Arizona Military Regional Compatibility Project

              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