generate particulate matter. Such uses may include: • Residential Uses • Schools and Recreation Facilities • Public Facilities JULY 2006 3 -13 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY • Offices • Manufacture of electronic components or precision instruments JULY 2006 3 -14 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4. REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE State, county and municipal laws may regulate land use compatibility around a military installation. In addition, Department of Defense (DoD) guidance under the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) program, Installation Compatible Use Zone (ICUZ) program or Range Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (RAICUZ) program may apply, and the DoD Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) Program provides a framework for installations and local communities to deal with urban encroachment. The nature and status of the existing land use compatibility guidance (including federal, State and local guidelines and regulations) are addressed in Sections 4.1 through 4.3. 4.1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE The Department of Defense (DoD) recognized the problem of urban encroachment around installations, and in 1973 initiated the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ). The Navy and Air Force use the AICUZ program. The ICUZ program, initiated post-1980 and used by the Army, is now an integral part of a more comprehensive Operational Noise Management Program (ONMP). In addition, the Navy has added a Range Air Installation Compatible Use Zone study (RAICUZ) to delineate noise impacts from aerial firing ranges at Navy and Marine Corps installations. The RAICUZ is intended to address encroachment around ranges used for air-to-ground combat training and is similar to the AICUZ program 4.1.1 Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Program The Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Program4 was implemented in 1973 by the U.S. Department of Defense to promote compatible land use development around military airfields. The AICUZ Program creates standard land-use 4Guidance for the United States Air Force AICUZ program is contained in Air Force Instruction 32-7063, Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Program; guidance for the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps AICUZ program is contained in OPNAV Instruction 11010.36B, Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Programs. This guidance implements Department of Defense Instruction 4165.57, Air Installations Compatible Use Zones. JULY 2006 4-1 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE guidelines for areas affected by possible noise exposure and accident potential combinations and provides local government jurisdictions with information that can be used to regulate land use and development. Included in the AICUZ program is a table of accident potential zones, noise zones, and guidance concerning the compatibility of various uses. The Department of Defense adopted the NOISEMAP computer model to describe noise impacts created by aircraft operations. NOISEMAP is one of two Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved models. The other is the Integrated Noise Model (INM), which is used by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for civilian airports. In 1974, EPA designated the noise descriptor “Ldn,” or Day- Night Average Sound Level as the standard measurement for noise impacts. Ldn refers to the average sound level exposure, measured in decibels, over a 24-hour period, with a 10-decibel penalty added to sound levels for operations occurring during the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. This penalty is applied due to the increased annoyance created by noise events that occur during this time. Accident Potential Zones (APZs) are one aspect of the AICUZ program where military application differs from civilian airfields. An analysis of aircraft accidents worldwide within 10 nautical miles of a military airfield for the period of 1968–1972 led to defining areas of high accident potential known as the Clear Zone (CZ), Accident Potential Zone I (APZ-I), and Accident Potential Zone II (APZ-II). The majority of these accidents (about 52 percent) occurred within the Clear Zones or APZs, while about 23 percent were associated with the runway and 25 percent occurred in other areas within 10 nautical miles. It was concluded from the Department of Defense accident study that the Clear Zone warranted special attention due to the high potential for accidents that severely limited acceptable land uses. (Note that the Navy/Marine Corps Clear Zones have different dimensions than the Air Force Clear Zones.) The percentages of accidents within the two APZs are such that some land use control is essential. The Department of Defense recommendation for the APZs is to limit the number of people exposed to noise and safety hazards through appropriate land use planning. Structures, whether permanent or temporary, that intrude into airspace are also a form of encroachment that the AICUZ program also addresses. An AICUZ report will include a JULY 2006 4-2 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE depiction of “airspace control surfaces” and height obstructions around military airfields, based upon DoD criteria. (See Section 3.3 of this Guidebook for a discussion of airspace control surfaces and criteria for airspace obstructions.) 4.1.2 Installation Compatible Use Zone Program and Operational Noise Management Program Under the Army’s Operational Noise Management Program, as defined by Army Regulation AR 200-1, the Installation Operational Noise Management Plan (IONMP) is a primary tool for achieving compatible land use around Army installations. Elements of an IONMP include education, complaint management, noise and vibration mitigation, noise abatement procedures, and noise assessment. The Installation Compatible Use Zone (ICUZ) Program provides a methodology for assessing the effects of noise generated by installation operations. AR 200-1 is being revised to improve methods to evaluate and document the impact of noise produced by ongoing and proposed Army actions and activities and to minimize annoyance to humans to the extent practicable. Noise descriptors (metrics) appropriate for determination of compatible land use and assessment procedures are based on the best available scientific information. The Army uses day-night level (DNL) as the primary descriptor for military impulsive noise, except for small arms noise. DNL is the time weighted energy average sound level with a 10- decibel (dB) penalty added to the nighttime levels (2200 to 0700 hours). The DNL noise metric may be further defined, as appropriate, by an Army installation with a specific, designated time period (for example, annual average DNL or average busy month DNL). The typical assessment period over which the noise energy is averaged is 240 days for Active Army installations and 104 days for Army Reserve and National Guard installations. The use of average busy month DNL is appropriate when the tempo of operations is significantly different during certain peak periods of the year. For future land use planning and encroachment assessment purposes, a reasonable annual growth factor in activity (e.g. 10 or 15 %) may be assumed. Supplemental metrics, such as single event noise data (for example, Peak, Pk15(met) or CSEL) discussed below, may be employed where appropriate. A-weighted maximum noise levels are used to assess aviation low-level military training routes (MTRs) and/or flight tracks. JULY 2006 4-3 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE Experience has demonstrated that the use of average noise levels over a protracted time period generally does not adequately assess the probability of community noise complaints at Army installations. Therefore Army guidance recommends that the risk of noise complaints from large caliber impulsive noise resulting from testing and training activities, ex. armor, artillery, mortars and demolition activities, be assessed in terms of a single event metric, either peak sound pressure level expressed as Pk15(met) or C-weighted sound exposure level (CSEL). The metric Pk15(met) accounts for statistical variation in received single event peak noise level that is due to weather. It is the calculated peak noise level, without frequency weighting, expected to be exceeded by 15 percent of all events that might occur. If there are multiple weapon types fired from one location, or multiple firing locations, the single event level used should be the loudest level that occurs at each receiver location. Noise from small arms ranges would be assessed using a single event metric, either Pk15(met) or A-weighted sound exposure level (ASEL). For additional discussion of A-weighted and C-weighted noise levels, see Section 3.1 of this Policy Guidebook. Army guidance also recommends the use of available noise assessment software as the primary means of noise impact assessment rather than field measurements because spot measurements do not adequately capture variation in received noise level over time due to weather. Impacts due to blast noise emitted by large guns and explosions are assessed by means of the BNOISE2™ software, while impacts due to small arms noise are assessed by means of the SARNAM™ software. Four noise zones are defined in terms of noise metric levels under Army guidance, (see Table 4.1.) The day-night sound levels used by the Army to define the noise zones represent an annual average based upon the total number of operations divided by the number of days in a year that the noise-generating events occur. However, operations at an installation are typically subject to daily and seasonal variations, and therefore, in order to provide a planning tool that could be used to account for days of higher than average operations, the Land Use Planning Zone (LUPZ) is included as part of the ICUZ methodology. It encompasses areas where, during periods of increased operations, community annoyance levels can reach those levels associated with Zone II. The contours for the LUPZ are established by considering the increased noise exposure that higher levels of operations would generate in relation to the noise exposure for Zone II. For JULY 2006 4-4 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE example, if operations are 3 times more numerous than the normal daily firing, and average noise levels increase by 5 dB, the LUPZ would be defined as the area between 70 and 65 dBA and 62 and 57 dBC. The Land Use Planning Zone (LUPZ) contour is also used to better predict noise impacts when levels of operations at airfields or large caliber weapons ranges are above average. Single event noise limits in Table 4-2 correspond to areas of low to high risk of noise complaints from large caliber weapons and weapons systems. These should be used to supplement the noise zones defined in Table 4-1 for land use compatibility decisions. Noise sensitive land uses are strongly discouraged in areas equal to or greater than Pk15(met) = 130 dB. For infrequent noise events, installations should determine if land use compatibility within these areas is necessary for mission protection. In the case of infrequent noise events, such as the detonation of explosives, the installation should communicate with the public. Under Army guidance, noise-sensitive land uses, such as housing, schools, and medical facilities, are considered acceptable within the LUPZ and noise zone I, normally not recommended in noise zone II, and not recommended in noise zone III. While recognizing that local conditions regarding the need for housing may require noise-sensitive land uses in Noise Zone II, on or off post, this type of land use is strongly discouraged under Army guidance. It is recommended that the absence of viable alternative development options should be determined and an evaluation should be conducted locally prior to local approvals indicating that a demonstrated community need for the noise-sensitive land use would not be met if development were prohibited in Noise Zone II. Where the community determines that these uses must be allowed, Army guidance recommends that measures to achieve an outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB to 30 dB in Noise Zone II, from small arms and aviation noise, be incorporated into building codes and be in individual approvals. Because scientific studies to accomplish this NLR in communities subject to large caliber weapons and weapons system noise, noise-sensitive land uses are strongly discouraged in Noise Zone II where the noise source is large caliber weapons. Normal permanent construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB for small arms and aircraft; thus the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10 or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation, JULY 2006 4-5 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE upgraded Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings in windows and doors and closed windows year round. Additional Army guidance with respect to noise reduction includes the following: • Additional consideration should be given to modifying NLR levels based on peak noise levels or vibrations. • Although NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems, building location and site planning, and design and use of berms and barriers, can help mitigate outdoor noise exposure, particularly from ground level aircraft sources. However, barriers are generally not effective in noise reduction for large arms such as artillery and armor or large explosions. It should be noted that Arizona Statutes (ARS §28-8481 and §28-8482) regulate land uses in the high noise zones defined for Military Airports and Ancillary Military Facilities under those Statutes and the regulations for these zones in some cases are more restrictive than the Army guidance. In addition, the Arizona Statues (ARS §28-8481 and §28-8482) also contain requirements for noise attenuation that may be more stringent than the Army guidance. (See Section 4.2 of this Policy Guidebook for a discussion of the Arizona regulations.) Army guidance defines single event noise limits corresponding to areas of low to high risk of noise complaints from large caliber weapons and weapons systems, and recommends that these be used to supplement the noise zones for land use compatibility decisions. For infrequent noise events, such as the detonation of explosives, it is recommended that installations determine if land use compatibility within these areas is necessary for mission protection and communicate with the public. The ICUZ program also incorporates the definition of Accident Potential Zones (APZs) for Army airfields and also addresses airspace obstructions as well as other safety hazards that can affect aircraft operation, such as activities that produce air, light or electromagnetic emissions. The criteria used for the APZs, obstructions and safety hazards under the ICUZ program are essentially similar to those for the AICUZ program. 4.1.3 Range Installation Compatible Use Zone Program The Navy and Marine Corps instituted the Range Installation Compatible Use Zone (RAICUZ) program in 1998 to address JULY 2006 4-6 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE encroachment issues around ranges used for air-to-ground combat training and is similar to the AICUZ program. The RAICUZ program includes range safety and noise analyses, and identifies land use recommendations that will be compatible with range safety zones and noise levels associated with the military operations. The RAICUZ program also considers the special use airspace that is associated with air-to-ground ranges, including restricted areas, military operating areas (MOAs), and military training routes (MTRs). The Department of the Navy’s Naval Aviation Simulation Model (NASMOD) is used to enable planners to evaluate complex airfield, range, and airspace scenarios to ensure that sufficient range and airspace capacity will be available to support existing and future mission requirements. The Marine Corps utilizes the Training Range Encroachment Information System (TREIS) and Range Environmental Vulnerability Assessment (REVA) programs to track and report range encroachment and its impacts on an installation's abilities to fulfill existing and future mission requirements. Under the RAICUZ program three Range Safety Zones (RSZ) are defined for varying levels of safety hazard concerns due to potential weapons impact. RSZ A defines the maximum safety hazard. It is the area described by the weapons safety footprints and represents the weapons impact area (including potential ricochet.) RSZ B is the area of armed overflight. RSZ C is the minimum restricted airspace for aircraft to maneuver on the range. These RSZs, in combination with noise zones define the RAICUZ footprint, for which compatible land use guidance is provided. Aircraft noise zones for the RAICUZ are defined similarly to those for an AICUZ, except that for ranges with run-ins (approaches) that are not on a fixed heading, as well as for restricted airspace, MOAs and MTRs, the MOA and Range Noise Map program (MRNMAP) is used to define noise contours instead of the NOISEMAP program. In addition, where noise-sensitive uses are present, a RAICUZ study considers noise impacts from ordnance delivery (blast noise), based on data developed using the Department of Defense Noise-B Program, which is designed for noise that is impulsive and of short duration. JULY 2006 4-7 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE 4.1.4 Encroachment Control Program The Marine Corps uses an Encroachment Control Program (ECP) where installation-specific ECPs are prepared that include an analysis of a Marine Corps installation’s current and future encroachment situation, and an action plan presenting control strategies and actions for reducing the encroachment threat to installations. The Range Complex Management Plans (RCMPs), TREIS, and REVA programs are tools in the ECP program used to identify, analyze, and report on encroachment and its impacts on an installation’s abilities to support mission essential tasks. Moreover, they assist in the development of strategies to engage federal, state, and local agencies in finding encroachment solutions. Encroachment partnering is an important tool in implementation of the ECP program, whereby the Marine Corps partner with public and private conservators to acquire undeveloped land adjacent/proximate to Marine Corps installations to prevent incompatible development. 4.1.5 Joint Land Use Study Program The Department initiated the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) program in 1985 in an effort to achieve greater application of the AICUZ / ONMP / RAICUZ program recommendations. The JLUS program utilizes the AICUZ /ONMP / RAICUZ data in a participatory planning context. Program objectives are twofold: • To encourage cooperative land use planning between military installations and the surrounding communities so that future community growth and development are compatible with the training or operational missions of the installation; and • To seek ways to reduce the operational impacts on adjacent land. The JLUS program encourages communities and the military installation to study the issues in an open forum, taking into consideration both community and military viewpoints. As an incentive for communities to participate in a joint planning process, the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) offers matching grants for a Joint Land Use Study. Recommendations in a study are used to guide local jurisdictions in the development and implementation of land development controls and other measures to ensure that future public and private development around the military JULY 2006 4-8 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE installation will be compatible with both the military mission and the development needs of the community.5 4.2 STATE OF ARIZONA From the 1990s through 2005, the State of Arizona passed legislation to address the issue of residential development and other compatibility issues around Arizona’s military facilities. The major statutes, including ARS §28-8481 and ARS §28- 8461, were most recently amended in 2004 through the enactment of House Bill 2140 and House Bill 2141. With the passage of these bills, the State requires political subdivisions in the vicinity of a military airport, and in the vicinity of “ancillary military facilities” to adopt land use plans and enforce zoning regulations that assure development compatible with the high-noise and accident potential generated by military airport operations. (ARS §28-8461 defines military airports as Luke AFB, Davis-Monthan AFB, MCAS Yuma, Libby AAF at Ft. Huachuca, and Laguna AAF at Yuma Proving Ground; ancillary military facilities are defined as Luke Air Force Base Auxiliary Field #1, Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field and Marine Corps Air Station Yuma Auxiliary Field #2). Compatibility with high-noise and accident potential is defined through a land use compatibility table included in ARS §28-8481. Under the ARS §28-8481 definitions, residential uses are generally considered incompatible in the high-noise and accident zones, while many non-residential uses are considered compatible in high-noise zones, and certain non-residential uses may be considered compatible in accident zones. State legislation, specifically ARS §28-8481, also regulates land uses in hazard zones and high-noise areas, but allows a landowner to undertake development of property for which a development plan was approved before December 31, 2000, (or for lands subsequently added to “territory within the vicinity of a military airport or ancillary military facility”, December 31 of the year the land was added) even though the uses may not be compatible with the regulations under ARS §28-8481. It is the responsibility of the local jurisdiction and landowner to work cooperatively on these “grandfathered” plans to mitigate potential future development conflicts where possible. 5 The Joint Land Use Study Program Guidance Manual, issued by the Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment in August 2002, provides guidance in the preparation of Joint Land Use Studies. This discussion was adapted from the Manual. JULY 2006 4-9 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE Arizona Statutes (ARS §28-8481 and §28-8482) require that any city, town or county that has territory with the vicinity of a military airport or ancillary military facility as defined under ARS §28-8461 incorporate sound attenuation standards in their building codes for residential and other noise-sensitive uses in high-noise zones, in order to achieve an indoor noise level of 45 dB. For residential buildings within the defined territory in the vicinity of a military airport or ancillary military facility but outside the high-noise zones, ARS §28- 8482 requires construction with a minimum of R18 exterior wall assembly, a minimum of R30 roof and ceiling assembly, dual-glazed windows and solid wood, foam-filled fiberglass or metal doors to the exterior (or alternative means to achieve a 45 dB interior noise level). In December 2003, the Governor’s Military Facilities Task Force put forth twenty-seven recommendations to ensure long-term retention of the State’s military facilities so that they may continue to perform their vital national defense functions and maintain their critical role in the State economy. Included in these recommendations were establishment of a permanent Military Affairs Commission, and establishment of a Military Installation Fund with a dedicated stream of funding. On May 17, 2004, the Governor signed House Bill (HB) 2140, a comprehensive military bill that included a number of the Task Force’s recommendations, including the establishment of the Military Affairs Commission as a permanent body and the establishment of the Military Installation Fund (MIF). Under ARS §28-8482 the Military Affairs Commission is comprised of fifteen voting members, three appointed by the President of the Senate, three appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and nine appointed by the Governor: The Commission’s duties are to: • Regularly meet with the Governor, President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives to provide recommendations on military issues and report on the progress of the Commission. • Develop criteria, including accountability, for awarding monies from the Military Installation Fund. • Annually recommend a priority listing of monies with available resources. • Recommend how the monies in the Military Installation Fund should be awarded. JULY 2006 4-10 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE Beginning in fiscal year 2004-2005 and continuing in each successive fiscal year, $4.825 million dollars will be appropriated from the state general fund for the MIF. ARS §41- 1512.01 identifies specific disbursement components that must be adhered to including: • Eighty percent of the monies in the fund shall be used for private property acquisition for the purpose of preserving a military installation; acquisition of real estate and rights to real estate and otherwise preserving real estate from development or mitigating impacts on development in high noise or accident potential zones and in areas as required to support a military installation; and, acquisition of real estate, property rights and related infrastructure that is vital to the preservation or enhancement of a military installation. Twenty percent of this amount may be awarded to cities, towns and counties for land acquisition purposes. • Twenty percent of the monies in the fund shall go to cities, towns and counties for military installation preservation and enhancement projects. • Monies in the MIF may be awarded for debt service on bonds issued by a political subdivision for the purpose of acquisition of private property for preserving a military airport or ancillary military facility. In 2004, legislation was also enacted that required that the public report issued by the State Commissioner of Real Estate prior to sale of land include disclosure of location of the property under a Military Training Route, and directed the State Real Estate Department and State Land Department maintain maps of the Military Training Routes. The legislation also provided that in each county that includes land under a Military Training Route, the Real Estate Commissioner record a document disclosing the that the land is under a Military Training Route. Enactment of House Bill (HB) 2308 in 2005 amended ARS §33- 422 to amend the disclosure requirements for sellers of five lots or fewer (other than subdivided land) in unincorporated areas to include location of such property in clear zones, high noise zones or APZs as defined in ARS §28-8461or under restricted airspace. HB 2308 also directs the State Land Department to prepare a map of restricted airspace and transmit a copy to all counties. JULY 2006 4-1 1 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE Appendix A summarizes the provisions of the various statutes related to the operation of military installations. A comparison of the land use compatibility guidance contained in ARS §28- 8481 with that of the Air Installation Compatible Land Use (AICUZ) Program is contained in Appendix B. 4.3 LOCAL JURISDICTIONS Regulations that typically are implemented by local political jurisdictions include zoning (including military airport zoning, airport impact and noise overlay districts), notification and disclosure requirements, and building code requirements for noise attenuation). In addition, local political jurisdictions adopt General Plans (for cities and towns) and Comprehensive Plans (for counties) that are required to address land use compatibility around military installations. Local jurisdictions may also adopt Area Plans or Specific Plans; these also may address issues of encroachment and land use compatibility. The following discussion presents examples of the types of regulations and land use compatibility guidance adopted by Arizona’s local jurisdictions. 4.3.1 Zoning The City of Tucson and Pima County addressed their similar issues of land use compatibility by passing zoning regulations that focused on regulating development around commercial and military airports. The City of Tucson adopted the Airport Environs Zone (AEZ) in 1990 and amended it in 2005 to conform to the recommendations of the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base / Pima County / City of Tucson Joint Land Use Study (JLUS), which was completed in 2004. The AEZ is part of the City’s Land Use Code and defines allowed and prohibited uses in the various zones and districts defined within the ordinance, which correspond to the noise and safety zones defined in the JLUS. In addition to regulating types of land use, the AEZ also regulates the intensity of development (lot coverage and floor area ratio) and density of population in the various zones. Similarly, Pima County specifically addresses permitted and prohibited land uses within the environs of civilian and military airports through overlay zones in its Zoning Code. Originally adopted in 1985, these regulations were amended in 2005 to conform to the recommendations of the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base / Pima County / City of Tucson JLUS. Thus, JULY 2006 4-1 2 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE there is a consistency between the City of Tucson and Pima County regulations for development around the Base The City of Tucson Airport Environs Zone regulations may be found at: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/planning/codes/luc/art2div8.pdf The Pima County zoning regulations for Airport Environs and Facilities may be found at: http://www.co.pima.az.us/cob/code/c18a34.html#3941 4.3.2 Notification and Disclosure Several jurisdictions have adopted notification and disclosure requirements for real estate transactions around military installations. • The City of Surprise has adopted a requirement that a copy of the City’s “Surprise / Luke Notification Map” be posted in all real estate and model home sales offices in the City. The Map contains a notice that all homes within the City of Surprise are subject to aircraft overflights from Luke Air Force Base and shows the noise contours for Luke Air Force Base. • Both the City of Yuma and Yuma County require disclosure statements for property located within restricted airspace. This disclosure is recorded to acknowledge on behalf of the grantor and its successors that a property is within the restricted airspace. • Maricopa County also has requirements for notification to future homeowners regarding military aircraft operations, including posting various forms of notification in model home sales offices, notification on plats and public reports, and disclosure in Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) for new housing developments. 4.3.3 Noise Attenuation The Uniform Building Code (UBC) adopted by most local jurisdictions in Arizona addresses interior noise level reductions related to noise generated by the operation of military aircraft. Typical methods to achieve interior noise reduction include use of noise-insulating windows; placement of noise-absorbing material in exterior walls; and baffling or JULY 2006 4-13 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE other measures to prevent the entry of noise through exterior vents. As an example, the City of Goodyear noise attenuation standards require that: • Exterior walls shall be at least four inches in nominal depth and shall be finished on the outside with block, siding, sheathing or stucco on one-inch Styrofoam. Fiberglass or cellulose insulation at least three and one-half inches thick shall be installed continuously throughout the cavity space behind the wall. Exterior wall penetrations by pipe ducts or conduits shall be caulked. • Mailboxes shall not be placed through the door or wall. • Windows shall have two panes of glass and minimum sound transmission rating of STC-22. All operable windows shall be weather stripped and airtight in accordance with ASRM R-283-84-T Standard. Perimeter window frames shall be sealed to air tight specifications. • Perimeter doorframes shall be sealed to airtight specifications. • Fireplaces shall be provided with well fitting dampers, unless otherwise prohibited elsewhere in the Code. • All non-glazed portions of exterior side-hinged doors shall be solid core wood or insulated hollow metal or at least one and three-quarter inch thick and fully weather-stripped. • Roof rafter space of at least eight inches in depth shall be fiberglass or cellulose insulated at least eight inches in depth in the cavity space between the rafters. Goodyear has gone beyond the State's standards to require these increased noise attenuation standards for homes outside of the high noise contours as well. The added benefit of energy efficiency makes the requirements attractive to prospective homebuyers, as well. (See the City of Goodyear’s Website at http://www.ci.goodyear.az.us/index.asp?NID=359.) 4.3.4 General and Comprehensive Plans Local jurisdictions have adopted General and Comprehensive Plans that address compatibility with the high-noise and accident potential generated by military airport operations, as required under State Statutes. As an example, the City of Goodyear’s General Plan Land Use Element includes policies to JULY 2006 4-14 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE continue to partner with Luke AFB and the City of Phoenix to protect Luke’s Accident Potential Zones and critical noise contours (including denial of new residential development within the 65 dB noise contour). The plan also includes a policy to require notification and disclosure statements for residential development within the defined “territory within the vicinity” of Luke AFB. The Goodyear Land Use Plan includes a Luke Compatible Use Area (LUCA) land use designation, which denotes areas within the 65 dB and higher Luke AFB noise contours, and allows for Community Commercial, Light Industrial, (excluding commercial office developments and / or complexes), Prisons, and Open Space uses that comply with adopted State legislation. Local jurisdictions may also choose to address land use compatibility with military operations outside the areas of high-noise and accident potential defined under State Statutes. By amending its General Plan in 2004, provided for compatible use in expanded noise and accident potential zones (beyond those defined in ARS §28-8461). The 2004 General Plan Amendment provides for predominantly non-residential uses in these zones, and in addition, provides for an Airport Preservation land use designation, which extends beyond the expanded noise and accident potential zones, and provides for low-density residential development (up to 2 dwelling units per acre). 4.3.5 Area and Specific Plans Cities, towns and counties also may adopt area and specific plans that include policies and land use designations that address land use compatibility with military installations. As an example, the Babocomari Area Plan adopted by Cochise County in 2005 included specific policies for compatibility of development with operations on Fort Huachuca’s East Range, particularly at the Hubbard Assault Airstrip which lies just south of the Babocomari area. In the Plan, land adjacent to Fort Huachuca was designated for Rural Residential use and policies included for additional controls on residential density; notification to potential buyers of impacts from the airstrip operations; and limitations on special uses that could have an effect on the military missions of the Fort’s East Range. (See the Cochise County website at: http://www.cochisecounty.com/P&Z/Comprehensive.htm.) JULY 2006 4-1 5 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE 4.4 REVIEW OF LEGISLATION / REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF MILITARY FACILITIES IN OTHER STATES6 4.4.1 Overview Military installations in the United States provide significant contributions to political jurisdictions at all levels, from federal to municipal. These installations create thousands of jobs and generate billions of dollars in direct and indirect economic activities as well as tax revenues. Because of the widening awareness of the importance of military installations to state and local economies and to our national defense, many states and local political jurisdictions are taking steps to deal with encroachment and land use compatibility issues that frequently arise in the vicinity of these facilities. In recent years, a number of steps have been taken to ensure the missions of these military installations are protected from encroachment. These steps include the following: • Several states, including California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois and Oklahoma, in addition to Arizona, have passed legislation or issued Executive Orders that require local communities to address land use compatibility around military installations. • Local political jurisdictions in Arizona, California, Colorado, and Florida, as well as other states, have established zoning, planning, density of use, and interior noise reduction requirements in territories adjacent to military bases. • Several states are considering use of existing statutory language to designate military installations as protected “Areas of Critical State Concern.” The advantages of this approach are an existing legal framework that many states have previously adopted and that it formally recognizes land surrounding military installations as requiring regulation owing to special circumstances of national security, public health (noise impacts) and public safety (in terms of hazards generated by normal military operations). Among the 6 Sources for this section include the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, State Strategies to Address Encroachment at Military Installations; March 2003; and numerous State Government web sites.(see the list of references at the end of this Guidebook for addresses of specific sites) JULY 2006 4-16 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE disadvantages are that not all states have appropriate statutory language in place and amending an existing statute requires legislative action and executive approval. Among the states considering use of the “Areas of Critical State Concern” legislation are California, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming. • Political jurisdictions at various levels and in many states have initiated programs to acquire property surrounding a military installation through fee-simple purchase, transfer of development rights, purchase of development rights, and density transfers. Political jurisdictions that have initiated these programs include Arizona, Florida, Oklahoma, Nevada, and North Carolina. As an example, Florida has instituted a grant program to support military installations. The Defense Infrastructure Grant Program was established in 1999 to improve military base infrastructure and to provide dual-use benefits to local communities throughout the State. In recognition of the importance of military facilities to Florida’s economy, the program has received steady support from the Legislature, which has joined with the Governor to address the needs of the State's military facilities. • California, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, in addition to Arizona, have created state military advisory commissions or have added offices of military affairs to the duties of existing agencies. 4.4.2 Review of Specific Legislation and Executive Orders Specific legislation created by the States of California, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Florida and Colorado with respect to planning / real estate and the impacts generated by military facilities, as well as the Executive Order issued by the Governor of Illinois are briefly reviewed below. California In California, Aviation Noise Disclosure legislation (AB 2776) which passed in the 2002–2003 regular legislative session and was signed by the Governor, amends the real estate transfer disclosure statute (California Civil Code, Division 2 – Property, Part 4 – Acquisition of Property, Title 4, Chapter 2 – Transfer JULY 2006 4-17 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE of Real Property) to require sellers / lessors to disclose the fact that a house for sale or lease is “near” an airport if the house falls within an airport influence area (that could be several miles from an existing or proposed airport). An airport influence area is defined as the area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The intent of the legislation is to notify buyers that they could experience airport noise, vibration, odor, annoyances, or other inconveniences at some time in the future as a result of the normal operation of an existing or proposed airport. This legislation is similar in intent to Arizona’s requirements under ARS §28-8484 and ARS §28-8485 for notification of owners or potential buyers of property that the area is currently subject to aircraft noise and overflights. California passed legislation in 2002 (amending Section 1; Section 65302 of the Government Code) that required the land use element of General Plans prepared by cities and counties to consider the importance of military facilities to national defense when proposing zoning ordinances or designating land uses covered by the General Plan for land or other territory near or around military facilities. In addition, the legislation required the land use element to contain a noise element that appraises noise problems in the community from a variety of sources, including military airport operations. The noise is required to be measured and contours prepared and used as a guide for establishing land use patterns that minimize the exposure of community residents to excessive noise. Oklahoma Oklahoma has passed legislation (Title 11: Cities and Towns; Section 43-101.1 – Municipalities with Active Duty United States Air Force Military Installation) in 2002 based in large part on the compatible land use guidelines contained in the U.S. Air Force Air Installation Compatible Zone Program. The act restricts use of property within five miles from the corporate boundary of a military installation that may constitute hazards in terms of aircraft operations. Under provisions of the statute, prohibited or restricted land uses include airborne releases of substances that impair visibility, light emissions that interfere with pilot vision, activities that attract birds or waterfowl, and structures located within 10 feet of aircraft approach or departure surfaces. Minimal residential development is allowed and is limited to single- JULY 2006 4-18 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE family use on lots of one acre or more. The statute does not require that local political jurisdictions enact an ordinance enforcing these provisions. Florida Florida has several statutes related to land use compatibility around military installations. • Under §163.3175, local governments in which a military installation is located must transmit to the installation commander for review and comment, information related to any change in comprehensive plans, plan amendments and proposed changes to land development regulations that would affect the intensity, density or use of land adjacent to or in close proximity to the installation. • All city or county future land use plan elements must consider compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or in close proximity to military installations and must include criteria to be used to achieve the compatibility of these lands. The state land planning agency also must consider land use compatibility issues adjacent or in close proximity to military installations in coordination with the Department of Defense. • The state has created a Defense Infrastructure Grant Program to be implemented by the Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic Development. The program is intended to provide grants that support local infrastructure projects deemed to have a positive impact on the military value of installations within the state. Projects that can be funded include those related to encroachment as well as transportation and access, utilities, communications, housing, environment and security. There is no limit on the amount of a grant, although local matching funds may be required. • The State of Florida currently operates the largest and most aggressive land acquisition program in the nation, with $300 million allocated annually to purchase environmentally sensitive lands through the Florida Forever program. The Florida Forever program, enacted by the Florida Forever Act, provides for land acquisition to protect environmentally significant lands, protect ground and surface water, provide high quality recreational opportunities in urban areas, and help local governments implement their comprehensive plans. As JULY 2006 4-19 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE part of the Florida Forever program, the Florida Department of Community Affairs assists in identifying and coordinating land acquisition opportunities that meet the goals of the Florida Forever Act and work to protect existing military bases. Colorado The Colorado Land Use Act (Colorado Revised Statutes Title 24, Article 65) encourages local governments to designate “areas and activities of State interest” which include “areas around key facilities in which development may have a material effect upon the key facility or the surrounding community.” The act defines the term “key facility” to include airports or major public utility facilities, such as central office buildings of telephone facilities, power plants, natural gas storage areas, etc. The following provisions of the Act [Part 2; §65-202, (4)] apply to areas around key facilities: • If the operation of a key facility may cause a danger to public health and safety or to property, as determined by local government, the area around the key facility shall be designated and administered so as to minimize such danger; and • Areas around key facilities shall be developed in a manner that will discourage traffic congestion, incompatible uses, and expansion of the demand for government services beyond the reasonable capacity of the community or region to provide such services as determined by local government. Compatibility with non-motorized traffic shall be encouraged. A development that imposes burdens or deprivation on the communities of a region cannot be justified on the basis of local benefit alone. In addition, the following provisions are applicable to areas around particular airports: • Areas around airports shall be administered so as to: • Encourage land use patterns for housing and other local government needs that will separate uncontrollable noise sources from residential and other noise-sensitive areas; and • Avoid danger to public safety and health or to property due to aircraft crashes. JULY 2006 4-20 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE North Carolina Under §153A-323 and §160A-364 of the General Statues, counties and cities in North Carolina must notify a military base commander of any adoption or modification of an ordinance that would result in changes to the zoning map or would change or affect the permitted uses of land within five miles or less from the perimeter boundary of the base. If the military provides comments or analysis concerning the compatibility of the proposed ordinance or amendment with military operations at the base, the respective county board of commissioners or city council must take the comments or analysis into consideration before making a final determination on the ordinance. In its 2004 session, the North Carolina General Assembly authorized the issuance of bonds to acquire up to 17,000 acres (conservation easement or fee simple) near the state’s military bases to prevent encroachment by incompatible development. In the same session, the General Assembly created a Study Commission on Residential and Urban Development Encroachment on Military Bases and Training Areas. This commission was charged with submitting a report to the General Assembly in 2005, after studying the restriction of zoning in areas around installations; the effect of encroachment on deed registration; purchase of development rights and buffers around military installations; and other issues the Commission would deem relevant. Illinois In April 2005, Governor Rod Blagojevich issued an Executive Order on Land-Use Planning and Military Installation Compatibility (Executive Order 2005-4). This requires that all state agencies involved with land use planning to ensure that development is compatible with or enhances the military value of the state’s installations, and in addition encourages local governments to consider the impact of new growth on installations when preparing zoning ordinances or designating land uses. Texas In 2003, the Texas Military Preparedness Commission (TMPC) was created to take the place of the Office of Defense Affairs and the Texas Strategic Military Planning Commission both of which were created in 1997. The new Commission, under the Governor's Office, contains nine members appointed by the JULY 2006 4-2 1 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE Governor, with appropriate staff, and its mission is to develop a pro-active statewide strategy to assist defense dependent communities. The Office of the TMPC develops and publishes an Annual Master Plan Report, which identifies objective and recommendations for maintaining and enhancing the military preparedness of the state and its military installations, and in addition sets strategies for attracting and retaining military missions in the state. The Office of the TMPC also administers the Texas Military Value Revolving Loan Fund. Established in 2003, funding for the Fund is provided through issuance by the state of up to $250 million in general obligation bonds. Loans may be made available to local governments for economic development projects that enhance the military value of their installations. The application process includes preparation by the local government of a Military Value Enhancement Statement (MVES) that identifies how the proposed project will enhance the military value of the installation. Loans may also be provided to local governments to develop a Comprehensive Defense Installation and Community Strategic Impact Plan that states the community’s long-range goals and development proposals related to controlling negative effects of future growth and minimizing encroachment; enhancing military value while reducing operating costs, and; identifying property and services that can be shared by the installation and the community.7 State statutes (§397.005 of the Local Government Code) also require that if a county, municipality or special district that is adjacent to, is near, or encompasses any part of a military installation, determines that an ordinance, rule or plan proposed by the jurisdiction may impact the installation or its operations, the jurisdiction is required to seek comments from installation authorities before making a final determination on the proposal. 7 Additional information about the content of the Comprehensive Defense Installation and Community Strategic Impact Plan may be found in §397.003 of the State of Texas Local Government Code (see http://www.state.tx.us/) JULY 2006 4-22 ARIZONA MILITARY REGIONAL COMPATIBILIITY PROJECT POLICY GUIDEBOOK CHAPTER 5. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AND ISSUES Growth trends and increased tempo of development around military installations can generate demand for new housing and related facilities, thereby creating issues of compatibility that |