Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan 

for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity 

June 2005 
Installation Environmental 

Noise Management Plan 

Prepared for: 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity 

Boerne, Texas 

June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Executive Summary 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

OVERVIEW 

The Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan (IENMP) provides a strategy for 

noise management at Camp Stanley Storage Activity (CSSA). Elements of the IENMP 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 

analyzing exposure to noise and safety hazards associated with military operations and provides 

land use guidelines for achieving compatibility between the Army and the surrounding 

communities. The Army has an obligation to United States citizens to recommend uses of land 

around its installations that will: (a) protect citizens from noise and other hazards; and (b) protect 

the public’s investment in the installation. 

The noise impact on the community is translated into noise zones. The program defines 

three noise zones. Zone I is compatible with most noise-sensitive land uses. Zone II is normally 

incompatible with noise-sensitive land uses. Zone III is incompatible with noise-sensitive land 

uses. 

CONCLUSIONS 

CSSA will continue with its IENMP program to reduce the potential of incompatible land 

uses around its facilities severely impacting its mission. As a minimum, county and municipal 

governments are encouraged to support public disclosure of noise zones and noise easements. 

Noise modeling results indicate that no incompatible land uses are expected to occur as a 

result of training activities at CSSA. The incompatible (Zone III) and normally incompatible 

(Zone II) noise zones are contained within the boundaries of CSSA and Camp Bullis. However, 

the noise contours represent an annual average, and because the noise environment at CSSA varies 

daily and seasonally, heightened daily operations may still result in noise levels that generate 

inquiries from area citizens. Consequently, even though the noise contours do not fall outside the 

CSSA and Camp Bullis boundary, people living near CSSA could complain about the noise 

environment. Noise sensitive land uses, including residential, do occur within the one-mile zone of 

influence surrounding CSSA. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

CSSA can only make recommendations for compatible land uses. This Plan’s findings 

indicate that actions are appropriate to guide future development of the adjacent properties. 

General and specific recommendations for CSSA and the local jurisdictions are provided in Section 

Five. 

ES-1 June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................ES-1

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1-1 

1.1 History of the Noise Controversy..................................................................................1-1 

1.2 The Threat to Military Installations...............................................................................1-2 

1.3 Contending With the Threat ..........................................................................................1-3 

1.4 Army’s Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan.......................................1-4 

1.5 Stages of the Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan Process .................1-4 

1.6 Purpose ..........................................................................................................................1-5 

1.7 Objectives......................................................................................................................1-5 

1.8 Content ..........................................................................................................................1-6 

SECTION 2 CAMP STANLEY STORAGE ACTIVITY AND 

THE COMMUNITY .......................................................................................2-1 

2.1 Camp Stanley Storage Activity .....................................................................................2-1 

2.1.1 Physical Description................................................................................................2-1 

2.1.2 History .....................................................................................................................2-1 

2.1.3 Installation Command .............................................................................................2-2 

2.1.4 Mission ....................................................................................................................2-2 

2.1.5 Training ...................................................................................................................2-2 

2.2 The Civilian Community...............................................................................................2-5 

2.2.1 Population................................................................................................................2-5 

2.2.2 Employment ............................................................................................................2-6

2.2.3 Income .....................................................................................................................2-6 

2.3 Economic Impact...........................................................................................................2-9 

2.4 Installation-Civilian Community Relationships............................................................2-9 

2.5 Summary......................................................................................................................2-10 

SECTION 3 FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAND USE POLICY 

AND CONTROL .............................................................................................3-1 

3.1 Federal ...........................................................................................................................3-1 

3.2 State ...............................................................................................................................3-1 

3.3 Local/Regional ..............................................................................................................3-1 

3.4 Other Planning Tools.....................................................................................................3-1 

3.5 Army Policy and its Application at Camp Stanley Storage Activity ............................3-3 

3.6 Land Use Planning Determinants..................................................................................3-3 

i June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Table of Contents Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

3.7 Land Use Compatibility................................................................................................ 3-4 

3.8 Environmental Justice................................................................................................... 3-4

SECTION 4 THE INSTALLATION ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE 

MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................................................ 4-1 

4.1 Education/Awareness.................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.2 Noise Complaint Management ..................................................................................... 4-1 

4.3 Noise Complaint Procedure .......................................................................................... 4-2 

4.4 Installation Compatible Use Zone ................................................................................ 4-3 

4.4.1 Noise Zones ............................................................................................................ 4-3 

4.4.2 Land Use Guidelines............................................................................................... 4-5 

4.4.3 Community Reaction to Noise................................................................................ 4-5 

4.4.4 Noise Environment at Camp Stanley Storage Activity .......................................... 4-6 

4.4.5 Camp Stanley Storage Activity’s Future Noise Environment .............................. 4-12 

4.4.6 Current Land Use.................................................................................................. 4-12 

4.4.7 Future Development.............................................................................................. 4-21 

4.4.8 Effects of Current Noise on Surrounding Communities....................................... 4-22 

4.4.9 Land ...................................................................................................................... 4-25 

4.5 Noise Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 4-25 

4.6 Annoyance From Noise .............................................................................................. 4-26 

4.7 Other ........................................................................................................................... 4-28 

4.8 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 4-28 

SECTION 5 ARMY AND COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITIES................................... 5-1 

5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.2 Land Use Guidelines..................................................................................................... 5-1

5.3 Army Responsibilities................................................................................................... 5-1

5.4 Responsibility for Participation with Local Communities ........................................... 5-1 

5.5 Civilian Community Responsibilities........................................................................... 5-2 

5.6 Recommendations......................................................................................................... 5-3

SECTION 6 REFERENCES................................................................................................ 6-1

June 2005 ii 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Table of Contents 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A Noise Contour Operational Data 

Appendix B Description of the Noise Environment, Noise Evaluations, and Noise 

Contouring Procedures 

Appendix C Record of Community Involvement 

Appendix D Guidelines for Compatible Land use 

Appendix E Community Involvement 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2.1 Vicinity Map......................................................................................................... 2-3 

Figure 2.2 Training Areas Map..............................................................................................2-7 

Figure 4.1 Zone of Influence .................................................................................................4-7 

Figure 4.2 Existing Small Arms ADNL Noise Contours ...................................................... 4-9 

Figure 4.3 Small Arms Range Peak Contours ..................................................................... 4-13 

Figure 4.4 100m Tunnel Peak Contours .............................................................................. 4-15 

Figure 4.5 East Pasture Grenades/Laws Peak Contours ......................................................4-17 

Figure 4.6 Future Small Arms ADNL Noise Contours ....................................................... 4-19 

Figure 4.7 Current Land Use ...............................................................................................4-23 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2.1 Historic and Estimated Population ....................................................................... 2-6 

Table 2.2 Civilian Labor Force.............................................................................................2-6 

Table 2.3 Average Household Income ($)............................................................................ 2-9 

Table 2.4 San Antonio MSA Employment by Sector, 2000 ................................................ 2-9 

Table 4.1 Noise Levels used to Define Noise Zones............................................................4-4 

Table 4.2 Noise Contour Areas for Zones II and III ..........................................................4-12 

Table 4.3 Percentage of Population Highly Annoyed from Small Arms Range Noise...... 4-27 

Table 4.4 Predicted LAmaxt for M-16 (5.56 mm) Rifle ....................................................... 4-28 

Table A.1 Existing Outdoor Weapons Firing Data .............................................................. A-1 

Table A.2 Future Outdoor Weapons Firing Data ................................................................. A-2 

Table B.1 Typical Building Construction NLR Values (U.S. Army 1978)......................... B-6 

Table D.1 Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control .............. D-1 

Table E.1 How Various Factors May Affect Selection of Community Involvement Tech..E-5 

Table E.2 Examples of Community Involvement Objectives...............................................E-8 

iii June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AACOG Alamo Area Council of Governments 

ADNL A-weighted day-night average sound level 

AICUZ Air Installation Compatible Use Zone 

AL A-weighted sound level 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

APZ Accident potential zone 

AR Army regulation 

ARNG Army National Guard 

CSSA Camp Stanley Storage Activity 

CHABA National Academy of Sciences Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, 

and Biomechanics 

CL C-weighted sound level 

COG Council of government 

DA Department of the Army 

dB Decibel 

dBA Decibel, A-weighted 

dBC Decibel, C-weighted 

dBP Decibel, unweighted peak 

DNL Day-night average sound level 

DoD Department of Defense 

DoDI Department of Defense instruction 

DoDD DoD directive 

DNMRL Onset rate adjusted monthly day-night level 

EA Environmental assessment 

EIS Environmental impact statement 

EJ Environmental justice 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FICUN Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise 

FW Fixed wing aircraft 

GIS Geographic information system 

Hz Hertz 

ICUZ Installation compatible use zone 

IENMP Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan 

IH Interstate highway 

JLUS Joint land use study 

LAW Light anti-tank weapon 

LAmaxf A-weighted fast time integrated maximum level 

LEQ Equivalent sound level 

MOU Memorandum of understanding 

MSA Metropolitan statistical area 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NLR Noise level reduction 

NOE Nap of the earth 

NZ Noise zone 

OEA Office of Economic Adjustment 

PAO Public affairs officer 

PL Public law 

psi Pounds per square inch 

RRAD Red River Army Depot 

SARNAM Small Arms Range Noise Assessment Model 

SJA Staff Judge Advocate 

SLUCM Standard Land Use Coding Manual 

v June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Acronyms and Abbreviations Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

TOC Technical oversight committee 

TRACS Texas Review and Comment System 

USACERL U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories 

USAEHA U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ZOI Zone of influence 

June 2005 vi 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 1 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Introduction 

SECTION 1 

INTRODUCTION 

One of the goals of the Department of the Army (DA) is to plan, initiate, and carry out 

actions and programs designed to minimize adverse impacts upon the quality of the human 

environment without impairing the Army’s mission. In keeping with this goal, the Army 

established an Installation Environmental Noise Management Program (IENMP) as the framework 

for the control of noise produced by Army activities since noise has been determined by the United 

States Congress, as recorded in the Noise Control Act of 1972, to “...present danger to the health 

and welfare of this Nation’s population.” (Public Law [PL] 92-574 1972). The primary strategy for 

noise management is the IENMP, of which the Installation Compatible Use Zone (ICUZ) program 

is a portion. 

1.1 HISTORY OF THE NOISE CONTROVERSY 

The advent of jet aircraft in the 1950s resulted in significantly greater noise levels around 

commercial airports that led to an intense outcry from the public. This public outcry caused 

Congress to revise the Federal Aid to Airports Act to make federal aid contingent upon 

implementation of programs to resolve noise problems with surrounding neighborhoods. 

Subsequently, Congress passed the Noise Control Act of 1972 and the Quiet Communities Act of 

1978. Under these laws, airports carried out noise control measures such as: outright purchase of 

adjoining land, working with local communities to ensure zoning which would permit only 

compatible uses, development of procedures for including noise information in the consumer 

disclosure documents provided when real estate is sold, altering run-up procedures and locations, 

and changing approach and takeoff patterns. At the present time, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) has specific requirements for community involvement in all airport 

planning. 

The Federal Aid to Airports Act exempted military aircraft, as did portions of the Noise 

Control Act of 1972. However, the Noise Control Act and the Quiet Communities Act did contain 

language outlining the responsibilities of Federal agencies in protecting the public from 

unreasonable noise impacts. Specifically these laws state that: 

“Federal agencies shall, to the fullest extent consistent with their authority under 

federal laws administered by them, carry out the programs within their control in 

such a manner as to.... promote an environment for all Americans free from noise 

that jeopardizes their health and welfare.” 

To comply with the intent of Congress, the Department of Defense (DoD) provided guidance 

to the military departments regarding the compatible use of public and private lands in the vicinity 

of military airfields. This DoD instruction (DoDI 1977): 

• Defined restrictions on the uses and heights of natural and man made objects in 

the vicinity of air installations; 

1-1 June 2005 
Section 1 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Introduction Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

• Defined restrictions on land use in the vicinity of air installations to assure 

compatibility with the characteristics, including noise of military operations; and 

• Provided policy as to the extent of the United States Government’s interest in 

retaining or acquiring real property to protect the operational capability of active 

military airfields. 

As a matter of general policy, the military departments were instructed to work toward 

achieving compatibility between air installations and the neighboring civilian communities through 

a compatible land use planning and control process conducted by the local civilian community. 

Based upon the DoD guidance, DA developed its Installation Environmental Noise 

Management Program that considers noise from all sources of military activities, not just military 

airfields. The Army’s program is designed to (U.S. Army 1997): 

• Control environmental noise to protect the health and welfare of military 

personnel and their dependents, Army civilian employees, and members of the 

public on lands adjacent to Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard 

installations; and 

• Reduce community annoyance from environmental noise, to the extent feasible, 

consistent with Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard training and 

materiel testing activities.

1.2 THE THREAT TO MILITARY INSTALLATIONS 

Military installations tend to attract activity from the civilian sector. For example, sizeable 

new communities may grow up near an installation or existing communities may expand toward or 

around an installation’s boundaries. This growth process can place severe limitations upon the 

ability of a military installation to support training and maintain an adequate level of readiness for 

assigned units. As noise impacts from military activities increase upon the civilian communities, 

both litigation and/or political pressures that could result in degradation of the installation’s 

mission also increase. Not only does the number of complaints to installation commanders 

increase dramatically, but so do the number of complaints to members of Congress. 

A consequence of adverse public reaction to military operations is the closing of some 

military installations and the placement of limitations of operations of others. One of the best 

examples of the degradation of mission performance due to urbanization occurred at the Naval Air 

Station (NAS), Los Alamitos, CA. When originally established during World War II, this NAS 

was in a rural area. With the postwar expansion of southern California, Los Alamitos NAS was 

eventually surrounded by homes, and the Navy could no longer routinely fly jet aircraft into this 

property. Today, the airfield serves the needs of the California Army National Guard (ARNG) and 

the Army Reserve, which compared to the Navy, operates relatively few noisy flights. 

In the Army’s case, as an example, the size of the explosives used in Combat Engineer field 

training at Fort Belvoir, VA, was restricted severely making it necessary to move a portion of the 

training to a less urbanized area at Fort A.P. Hill, VA and Fort Leonard Wood, MO. In yet another 

June 2005 1-2 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 1 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Introduction 

case, limitations were placed upon the types of weapons that could be fired at Fort Dix, NJ, as well 

as the times the weapons could be fired (U.S. Army undated). In both of these cases, the 

limitations upon operational activities degraded the installations’ capability to support essential 

training, and forced the movement of the training missions to other installations. 

More recently the Senior Readiness Oversight Council, chaired by the Under Secretary of 

Defense made the following conclusions. 

• “Encroachment on DoD ranges and training areas is a serious and growing 

challenge to the readiness of United States Armed Forces.” 

• Encroachment issues are many, are complex, and involve multiple federal, state 

and local agencies, as well as Congress and the public.” 

• Further, the impact of encroachment is broad—affecting our ability to execute 

realistic air, ground, and naval training across the nation, as well as beyond its 

borders.” 

• “The Department of Defense needs a comprehensive and coordinated approach to 

addressing encroachment issues. The approach should include an outreach 

strategy to increase public awareness of how essential, realistic and effective 

training is to the readiness of United States Armed Forces.” 

1.3 CONTENDING WITH THE THREAT 

The consequences of ignoring the conflicts between noise generated on military installations 

and the desires of the civilian community regarding use of the land surrounding these installations 

can be grave. If the military fails to respond to the concerns of the civilian community, the ill will 

produced by such an approach is quite likely to result in unwillingness within the civilian 

community to work with the military to regulate land use. This community ill will can result in 

political pressure or lawsuits that force unilateral concessions on the part of the military without 

any reciprocal concessions from the community. 

To prevent the conflicts between military operations and civilian land use from reaching 

significant proportions, the Army must work with the local communities to prevent incompatible 

land use from occurring and to take reasonable steps on the installation to protect the community 

from noise. Since the regulation of land use on adjoining land is the authority of local 

communities, the military cannot solve these problems unilaterally. Rather, the military must work 

with local communities to establish the controls that will prevent noise problems from growing 

even larger. 

1-3 June 2005 
Section 1 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Introduction Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

1.4 ARMY’S INSTALLATION ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The primary strategies for protecting the mission of military installations from the problems 

of noise incompatibility are long-range land use planning and being a responsible neighbor to 

surrounding communities. The IENMP addresses these issues in a proactive manner. 

The ICUZ program is an element of the IENMP. This element assesses the compatibility of 

the noise environment with the land uses. 

The other elements of the IENMP, include education of both the military and civilian 

community, management of noise complaints, mitigation of the noise and vibration, and noise 

abatement procedures. These elements are integral to meeting a goal of being a responsible 

neighbor to the communities surrounding CSSA. 

1.5 STAGES OF THE INSTALLATION ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE 

MANAGEMENT PLAN PROCESS 

Stage 1: Quantify the installation’s noise environment. 

The primary means of assessing environmental noise is through computer simulations. 

Computer generated noise contours can be placed on installation land use maps. This information 

can be incorporated into the installation master plan and used for National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) (Public Law [PL] 91-190, 1970) documentation. Appendix B contains a detailed 

discussion of noise modeling. 

Stage 2: Identify noise-impacted areas. 

During this stage, noise contours are overlaid on maps to determine areas that are currently 

or potentially impacted by installation noise-producing activities. 

Stage 3: Identify existing and potential incompatible land uses. 

Using the noise contour overlays, current and future land uses are examined to identify those 

land areas that are or will be incompatible. This stage requires coordination between the 

installation and the civilian communities. 

Stage 4: Identify alternative actions to mitigate/minimize noise impacts. 

This stage generates a wide range of alternative actions that could be taken by the installation 

or the community to minimize noise impacts. Like stage 3, these actions also require coordination 

between the installation and the civilian communities. 

Stage 5: Evaluate alternative actions. 

The impact of the various alternatives identified must be evaluated. 

June 2005 1-4 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 1 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Introduction 

Stage 6: If applicable to study recommendations, develop agreements with local 

communities and agencies. 

Good-faith efforts should be made to negotiate agreements with local communities and 

agencies that affect or will be affected by the commitments made as a result of the IENMP. 

Stage 7: Submit agreements for review by decision-makers. 

The installation commander and the elected bodies or decision-makers within the affected 

civilian communities must ratify all agreements. 

Stage 8: Publish final IENMP and implement agreements. 

The final IENMP must be made available to the public and contain all elements of the 

process, including agreement reached. It is at this stage that agreements should begin to be 

implemented. Expectations regarding timing and sequencing of implementing actions should be 

defined, so that disagreements do not arise.

Stage 9: Update and review. 

Procedures should be established to monitor the agreements and to determine effectiveness 

of actions taken. Agreements need occasional maintenance. Established procedures for 

monitoring the agreement are essential to ensure that problems are identified and solved in a 

cooperative manner. This stage is essential in examining the impact of changes in Army training 

doctrine and modern weapons technology. 

1.6 PURPOSE 

The Camp Stanley Storage Activity IENMP assesses the noise environment and provides a 

plan to manage this environment through land use planning and by being a responsible neighbor. 

1.7 OBJECTIVES 

The objectives of the IENMP are to: 

• Educate the military and civilian communities and improve communications 

between the two; 

• Manage noise complaints so that the potential for conflict between CSSA and the 

surrounding communities is reduced; 

• Assess the compatibility of the noise environment with existing and proposed 

land uses; 

• Mitigate the noise and vibration environments, where feasible, to increase land 

use compatibility; and 

• Use noise abatement procedures. 

1-5 June 2005 
Section 1 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Introduction Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

1.8 CONTENT 

This IENMP consists of a discussion and analysis of CSSA and the surrounding communities 

and the relationships between them. This IENMP presents the concept, policies, and 

methodologies, and analyzes the effect of CSSA noise, describes the responsibilities of the Army 

and the communities, and provides recommendations for both the Army and the communities. 

June 2005 1-6 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 2 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas CSSA and the Community 

SECTION 2 

CAMP STANLEY STORAGE ACTIVITY AND THE COMMUNITY 

This section examines the relationships between CSSA and the surrounding civilian 

communities in terms of the histories, populations, activities and needs of what are, in reality, parts 

of an integrated system rather than separate, independent entities. Since there are few areas in 

which CSSA and the communities do not depend upon each other, it is important to understand the 

nature of the mutual interests and concerns which form the basis for both present and future 

civilian and military cooperative efforts. 

CSSA is located approximately 19 miles from downtown San Antonio in south-central Texas 

(Figure 2.1). CSSA is approximately three miles north of the San Antonio city limits. The City of 

Fair Oaks Ranch abuts the northwestern boundary of the installation. The installation’s eastern 

boundary and parts of its northern and portions of the southern boundaries are contiguous with the 

Camp Bullis Military Training Reservation. The Leon Springs Villa and Hidden Springs Estates 

are adjacent to the remaining portions of the southern boundary. The CSSA is located entirely in 

northwestern Bexar County, however Kendall and Comal Counties are both located a few miles to 

the north. The installation is located along State Highway FM 3351, less than a mile east of 

Interstate Highway (IH)-10. Dietz Elkhorn/Old County road runs along the northern border of the 

installation. 

2.1 CAMP STANLEY STORAGE ACTIVITY 

2.1.1 Physical Description 

CSSA consists of 4,004 acres of varying terrain. The boundary of CSSA is generally 

rectangular with approximately 3 miles north to south and 2 miles east to west. The land is a 

rolling terrain of hills and valleys with a topographic relief of 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet above sea 

level. Several springs and intermittent creeks are present. 

2.1.2 History 

In the early 1900s, the land on which CSSA is located was primarily used by settlers for 

farming and ranching. In 1906 and 1907, six tracts of land were purchased and designated Leon 

Springs Military Reservation. One of these tracts included most of the southern portion of CSSA. 

Over the next several years, the Leon Springs Military Reservation was used for maneuvers 

by Army and National Guard units. The Third Brigade of the Maneuver Division was 

headquartered at Camp Stanley in 1911. In 1917, a remount station was established (southwest 

corner of present-day CSSA) which served to process and maintain horses purchased for use by the 

mounted arms of the service. In 1917, the reservation was named Camp Stanley in honor of the 

former commander of the Department of Texas. From 1917 to 1919, field artillery brigades, trench 

mortar batteries, quartermaster battalions, cavalry regiments, and United States guard battalions 

were housed at Camp Stanley. 

2-1 June 2005 
Section 2 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

CSSA and the Community Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

In 1920, a section of the present-day cantonment area at the north end of the Camp was 

turned over to the ordnance section of the San Antonio General Intermediate Depot. The ordnance 

department made plans in 1925 to construct a storage area for a 2-year supply of ammunition and 

components for all combatant troops in the Eighth Corps area. In 1933, a 1,270-acre tract was 

transferred to the chief of ordnance for the San Antonio Arsenal and an additional 490 acres was 

transferred to Camp Stanley in 1937. 

In preparation to enter World War II, Camp Bullis acquired several tracts of land to support 

mobilization and training of Army ground forces. A moving-target antitank range and fortified 

area to familiarize soldiers with combat areas were designed and constructed. These tracts of land 

were later assigned to Camp Stanley and are presently located in the southeastern section of the 

camp. 

Camp Stanley became part of the Red River Arsenal as CSSA in 1949. In addition to 

ammunitions storage, the installation had responsibility to test and overhaul ammunition 

components. In 1953, approximately 2,040 acres were transferred from Camp Bullis to CSSA. An 

additional 204 acres were assigned to CSSA in 1970 to bring total acreage to its current 4,004 

acres. 

2.1.3 Installation Command 

CSSA is a sub-installation of the U.S. Army Material Command’s Red River Army Depot 

(RRAD), located in Texarkana, Texas. The CSSA and the adjacent Camp Bullis, a sub-installation 

of Fort Sam Houston (approximately 28,000 square acres), make up a large tract of DoD property 

formerly referred to as the Leon Springs Military Reservation. Camp Bullis functions and 

activities include firing ranges, maneuver areas for Army, Air Force, and Marine combat units, and 

field training of the various medical units from Brooke Army Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston. 

 The Public Affairs Officer (PAO) from Fort Sam Houston supports the CSSA Installation 

Manager in responding to inquiries from the public related to noise. 

2.1.4 Mission 

The primary mission of CSSA is receipt, storage, and issuance of ordnance material as well 

as quality assurance testing of military weapons and ammunition. A secondary mission, weapons 

training and qualifying also occurs at CSSA. 

2.1.5 Training 

At CSSA, training occurs year around. This training generates noise that may impact the 

citizens who live in the surrounding communities. A goal of the IENMP is to achieve a 

harmonious relationship between the soldiers who live and train at CSSA and those who live and 

work in the surrounding communities. 

June 2005 2-2 
San Antonio

Bexar County

Camp Stanley

Storage Activity

Medina County

Atacosa County

Wilson County

Bandera County

Comal County

Kendall County

Guadalupe County

I-H 10

H 10

Loop 1604 Loop 1604

US HWY 87EUS HWY 87E

U

S

H

WY 281 U

S

H

WY 281

IH-35

Bexar County

Figure 2.1

Vicinity Map

Camp Stanley Storage Activity

0 50100 200

Miles

J:\CSSA\environmental_files\gisdata\mxd\cssa_site_location.mxd

0 4.5 9 18

Miles

PARSONS
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 2 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas CSSA and the Community 

CSSA is too small to support large scale weapons training or large scale maneuvers. The 

current major noise sources at CSSA are associated with small arms ranges in the East Pasture 

(Figure 2.2). All of the small arms activity in Building 90 and Building 44 occurs in an indoor 

environment that is significantly insulated from the outdoors. The predominant outdoor noise 

sources are the activities from the East Pasture Small Arms Range and the Rifle Tunnel, as well as 

the grenades and light anti-tank weapons (LAW) firing areas. 

The geophysical characteristics of a site influence the outdoor sound propagation from 

mission activities. The physical environment of the East Pasture consists of varying topography 

and vegetative cover, with flatlands and sporadic vegetation comprising the majority of the area. 

Trees and shrubs are predominantly found along the eastern boundary of the East Pasture and are 

sparsely scattered along the southern and western portions of the East Pasture. The northern 

portion of the East Pasture is predominantly small growth vegetation with trees lining the northern 

boundary. The eastern boundary of the East Pasture is shared with Camp Bullis. The current 

training facilities are located on the western portion of the East Pasture. The area is generally flat 

with some gently sloping hills. 

The firing operations within the East Pasture Range utilize small arms ammunition including 

7.62 millimeter (mm), 9 mm, 45 caliber, and 5.56 mm, as well as grenades, and LAWs used during 

testing and training activities. Operational data for the East Pasture outdoor training areas include 

events which use the range rifle tunnel, the covered small arms range, and the grenades/LAWs 

firing areas. The tunnel is assumed to have no acoustic attenuation because firing points for the 

tunnel are actually not enclosed. 

2.2 THE CIVILIAN COMMUNITY 

CSSA lies solely in Bexar County and adjacent to Comal and Kendall Counties. The cities, 

towns, and communities in the vicinity that should be most concerned with a CSSA IENMP are 

Fair Oaks Ranch, San Antonio, Leon Springs, and a nearby subdivision, Hidden Springs. These 

cities/towns/communities are adjacent to the installation. The area of socioeconomic impact, 

influenced by CSSA, consists of Bexar, Comal, and Kendall Counties. 

The San Antonio area has a long history of significant military presence. Camp Bullis, 

CSSA, and the other major military installations within Bexar County have had a measurable 

impact upon the overall population and employment levels within the counties, and the cities, 

towns and communities within those counties. This installation-community relationship results in 

a number of positive tangible and intangible impacts and mutual benefits. 

2.2.1 Population 

The City of San Antonio comprises a significant portion of Bexar County and is the major 

population center in the CSSA area. The adjacent counties of Comal and Kendall are more rural in 

nature and do not contain large population centers. Population of the three counties between 

1990 and 2003 (estimated) is shown in Table 2.1. The IH-10 corridor northwest of San Antonio is 

one of the highest residential growth corridors in the San Antonio Metropolitan Statistical Area 

2-5 June 2005 
Section 2 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

CSSA and the Community Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

(MSA). Based on the 2003 estimated population, the three-county area experienced an overall 

population increase of 27 percent between 1990 and 2003. 

Table 2.1 Historic and Estimated Population 

Area 1990 2000 2003 estimate 

Bexar County 1,185,394 1,392,931 1,471,644 

Comal County 51,832 78,021 87,785 

Kendall County 14,589 23,743 26,178 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 

The San Antonio MSA is composed of eight counties in the San Antonio vicinity: Atascosa, 

Bandera, Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, Kendall, Medina, and Wilson. The 2000 population of the 

San Antonio MSA was 1,711,703 according to the U.S. Census Bureau, with an estimated 

2003 population of 1,829,388. 

2.2.2 Employment 

Employment is a primary factor in analyzing the economic health of a community since 

comparison of trends reveals strengths and weaknesses and offers direction for actions designed to 

promote the strengths and to overcome the weaknesses. As shown in Table 2.2, the total labor 

force in the three-county area increased significantly during the 10-year period from 1990 to 2000. 

Table 2.2 Civilian Labor Force 

Area 1990 2000 

Bexar County 497,202 595,911 

Comal County 23,199 36,319 

Kendall County 6,851 10,902 

527,152 633,122 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 

Within the three-county area, the overall unemployment rate has shown a downward trend 

during the past 10 years. This overall unemployment trend ranged from a high of 8.4 percent in 

1980 to 5.7 percent in 2000. In 2000, the overall unemployment was 5.8 percent for the United 

States and 6.1 percent for Texas. 

2.2.3 Income 

The income within a community, whether it is measured on a per capita or per family basis, 

provides another indicator of the community’s economic health. Table 2.3 provides data regarding 

household income within the three-county area. Fair Oaks Ranch, located directly adjacent to 

CSSA, is a very affluent community with an average household income of $176,981 in 2003. 

June 2005 2-6 
Ralph Fair Rd. (FM 3351)

Camp Stanley

Camp Bullis

Camp Bullis

Camp Stanley Interstate 10

Fair Oaks Ranch

Leon Springs

J:\CSSA\environmental_files\gisdata\mxd\cssa_ENMP_training_area.mxd

0 2,000 4,000 1,000

Feet

Ralph Fair Rd. (FM 3351)

Camp Stanley

Camp Bullis

Camp Bullis

Camp Stanley Interstate 10

Fair Oaks Ranch

Leon Springs

Figure 2.2

Testing and Training Areas

Parsons

Legend

CSSA Boundary

Camp Bullis Boundary

Active Training/Testing

Proposed Training/Testing

B-708 Baffled Range

B-703 Pistol Range

B-705 Tunnel

B-704 Test Facility

B-706 Long Range

B-707 Shoot House

B-709 Test Facility

Inset A

See Inset A

Camp Stanley Storage Activity
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 2 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas CSSA and the Community 

Table 2.3 Average Household Income ($) 

Area 1989 1999 

Bexar County 32,429 49,021 

Comal County 33,741 54,177 

Kendall County 32,758 60,186 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 

The workforce within the San Antonio MSA is heavily skewed toward white-collar 

occupations. The 2000 census data on workforce composition is reproduced in Table 2.4. 

Table 2.4 San Antonio MSA Employment by Sector, 2000 

Sector Employees Percentage 

Management, professional, and related 224,793 32.7 

Service 107,973 15.7 

Sales and office 203,006 29.6 

Farming, fishing, and forestry 1,596 0.2 

Construction, extraction, and maintenance 73,041 10.6 

Production, transportation, and material moving 76,605 11.2 

Total 687,014 100 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 

2.3 ECONOMIC IMPACT 

In addition to CSSA and Camp Bullis, four major military installations are located in Bexar 

County. These include Fort Sam Houston, Randolph Air Force Base, Lackland Air Force Base, 

and Brooks-City Base. The operations of these military installations, including CSSA, generate 

substantial revenues to local economies through wage and salary payments to military and civilian 

employees, construction contractor payments, and operating costs such as rent and lease payments 

for various types of equipment, utilities, telephone, office supplies, and non-construction contracts. 

The combined military employment in Bexar County is over 70,000 military and civilian 

employees which provide a direct economic impact through payroll and purchases of just under 

$5 billion dollars (San Antonio Chamber of Commerce 2001). 

2.4 INSTALLATION-CIVILIAN COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS 

Residents and military personnel in the San Antonio area have a long history of working 

together for mutual benefit. Local communities have taken a proactive approach regarding 

involvement in CSSA plans and community impacted processes. A Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) 

was completed for Camp Bullis in 1995. This study, which was conducted under the leadership of 

the Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG), explored the powers that local government 

has in regulating land use around Camp Bullis. Additionally, a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) between the major DoD installations in the San Antonio area and the AACOG states that 

both “the DoD installations and the AACOG are interested in consistency and compatibility of all 

Federal, state, and local plans, programs, and projects in the twelve county AACOG region.” 

2-9 June 2005 
Section 2 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

CSSA and the Community Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

There is an agreement, consistent with military requirements, that any plans, programs, and 

projects of a DoD installation which may affect the plans, programs, and/or projects of other 

Federal, state, local, or regional agencies in this twelve county area will be submitted to the 

AACOG for review. 

2.5 SUMMARY 

The CSSA IENMP has been developed for the specific purpose of aiding military and 

civilian officials and planners in the creation of land use plans and policies that promote 

compatibility between the needs of the civilian sector and CSSA’s mission requirements. The 

concept, program, and methodology behind the Army’s program that provides for reports of this 

nature are discussed in the sections that follow.

June 2005 2-10 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 3 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Federal, State, and Local Land Use Policy and Control 

SECTION 3 

FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAND USE POLICY AND CONTROL 

3.1 FEDERAL 

The only direct land use controls available to the federal government in Texas result from 

fee-owned land and easements related to federal projects. 

3.2 STATE 

There is limited planning at the state level. The State of Texas, through the Regional 

Planning Act of 1965, authorized creation of voluntary associations of local governments identified 

as regional councils or councils of governments (COG). Consequently, Texas has created various 

local and regional agencies to serve specific planning functions within the state. 

3.3 LOCAL/REGIONAL 

At the regional level, COGs address the problems and planning needs that cross the 

boundaries of individual local governments or that require regional attention. Bexar, Comal, and 

Kendall Counties are members of the Alamo AACOG. The 12 counties that comprise the Alamo 

Area planning region are Atascosa, Bandera, Bexar, Comal, Frio, Gillespie, Guadalupe, Karnes, 

Kendall, Kerr, Medina, and Wilson. AACOG is a voluntary association of local governments and 

organizations that serves its members through planning, information, and coordination activities. 

The agency is also designated as the regional clearinghouse that reviews and comments upon grant 

applications submitted for state and federal funding by organizations throughout the region. 

Further, AACOG provides direct technical assistance to member governments in their planning 

functions, preparation of applications, and the administration of area-wide programs. Support for 

these activities is provided through local dues, state appropriations, and state and federal grants 

that are matched by local monies and other public and private funds. 

Texas counties have no zoning authority unless specifically provided through enabling 

legislation. Municipalities are authorized to cooperate in planning and zoning matters. The City of 

San Antonio adopted Master Plan Policies which are intended to provide guidance in the 

evaluation of future decisions on land use, infrastructure improvements, transportation, and other 

related issues. Additionally, San Antonio has adopted a Unified Development Code which 

consolidates all of the regulations pertaining to land use, zoning, and development. Fair Oaks 

Ranch has not adopted a comprehensive plan and does not enforce zoning regulations. 

3.4 OTHER PLANNING TOOLS 

Historically, the DoD has encouraged communities in the vicinity of military installations to 

introduce noise planning. Early in the 1970's, the DoD established the Air Installation Compatible 

Use Zone (AICUZ) Program in response to existing and potential incompatible land development 

3-1 June 2005 
Section 3 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Federal, State, and Local Land Use Policy and Control Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

impacting on the military’s missions. Its purpose is to promote community growth that is 

compatible with the military installation operations. The Army later established the ICUZ 

program, dropping the “A” since much of the Army’s noise generation activities are not caused by 

aircraft. 

In 1985, because AICUZ study recommendations were often not incorporated into local area 

planning programs, the JLUS Program was initiated. It is designed to provide financial and 

technical incentives to help military bases and communities, working together to resolve 

encroachment conflicts while protecting the military mission objectives, community growth 

patterns, and the public health and safety. 

The Camp Bullis JLUS was completed in June 1995, by the AACOG and JLUS Technical 

Oversight Committee (TOC), for the DoD. The JLUS TOC consisted of city officials, county 

officials, military leadership, private sector leaders, neighborhood associations, and state officials. 

The objective of the study was to develop recommendations to alleviate potential land use conflicts 

and to outline strategies to encourage compatible future development in order to protect the longrange viability of Camp Bullis. The Camp Bullis JLUS identified buffer areas surrounding the 

CSSA and Camp Bullis boundary. Buffer distances identified were within one, three, and five 

miles of the military boundaries. The JLUS discussion focused on disclosure within these areas 

immediately adjacent to the military boundary. Ultimately, the JLUS was published but public 

disclosure procedures were not agreed upon. 

The JLUS program is managed by the DoD Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) (DoD 

Directive #3030.1). OEA may provide technical and financial grant assistance directly to state or 

local governments to help local jurisdictions understand and development controls to resolve 

community-land development incompatibilities and make informed land use and development 

decisions. The scope of the program is divided into three major tasks, as listed below. 

• Impact analysis provides an in-depth review of existing and proposed land use 

patterns: drainage, as it affects land use designations; mission encroachment, 

particularly noise; transportation improvements, existing, and proposed routes; 

and noise/vibration as presented in the IENMP Study. 

• Land use and mission compatibility plan examines the above findings to identify 

conflicts in land use and provide alternative land use solutions; to project the 

impact on growth potential for adjacent areas; and to project the impact of 

military missions on the surrounding jurisdictions. 

• Implementation lists a series of actions and proposals for adoption by local 

jurisdictions to resolve land use conflicts and move toward a compatible land use 

plan for the installation, the adjacent counties and communities therein. While 

the study report makes certain recommendations, it must be kept in mind that 

each participating jurisdiction must decide which recommendations are best 

suited to their particular needs. Implementation will follow the final 

recommendations at the discretion of the elected officials in each jurisdiction and 

the installation military command. 

June 2005 3-2 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 3 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Federal, State, and Local Land Use Policy and Control 

3.5 ARMY POLICY AND ITS APPLICATION AT CAMP STANLEY STORAGE 

ACTIVITY 

It is Army policy to manage lands, facilities, and resources under its control in a manner that 

provides maximum mission effectiveness while recognizing the importance of the conservation of 

resources and preservation of the quality of human and natural environments. The Army 

developed the IENMP and the ICUZ program to provide a mechanism for identifying and 

addressing issues and concerns between the community and the installation. 

3.6 LAND USE PLANNING DETERMINANTS 

Compliance with the laws, regulations, executive orders, and guidelines, which are 

applicable to current operations and to restoration of sites contaminated by previous activities is 

fundamental to attaining DA goals associated with environmental protection and conservation of 

natural resources. In this respect, DA has designated the achievement of the following goals, 

applicable in land use planning, as an integral part of the overall Army mission. 

• Demonstrate leadership in environmental protection and improvement. 

• Minimize adverse environmental and health impacts while maximizing readiness 

and strategic preparedness. 

• Assure that consideration of the environment is an integral part of Army decisionmaking. 

• Initiate aggressive action to comply with all applicable federal, state, regional, 

and local environmental quality laws. 

• Restore lands and waters damaged through past waste disposal activities. 

To achieve the foregoing DA goals, the policy at CSSA, which applies to all subordinate 

organizations, agencies, and activities, is listed below. 

• Comply with Environmental Noise Management Program policy as identified in 

Army Regulation (AR) 200-1, and all applicable federal, state, and local 

environmental quality laws, regulations, and other requirements. 

• Plan, initiate, and carry out all actions and programs in a manner that will 

preserve, protect, restore, or mitigate the degradation of human and natural 

environments. 

• Ensure historic, archeological, and cultural sites, structures, and other objects 

under CSSA’s jurisdiction will be preserved, restored, and maintained for the 

benefit of future generations. 

• Eliminate or control environmental degradation resulting from training, 

operations, maintenance, repair, or construction of real property facilities owned, 

leased, or supported by CSSA. 

3-3 June 2005 
Section 3 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Federal, State, and Local Land Use Policy and Control Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

3.7 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 

With an overview of CSSA’s land, airspace, and facility requirements, the rationale behind 

the Army’s efforts, through the IENMP and the ICUZ program, to achieve compatibility between 

military operations and private property interests should be apparent. The successful 

accomplishment of the Army storage and training missions depends upon the positive involvement 

of local government in all elements of the IENMP, including land use planning and control, if 

needed. 

3.8 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Environmental Justice (EJ) is defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) as “fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes, regarding the 

development of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Over the last decade, attention to 

the impact of environmental pollution on particular segments of our society has been growing. 

Concern that minority populations and/or low-income populations bear a disproportionate amount 

of adverse health and environmental effects, led former President Clinton to issue Executive Order 

12898 in 1994, focusing federal agency attention on these issues. To this end, CSSA will insure 

that the EJ philosophy is embraced in the management of noise from its activities. The location 

and use of training activities, such as firing ranges, is always based on the operational, safety, and 

environmental considerations of both the installation and civilian community. 

June 2005 3-4 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 4 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan 

SECTION 4 

THE INSTALLATION ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE MANAGEMENT 

PLAN 

In the past, the emphasis of the Army’s Environmental Noise Program has been the ICUZ 

program. The goal of the ICUZ program is to maintain land use compatibility with the 

installation’s noise environment. At many installations, the land uses around the facility are not 

compatible with the noise environment. 

To reduce the potential for conflict between the installation and surrounding communities, 

the Army developed the IENMP. In addition to the ICUZ, the plan includes education of both 

installation personnel and surrounding residents, management of noise complaints, mitigation of 

the noise and vibration, and noise abatement procedures. At installations with noise monitoring 

capabilities, monitoring system and data management are also included in the plan. 

4.1 EDUCATION/AWARENESS 

An important element of the IENMP is education. This includes the education of both the 

noise producers and the noise receivers. The noise producers must be aware of all CSSA policies 

and regulations dealing with environmental noise. These include the locations of noise-sensitive 

areas and range safety procedures. The education of the noise producers will include the potential 

for adverse consequences to CSSA’s ability to perform and maintain its mission due to violations 

of the policies and regulations. 

The noise receivers will be made aware of CSSA’s mission and its by-products, including 

noise, through newspaper articles, community displays, public presentations, and other information 

released to the community. These information releases will address the concerns of the community. 

Local government officials must also be informed so that they will be able to accurately 

assess both sides of the issues before them and factor such information into any decision making 

process concerning potential land use planning. Use of fact sheets are a good methodology the 

installation can utilize to provide information to the local community. 

4.2 NOISE COMPLAINT MANAGEMENT 

The purpose of the Noise Complaint Management Program is to educate first time 

complainers so that they are aware that CSSA cares about their concerns. In most cases, the 

courteous and honest treatment of the complainant will reduce the potential for future calls; letters 

to local, state, and federal government officials; and formation of community action groups. There 

are two key words to a successful complaint management program: integrity and sensitivity. 

The program will have integrity so that when installation officials tell the community 

something, the community will believe and trust them. Once you tell the community, they consider 

the information as policy. The program will also remain sensitive to the impacts of the noise 

4-1 June 2005 
Section 4 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

producing activities to the surrounding community. For example, if installation officials tell the 

community that there will be no explosive charges before 9:00 a.m., then the installation must 

adhere to that procedure. If it is necessary to change this procedure, then the community should be 

informed about the change in procedure before that change takes place. 

A successful noise complaint management procedure will assist the installation in avoiding 

community action against its activities. Like the other elements of the IENMP, this procedure will 

be proactive. Its purposes are to reduce the potential of noise complaints by keeping the public 

informed about what is going to happen and to satisfy the complainants so that noise complaints do 

not escalate into political actions. 

4.3 NOISE COMPLAINT PROCEDURE 

A noise complaint procedure is required by AR 200-1 (U.S. Army 1997) to log and 

investigate all complaints. CSSA currently has a proactive procedure in place to address noise 

inquiries. Noise inquiries at CSSA occur exclusively from grenade and LAW testing operations. 

CSSA’s procedure complies with AR 200-1 policy by responding to all inquiries and complaints in 

a timely and polite fashion. Maintaining an effective procedure will enable CSSA to sustain a 

good relationship with the surrounding communities. The CSSA noise inquiry procedure is 

outlined below. 

Pre-notification of grenade/LAW testing operations. Prior to grenade/LAW testing, the 

PAO at Fort Sam Houston typically notifies local government agencies and area homeowners 

associations of the upcoming testing operations. 

A log/file is maintained of all noise complaints. The file is maintained by the Fort Sam 

Houston PAO and provided to the CSSA installation commander which identifies the location, 

date, time, and cause of noise inquiry. The file will help in isolating habitual complainers, will 

show the effectiveness of mitigation, and will identify the types and times of operations that are 

most offensive. 

Complaints are investigated without delay. By investigating complaints immediately, it 

may be possible to delay the operation causing the complaint until noise propagation conditions 

lessen. This action reduces the risk of additional complaints and shows the complainants that 

CSSA is concerned about their health and welfare. 

The complainant is made aware of the installation’s mission and that every effort will be 

made to correct the problem, mission permitting. A CSSA representative or the Public Affairs 

Officer explains the operation to the complainant, including why it is being performed at this time 

and at CSSA. They ask the complainant about how the noise environment today compares with the 

day of the complaint, and try to obtain some insight into why the complaint was generated. 

Complaints are routed to the office responsible for the type of activity that resulted in the 

noise complaint and coordinated with the CSSA installation commander. When complaints 

occur at CSSA, feedback is given to the noise producer in order to learn how to avoid future 

complaints. 

June 2005 4-2 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 4 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan 

4.4 INSTALLATION COMPATIBLE USE ZONE 

The Army ICUZ program provides a method for evaluating the effect of noise and the 

hazards associated with training operations that stem from activities at military installations. The 

purpose of the program is to identify land areas that are exposed to generally unacceptable noise 

levels and to then recommend uses for the land lying within these areas that are compatible with 

the needs of the civilian community and the Army. 

The ICUZ program considers the land areas, with noise-sensitive land uses, that are exposed 

to generally unacceptable noise levels. There are three noise zones. Noise Zones (NZ) III, II, and 

I, ordered from most severe to least, are projected using computer models (for detailed information 

see Appendix B). Noise-sensitive land uses include, but are not limited to, residences, schools, 

medical facilities, and churches. At military airfields supporting a substantial volume of fixed 

wing military aircraft, the safety zones are divided into the Clear Zone, Accident Potential Zone I 

and Accident Potential Zone II. Because CSSA does not have an airfield, further discussion of the 

aircraft safety zones is not included in this document. 

4.4.1 Noise Zones 

Description 

• NOISE ZONE III. NZ III consists of the area around the source of the noise in 

which the DNL is greater than 75 decibels (dB), A-weighted (dBA) for aircraft, 

vehicle, and small arms range noise, or 104 dB peak unweighted sound pressure 

level (dBP) for small arms, and greater than 70dBs, C-weighted (dBC) for noise 

from weapon systems larger than 20 mm. The noise level within NZ III is 

considered so severe that noise-sensitive land uses should not be considered 

therein. 

• NOISE ZONE II. NZ II consists of an area where the day-night sound level is 

between 65 and 75 dBA, between 62 and 70 dBC, or between 87 and 104 dBP. 

Exposure to noise within this area is considered significant and use of land within 

NZ II should normally be limited to activities such as industrial, manufacturing, 

and transportation and resource production. However, if the community 

determines that land in NZ II areas must be used for residential purposes, then 

noise level reduction (NLR) features should be incorporated into the design and 

construction of the buildings. A discussion of NLR features is included in 

Appendix B. 

• NOISE ZONE I. NZ I include all areas around a noise source in which the daynight sound level is less than 65 dBA, less than 62 dBC, or less than 87 dBP. 

This area is usually suitable for all types of land use activities. 

Computer Modeling 

The primary means of assessing environmental noise is through computer simulations since 

the direct measurement of noise levels is often impractical, expensive, and inconclusive. Computer 

4-3 June 2005 
Section 4 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

simulations can be summarized on installation land use maps to be incorporated into the 

installation master plan or IENMP. 

During the examination of the environmental noise attributable to CSSA’s operations, two 

commonly used noise measurement metrics are used to evaluate both average and peak sound 

levels. In this plan, the day-night average sound level (DNL) will always refer to the A-weighted 

DNL (ADNL) to describe small arms weapons firing. The dBP metric is also included as an 

alternative to the ADNL metric for small arms noise. The use of both metrics for CSSA noise 

modeling provides the local community additional information to make better informed land use 

decisions. 

The DNL noise contours represent an annual average that separates the normally 

incompatible NZ II from the compatible NZ I. Taking all operations that occur at CSSA over the 

year and dividing by the number of training days generates the contours. Because DNL noise 

contours may not be the best model to predict annoyance in humans for noise associated with small 

arms ranges, the dBP metric was also used. The dBP metric is a single event metric which relies 

on the implicit notion that the events are multiple and periodic. The dBP noise level used to 

characterize a given small arms range is defined as the maximum level emitted from the loudest 

source in regular use at the range. The number of rounds fired, and other weapons of less 

acoustical significance are relatively unimportant. 

Army land use planning guidelines provide compatibility criteria for noise levels 

characterized by these metrics. Land use compatibility guidelines are based on the three noise 

zones on the basis of the percentage of the population likely to be highly annoyed in each zone, 

regardless of the metric used to estimate and depict noise levels. These guidelines are summarized 

in Table 4.1. 

Table 4.1 Noise Levels used to Define Noise Zones 

Noise Noise Limits 

Zone 

Population Highly 

Annoyed Small Arms ADNL Small Arms dBP 

I <15% <65 dBA <87 dBP 

II 15-39% 65-75 dBA 87-104 dBP 

III >39% >75 dBA >104 dBP 

The extent of the noise emanating from Army weapons firing at specific sites will be 

depicted graphically later in this section. A detailed description of the noise environment and the 

methodology used in the noise evaluation is provided in Appendix B.

June 2005 4-4 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 4 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan 

4.4.2 Land Use guidelines 

The Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN) (FICUN 1980) has developed 

land use guidelines for areas on and/or near noise producing activities, such as highways, airports, 

and firing ranges. The ICUZ program uses these guidelines. 

The ICUZ Program designates noise zones for land use planning. By projecting these zones 

onto an area map, land use guidelines can be used to help planners develop compatible land uses 

(Appendix D). 

4.4.3 Community Reaction to Noise 

Ambient noise is the composite sound associated with the noise environment of a particular 

site, excluding the sound of the source of interest. The USEPA found that ambient noise, along 

with previous community exposure and community attitudes, are important considerations in 

predicting community reaction (USEPA 1974). 

The EPA introduced these corrections because they resulted in a better correlation between 

measured DNL and community response than is observed with measured DNL by itself. These 

corrections date back to Air Force funded research by Rosenblith and Stevens (1953). This model 

accounted for the following factors: 

• Magnitude of the noise with a frequency weighting relating to human response; 

• Duration of the intruding noise; 

• Time of year (windows open or closed); 

• Time of day noise occurs; 

• Outdoor noise level in the community when the intruding noise is not present; 

• History of prior exposure to the noise source and attitude toward its owner; and 

• Existence of pure tone or impulsive character in the noise. 

Correction for these factors were initially made in 5 dB intervals since it is difficult to assess 

human response accurately for any smaller increment. The Air Force and the FAA later simplified 

this model for ease of application. 

The data indicate that widespread complaints may be expected when the normalized value of 

the outdoor ADNL of the intruding noise exceeds the ambient noise by approximately 5 dB. 

Vigorous community reaction may be expected when the excess approaches 20 dB. The standard 

deviation of these data is 3.3 dB about their means and an envelope of ± 5 dB encloses 

approximately 90 percent of the cases. Therefore, this relationship between the normalized 

outdoor day-night sound level and community reaction appears to be a reasonably accurate and 

useful tool. This tool can be used in assessing the probable reaction of a community to an 

intruding A-weighted noise. 

4-5 June 2005 
Section 4 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

The methodology applied to arrive at the correlation between normalized ADNL and 

community complaint behavior is the best available at present to predict the probable community 

reaction. 

To protect the installation training and storage mission, where noise contours do not extend 

beyond the installation boundary, it is still prudent to identify land areas within a minimum 

1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the military boundary (Figure 4.1). Within the Zone of Influence (ZOI), 

exposure to noise may be considered significant during periods of increased operations. This zone 

accounts for the variability of noise levels caused by higher daily numbers of operations than the 

annual average and shows where levels of annoyance usually associated with Zone II can be found 

during periods of increased operations. This ZOI provides an additional buffer for long-term 

sustainable mission accomplishment and is consistent with previous compatible land planning 

initiatives such as the Camp Bullis JLUS (Section 3.4). Optimally, local communities should 

disclose to existing and potential landowners within the ZOI of the existence of CSSA and its 

activities (e.g., weapons firing). This would provide the residents with an understanding of the 

installation mission and purpose. Thus, informing the community of the installation’s existence 

reduces citizen concerns and any misunderstanding related to noise from unknown installation 

activities. 

4.4.4 Noise Environment at Camp Stanley Storage Activity 

The following discussion of conditions that currently exist within the CSSA area addresses 

noise generation and land use compatibility. The federal guidelines pertaining to compatible and 

incompatible land use around military installations have been addressed briefly in other parts of 

this study. Determining the locations of noise zones and applying the federal guidelines to these 

zones can evaluate present and future land uses compatibility for various types of activities. The 

examination of noise conditions will focus on the small arms ranges for CSSA in terms of: 

• Noise; 

• Current land use; 

• Recommended land use under federal guidelines; and 

• Compatibilities and incompatibilities in land use. 

East Pasture Small Arms Ranges Noise Zones – ADNL (Figure 4.2) 

NOISE. Small arms activities from both the covered small arms range and the rifle tunnel 

are conducted in the East Pasture. Table A-1 (Appendix A) displays the operational data from 

current operations. The ADNL Zones II and III noise contours from these small arms range 

activities, generated using the small arms range noise assessment model (SARNAM), do not 

extend outside CSSA and Camp Bullis land use areas. The noise zones are shown in Figure 4.2. 

Table 4.2 depicts the areas for Noise Zones II and III. 

June 2005 4-6 
Ralph Fair Rd. (FM 3351)

Camp Stanley

Camp Bullis

Camp Bullis

Camp Stanley Interstate 10

Fair Oaks Ranch

Leon Springs

1 Mile

J:\CSSA\environmental_files\gisdata\mxd\cssa_ENMP_zone_of_influence.mxd

0 3,000 6,000 1,500

Feet

Ralph Fair Rd. (FM 3351)

Camp Stanley

Camp Bullis

Camp Bullis

Camp Stanley Interstate 10

Fair Oaks Ranch

Leon Springs

1 Mile

Figure 4.1

Zone of Influence

Camp Stanley Storage Activity

Parsons

Legend

CSSA Boundary

Camp Bullis Boundary

Zone of Influence
Interstate 10

Camp Stanley

Ralph Fair Rd. (FM 3351)

Camp Bullis East Outer Rd.

Camp Stanley

Camp Bullis

65 dBA

75 dBA

J:\CSSA\environmental_files\gisdata\mxd\cssa_ENMP_existing_small_arms.mxd

0 2,000 4,000 1,000

Feet

Interstate 10

Camp Stanley

Ralph Fair Rd. (FM 3351)

Camp Bullis East Outer Rd.

Camp Stanley

Camp Bullis

65 dBA

75 dBA

Figure 4.2

Existing Small Arms

ADNL Noise Contours

Camp Stanley Storage Activity

Parsons

Legend

CSSA Boundary

Camp Bullis Boundary

ADNL Noise Level Contours

Zone III (75 dBA)

Zone II (65 dBA)
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 4 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan 

• CURRENT LAND USE. The land within NZs III and II is used for range and 

training operations. 

• RECOMMENDED LAND USE UNDER FEDERAL GUIDELINES. Land 

uses within the Noise Zones II and III meet the federal guidelines. 

• COMPATIBILITIES AND INCOMPATIBILITIES IN LAND USE. There 

are no incompatible land uses within the East Pasture small arms range noise 

contours. 

East Pasture Small Arms Ranges Noise Zones – dBP (Figures 4.3, 4.4) 

• NOISE. The small arms activities that affect the outdoor noise environment are 

conducted in the East Pasture area. Table A.1 (Appendix A) displays the 

operational data from current operations. The noise contours for the covered 

small arms range and the rifle tunnel are shown in Figures 4.3 and 4.4, 

respectively. The dBP NZ II and NZ III noise contours from these small arms 

range activities do not extend outside CSSA and Camp Bullis land use areas. 

Table 4.2 lists the areas for Noise Zones II and III. 

• CURRENT LAND USE. The land within NZs III and II is used for range and 

training operations. 

• RECOMMENDED LAND USE UNDER FEDERAL GUIDELINES. Land 

uses within the Noise Zones II and III meet the federal guidelines. 

• COMPATIBILITIES AND INCOMPATIBILITIES IN LAND USE. There 

are no incompatible land uses within the small arms range noise contours. 

Grenades and LAWs Noise Zones – Peak Noise Levels, dBP (Figure 4.5) 

• NOISE. Noise contours representing noise generated by the use of M79 

grenades and the H557 LAW are modeled using the BNOISE model. Table A-1 

(Appendix A) displays the operational data from current operations. The noise 

contours are shown in Figure 4.5. The Zones II and III noise contours from these 

activities do not extend outside CSSA and Camp Bullis land use areas. Table 4.2 

lists the areas for Noise Zones II and III. 

• CURRENT LAND USE. The land within NZs III and II is used for range and 

training operations. 

• RECOMMENDED LAND USE UNDER FEDERAL GUIDELINES. Land 

uses within the Noise Zones II and III meet the federal guidelines. 

• COMPATIBILITIES AND INCOMPATIBILITIES IN LAND USE. There 

are no incompatible land uses within the small arms range noise contours. 

4-11 June 2005 
Section 4 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

4.4.5 CSSA’s Future Noise Environment 

CSSA proposes to enhance their training and testing capabilities by constructing additional 

munitions-test facilities in the East Pasture. The East Pasture project has three components. The 

first of which is the ammunitions test facility, which will be used to test ammunition, in particular 

grenades. It will be controlled from inside of a Control Booth, which will be located in the Range 

Area. The second component involves construction of a 200-meter and small arms long range. 

The third component is a shoot house. All of these components will be located in the East Pasture 

area. Upon implementation of this proposal, operations are expected to double from current 

operations. The number of operations is shown in Appendix A. 

These operations reflect the use of new and existing facilities. It is expected that operations 

from these facilities would occur sometimes concurrently, depending on the testing and operations 

requirements. For worst case analysis, all future outdoor operational activities were modeled at the 

existing outdoor facilities since they are closer to the surrounding residential communities. The 

future noise contours based on these proposals are shown in Figure 4.6. The peak noise level dBP 

noise contours would be the same for both existing and future conditions. Therefore, it can be 

concluded that no Noise Zone II or III noise contours are expected to extend outside military land 

use areas. Table 4.2 lists the areas for Noise Zones II and III. 

Table 4.2 Noise Contour Areas for Zones II and III 

Existing Areas, square 

meters 

Future Areas, square 

meters. 

Range/Condition Zone II 

65-75 ADNL, 

or 87-104 dBP

Zone III 

>75 ADNL or 

>104 dBP

Zone II 

65-75 ADNL, 

or 87-104 dBP

Zone III 

>75 ADNL or 

>104 dBP

East Pasture Small Arms Range and 

Rifle Tunnel - ADNL 49.1 22.9 93.4 33.3 

East Pasture Small Arms Range 

Peak Noise Levels - dBP 1065.5 113.3 1065.5 113.3 

East Pasture Rifle Tunnel Peak 

Noise Levels - dBP 2818.8 182.7 2818.8 182.7 

East Pasture Grenades/LAWs Firing 

Area Peak Noise Levels-dBP 2459.4 544.4 2459.4 544.4 

4.4.6 Current Land Use 

The land use surrounding CSSA is largely rural with military, agricultural, residential, and 

open space being the most significant current uses. The northern portion of San Antonio, including 

the CSSA area of influence, has experienced significant residential growth over the past decade, 

resulting in a greater proportion of residential land use in the vicinity. Commercial development is 

predominantly located along the IH-10 corridor. There are no codes addressing noise compatibility 

conflicts for the CSSA area.

June 2005 4-12 
Interstate 10

Camp Stanley

Ralph Fair Rd. (FM 3351)

Camp Bullis East Outer Rd.

Camp Stanley

Camp Bullis

87 dBP

104 dBP

J:\CSSA\environmental_files\gisdata\mxd\cssa_ENMP_small_arms_peak.mxd

0 2,000 4,000 1,000

Feet

Interstate 10

Camp Stanley

Ralph Fair Rd. (FM 3351)

Camp Bullis East Outer Rd.

Camp Stanley

Camp Bullis

87 dBP

104 dBP

Figure 4.3

Small Arms Range

Peak Noise Contours

Camp Stanley Storage Activity

Parsons

Legend

CSSA Boundary

Camp Bullis Boundary

Peak Noise Level Contours

Zone III (104 dBP)

Zone II (87 dBP)
Interstate 10

Camp Stanley

Ralph Fair Rd. (FM 3351)

Camp BullisEast Outer Rd.

Camp Stanley

Camp Bullis

87 dBP

104 dBP

J:\CSSA\environmental_files\gisdata\mxd\cssa_ENMP_100M_tunnel_peak.mxd

0 2,000 4,000 1,000

Feet

Interstate 10

Camp Stanley

Ralph Fair Rd. (FM 3351)

Camp BullisEast Outer Rd.

Camp Stanley

Camp Bullis

87 dBP

104 dBP

Figure 4.4

100M Tunnel Peak Contours

Camp Stanley Storage Activity

Parsons

Legend

CSSA Boundary

Camp Bullis Boundary

Peak Noise Level Contours

Zone III (104 dBP)

Zone II (87 dBP)
Ralph Fair Rd. (FM 3351)

East Outer Rd.

Camp Stanley

Camp Bullis

Camp Bullis

Camp Stanley

Interstate 10

87 dBP

104 dBP

J:\CSSA\environmental_files\gisdata\mxd\cssa_ENMP_grenades_peak.mxd

0 2,000 4,000 1,000

Feet

Ralph Fair Rd. (FM 3351)

East Outer Rd.

Camp Stanley

Camp Bullis

Camp Bullis

Camp Stanley

Interstate 10

87 dBP

104 dBP

Figure 4.5

East Pasture Grenades/LAWs

Peak Noise Contours

Camp Stanley Storage Activity

Parsons

Legend

CSSA Boundary

Camp Bullis Boundary

Peak Noise Level Contours

Zone III (104 dBP)

Zone II (87 dBP)
Interstate 10

Camp Stanley

Ralph Fair Rd. (FM 3351)

Camp Bullis East Outer Rd.

Camp Stanley

Camp Bullis

65 dBA

75 dBA

J:\CSSA\environmental_files\gisdata\mxd\cssa_ENMP_future_small_arms.mxd

0 2,000 4,000 1,000

Feet

Interstate 10

Camp Stanley

Ralph Fair Rd. (FM 3351)

Camp Bullis East Outer Rd.

Camp Stanley

Camp Bullis

65 dBA

75 dBA

Figure 4.6

Future Small Arms ADNL Noise Contours

Camp Stanley Storage Activity

Parsons

Legend

CSSA Boundary

Camp Bullis Boundary

ADNL Noise Level Contours

Zone III (75 dBA)

Zone II (65 dBA)
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 4 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan 

Adjacent communities and subdivisions are identified and described below (Figure 4.7): 

• City of Fair Oaks Ranch bordering CSSA on the northwest; 

• Jackson Woods, single-family homes bordering CSSA on the west; 

• Scenic Oaks a single family residential subdivision across IH-10 from CSSA to 

the west; 

• Hidden Springs Estates and the Dominion, single-family large lot subdivisions to 

the southeast bordering CSSA and Camp Bullis; and 

• Leon Springs Villa, a few small businesses, a single-family subdivision/mobile 

home park, bordering CSSA on the southwest. 

The eastern boundary of CSSA and some of its northern and southern boundaries are shared 

with Camp Bullis Military Reservation. Directly south of CSSA is the Hidden Springs and Leon 

Valley Springs Trailer Park. It is triangulated between CSSA, Camp Bullis, and State Highway 

3551. The City of Fair Oaks Ranch is located to the west of the installation and consists of large-lot 

single-family residences. Its boundaries extend into three counties: Bexar, Comal, and Kendall. 

The 2000 census estimated a 2004 population of 5,220 for Fair Oaks Ranch. A premier country 

club community, the Dominion, lies to the southeast of CSSA. The Dominion is a Planned Unit 

Development with many different subsections, a golf course, and building requirements for each 

housing subsection. 

4.4.7 Future Development 

Municipalities and communities in the immediate vicinity of CSSA that are affected by noise 

related to Army training and operational activities are the Cities of San Antonio and Fair Oaks 

Ranch and the community of Leon Springs. San Antonio has zoning regulations as part of the 

city’s Unified Development Code, while Fair Oaks Ranch does not have land use plans or enforce 

zoning. The following assessment of future development is based upon development trends. 

• SAN ANTONIO. In recent years, most of the development in San Antonio has 

occurred to the north of the city. Consequently, the density of residential and 

commercial development to the north, west, and south of CSSA is also 

increasing. In 1998, the City of San Antonio annexed land directly south of CSSA 

including the Dominion and Leon Springs. The City also recently annexed a strip 

of land west of IH-10, including the Stage Run subdivision, north of Boerne 

Stage Road. While all of the land surrounding CSSA falls within San Antonio’s 

extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ), there are no plans to annex additional land in 

the area in the next three years. Existing open space/low-density land use along 

Ralph Fair Road adjacent to the southwest boundary of CSSA is currently being 

evaluated by land developers, with the goal of residential development. 

Residential patterns adjacent to CSSA are typical of suburban developments or 

planned unit developments with densities of approximately 3 to 5 units per acre. 

In addition to the residential development, a regional commercial center is 

proposed at Camp Bullis Road and IH-10 West. 

4-21 June 2005 
Section 4 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

• FAIR OAKS RANCH. Fair Oaks Ranch is predominantly a medium to low 

density residential community with only limited commercial or public land uses. 

The community continues to expand its residential development, adding 

approximately 70 new homes every year. The majority of the city’s future 

growth will occur in the northern portion of the city, in Comal and Kendall 

Counties. Two subdivisions currently under development include Deer Meadow 

Estates in Kendall County and Cibolo Trails in Comal County.

• LOCAL COUNTIES. The majority of land in unincorporated counties is 

agricultural, open space, or low-density residential development. Land directly 

west of CSSA is located in Bexar County, outside the San Antonio municipal 

boundaries. Comal County lies north-northeast of CSSA, with Kendall County 

property located northwest of the installation. In the majority of residential areas 

west and north of CSSA, the residential patterns of development are rural in 

character. The topography necessitates private wells and septic tank systems to 

service lot size developments. The density of development ranges from 1⁄2 acre to 

8 acre lots, with the average lot size being approximately 3 acres. Low-density 

residential development is expected to continue in the CSSA vicinity. Sporadic 

commercial development is anticipated, mostly along the IH-10 corridor. 

4.4.8 Effects of Current Noise on Surrounding Communities 

The impact of the noise environment on the communities around CSSA will be discussed in 

this sub-section. It is worth emphasizing again that the Army has no desire to recommend land use 

regulations that will render property economically useless. Even so, the Army has an obligation to 

point out ways in which land around CSSA can be used to protect the people from exposure to high 

noise levels, and the public’s investment in the installation itself. 

The surrounding communities illustrate the propensity for growth by civilian communities 

around military installations since CSSA was established. This development and growth on the 

part of the civilian communities has included expansion toward the CSSA reservation boundaries. 

Such expansion has been referred to as urbanization and the process, if left unchecked, can place 

severe limitations upon the ability of a military installation to assure satisfactory accomplishment 

of training and other mission essential activities. At the least, the noise generated by weapons 

firing can become an annoyance to the citizens who live in the vicinity of the installation. At its 

worst, these military activities can become such an irritant that the citizens might seek relief 

through legal means. It is in the best interest of all citizens, therefore, to assure compatible 

development and use of land adjacent to the CSSA boundary. 

There was very little urbanization in the immediate vicinity of the installation when CSSA 

was first established. However, the regional population has consistently grown and, as a 

consequence, transformed some areas of land that were rural in nature to land with urban 

characteristics. The areas of concern, that is, those areas where noise-sensitive land uses are 

expanding toward CSSA, are primarily south and west of the installation. 

June 2005 4-22 
Interstate 10

Camp Stanley

Ralph Fair Rd. (FM3351)

Camp Bullis

Fair Oaks Ranch

Leon Springs

Dominion

Hidden Springs

Estates

Jackson

Woods

Scenic

Oaks

Bexar County

Kendall County

Comal County

J:\CSSA\environmental_files\gisdata\mxd\cssa_land_use.mxd

0 4,000 8,000 2,000

Feet

Interstate 10

Camp Stanley

Ralph Fair Rd. (FM3351)

Camp Bullis

Fair Oaks Ranch

Leon Springs

Dominion

Hidden Springs

Estates

Jackson

Woods

Scenic

Oaks

Bexar County

Kendall County

Comal County

Figure 4.7

Current Land Use

Camp Stanley Storage Activity

Land Use

Camp Stanley

Camp Bullis

Commercial / Industrial

Open Space / Low Density

Recreation

Public / Institutional

Residential Parsons
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 4 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan 

4.4.9 Land 

Land for development is abundant in some areas and hard to acquire in others; therefore, 

each county and city need to evaluate their own situation and options. Then, compatible land uses 

need to be promoted and disclosure of CSSA’s presence to existing and potential land owners 

needs to be made. 

Over the years many of the surrounding towns have expanded in the direction toward the 

northern, western and southern boundaries of CSSA. As a result, noise-sensitive land uses are 

projected adjacent to the installation boundary. Although these projected noise-sensitive land uses 

are outside the Zone II and Zone III noise contours, much of this area is within one-mile of the 

installation boundary. 

There is little that can be done about the urbanization that has occurred in the past. However, 

land use guidelines are meant to ensure compatibility with the noise environment while allowing 

maximum beneficial use of contiguous property. Although the noise generated by CSSA on 

adjoining properties is far below the “threshold” for land use restrictions, suggestions are provided 

later in this plan to assist in the development of the remaining land in a manner that is compatible 

with the economic needs of the civilian communities and the mission of CSSA. Land use controls 

are extremely limited since there is no enabling legislation that would allow such restrictions to be 

put into place. However, land use guidelines in noise zones are included in Appendix D for 

informational purposes. 

4.5 NOISE MITIGATION 

Public attitude surveys have shown that noise is considered an “enemy” in urban, suburban, 

and even rural areas. It is often rated worse than crime, litter, and abandoned buildings, since it 

seems to infiltrate homes and minds incessantly. As the public, in general, has become less 

tolerant of noise, the noise from military unique sources - artillery, low-level jet operations, 

helicopters, and small arms firing has increased both in intensity and frequency. Even though the 

military departments have made concerted efforts to reduce the noise from training and operations, 

weapons platforms and systems have become larger and louder. 

An essential element of the IENMP is the discussion of noise mitigation. Noise mitigation is 

the reduction of the adverse impact from noise through changes in training or operations. There 

are three general categories of mitigation: 

• SOURCE, in which something is done to reduce the amount of noise being 

made; 

• PATH, in which the amount of sound propagating from the source to the receiver 

is reduced (e.g., increasing distance, adding a barrier, locating upwind); and 

• RECEIVER, in which the amount of noise is reduced at the ear of the receiver 

(e.g. replacing windows with sound-reducing windows, adding background 

masking noise). 

4-25 June 2005 
Section 4 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

Of these three categories, CSSA only has the authority to implement mitigation at the source 

and along the path. 

Control Procedures 

The adverse impact of the noise from some operations and training at CSSA can be reduced 

by mitigation methods. In its continuing effort to be a good neighbor, CSSA has implemented the 

following mitigation. 

• No routine firing activities take place at night 

• If a larger than normal detonation is scheduled, CSSA notifies the surrounding 

residential communities. 

Other Considerations 

Feasible noise mitigation is also investigated during the NEPA process for new operations 

and proposed changes in existing operations. Computer modeling of new training sites offers the 

prospect of predicting whether the proposed action will be compatible with adjacent land use. This 

is a proactive technique in that it offers the opportunity to eliminate sites from consideration before 

the undesirable effects of noise ever become a factor. It also allows the installation to minimize the 

noise impact when designing sites. 

4.6 ANNOYANCE FROM NOISE 

General 

The DNL noise contours represent an annual average that separates the normally 

incompatible NZ II from the compatible NZ I. But the noise environment at CSSA varies daily and 

seasonally, because operations are not consistent for all 365 days of the year. For residential land 

uses, depending on attitudes and other factors, an ADNL of 60 dB “may be considered an adverse 

aspect of the community environment” and up to 9% of the residents may be highly annoyed. 

Remembrance of past "worst case" exposures is ever present in most public hearings over the noise 

impact of military training. Analyses of noise complaints received by the Army have shown that 

short term increases in DNL, not the long-term average, best predict complaints (Luz et and 

Schomer 1983). Consequently, even though the noise contours do not fall outside the CSSA and 

Camp Bullis boundary, people living near CSSA may be annoyed and could complain about the 

noise environment. The amount of annoyance also depends on the time of day the noise takes 

place, the background noise environment, and whether the person is indoors or outdoors at the 

time. The annoyance and complaint potential from single events is highly subjective. Data are 

limited in this area. 

The usual complaint pattern is that economic activity unrelated to the installation stimulates 

increased population and development in the vicinity. Segments of the new population are not 

economically dependent on the installation, and tend to be annoyed by the noise or other aspects of 

the government presence. The noise from the ranges provides a specific and undeniable object to 

complain about. As time goes on, the complainers become more articulate and eventually address 

June 2005 4-26 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 4 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan 

their complaints to higher levels of command and government. When the situation becomes 

political, the installation’s mission can be jeopardized. 

Individual response of community members to noise depends on many factors. Some of 

these factors are the characteristics of the noise, including the intensity and spectral characteristics, 

duration, repetitions, abruptness of onset or cessation, and the noise climate or background noise 

against which a particular noise event occurs. Social surveys show that the following are all 

factors related to complaints and/or annoyance: 

• The degree of interference of the noise with activity; 

• The previous experience of the community with the particular noise; 

• The time of day during which the intruding noise occurs; 

• Fear of personal danger associated with the activities of the noise sources; 

• Socioeconomic status and educational level of the community; and 

• The extent that people believe that the noise output could be controlled. 

Small Arms Range Noise 

A Swedish study of annoyance caused by noise from shooting ranges (Sorensen and 

Magnusson 1979) showed the annoyance for this type of noise is low up to a certain threshold, 

after which it increases relatively quickly. For the A-weighted fast-time integrated maximum level 

(LAmaxf), this threshold is approximately 63 dBA. At levels below this threshold, less than 2 

percent of the population exposed to the noise consider themselves to be highly annoyed. At the 

threshold level, the percent highly annoyed increases to 10 percent, and continues to increase as the 

noise level increases (Table 4.3). 

Table 4.3 Percentage of Population Highly Annoyed from Small Arms Range Noise 

LAmaxf, dBA Percent Highly 

Annoyed 

<62 2 

63 10 

65 13 

70 21 

75 29 

80 38 

The LAmaxf for the M-16 rifle at several azimuths and distances are shown in Table 4.4. The 

zero degree azimuth is the direction of fire, while the 180o azimuth is directly behind the weapon.

4-27 June 2005 
Section 4 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

Table 4.4 Predicted LAmaxt for M-16 (5.56 mm) Rifle 

Distance, Predicted Level, dBA Azimuth 

meters 0o 45o 90o 135o 180o

50 95-107 93-105 88-100 81-93 78-90 

100 86-100 84-98 79-93 72-86 69-83 

200 77-93 75-91 70-86 63-79 60-76 

500 65-83 63-81 58-76 51-69 48-66 

1,000 56-76 54-74 49-69 42-62 39-59 

2,000 47-69 45-67 40-62 33-55 30-52 

The range of levels shown in the table is caused by changes in the sound propagation 

conditions between the source and receiver. The primary cause of the range in levels is the wind 

direction. The lower numbers approximate the levels expected when the receiver is upwind of the 

source, and the higher numbers when the receiver is downwind. The levels listed in the tables do 

not include any reduction in the noise caused by natural or man-made terrain between the source 

and receiver, such as hills and berms. 

4.7 OTHER 

Other areas included in the IENMP are: 

• Reviewing Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact 

Statements (EIS) to ensure that the noise impacts of the proposed action are 

addressed and are consistent with the IENMP; and 

• The noise environment is assessed primarily with computer prediction models. 

Monitoring is used when the noise environment is controversial, when Noise 

Zone III exists in a noise-sensitive area, and when the noise source is unique and 

cannot be modeled. 

The noise contours are incorporated as a layer on the Geographic Information System (GIS). 

This layer can be overlayed with other layers; for example, land uses, and used in siting future 

facilities.

4.8 SUMMARY 

This section provided a discussion of the IENMP. The purpose of the IENMP is to assist 

CSSA in managing its noise environment, with a minimal impact on its mission, while being a 

good neighbor. The IENMP expands on the ICUZ program to include education, complaint 

management, and noise mitigation. 

The environmental impacts of activities at CSSA extend beyond the military reservation 

boundary. Therefore, officials at CSSA depend upon the goodwill and cooperation of the civilian 

June 2005 4-28 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 4 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan 

sector to promote public support for and understanding of the installation’s mission requirements. 

Although a number of positive steps have been taken by CSSA to minimize the unfavorable effects 

of noise and hazards to the public welfare and safety, these unilateral actions do not guarantee that 

the post will be able to carry out its training and storage mission on into the infinite future. 

4-29 June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 5 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Army and Community Responsibilities 

SECTION 5 

ARMY AND COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITIES 

5.1 INTRODUCTION 

This section addresses the responsibilities of the Army and the civilian communities around 

CSSA with respect to the IENMP. In the civilian sector, responsibility for integrating noise 

considerations and safety of humans and property into the land use planning process rests with 

state and local governments. Within the military sector, consideration of these noise management 

issues is the responsibility of the installation manager. Neither can work in isolation. The 

emphasis of this section is the joint nature of environmental noise management. 

Noise is considered to be one of the most important aspects of the environmental quality of 

life and needs to be considered in the planning process. Failure to do so can only result in 

irritation, complaints, and possibly legal action, all of which are detrimental to a harmonious 

relationship between CSSA and the citizens who live in the surrounding areas. Based on the 

discussion in Sections 2, 3, and 4, CSSA officials have been successful at minimizing noise 

impacts. Additionally, the incompatible (NZ III) and normally incompatible (NZ II) noise zones 

generated by CSSA activities are contained within the boundaries of CSSA and Camp Bullis. 

Consequently, the recommendations in this section are aimed at maintaining the compatibility 

between the needs of the civilian community and the CSSA mission. 

5.2 LAND USE GUIDELINES 

Land use guidelines are meant to ensure compatibility with the noise environment while 

allowing maximum beneficial use of contiguous property. The Army has an obligation to the 

communities around CSSA and the citizens of the United States to point out ways to protect both 

the people in adjacent areas and the public investment in the installation. 

5.3 ARMY RESPONSIBILITIES 

The military officials at CSSA have two primary responsibilities in regard to the IENMP. 

The first responsibility is to ensure that all possible steps have been taken to minimize the noise 

and safety impacts generated by military training and operations. The second is to be an active and 

willing participant in an ongoing cooperative educating and planning process through which 

compatible land use plans can be developed by local citizens through their elected representatives. 

5.4 RESPONSIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION WITH LOCAL COMMUNITIES 

This report is one effort to fulfill CSSA’s responsibility to the local communities by 

notifying elected officials, civic and business organizations, and other interested persons of its 

willingness to cooperate in noise management and promotion of the safety of humans and property. 

 These responsibilities are detailed below. 

5-1 June 2005 
Section 5 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Army and Community Responsibilities Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

• EDUCATION. CSSA has the civic responsibility to educate the surrounding 

communities about its mission and what CSSA is doing to reduce the impact of 

noise. This education can be accomplished through fact sheets, media releases, 

public meetings, open houses, and/or the internet website. As part of the 

education process, the CSSA website could include the noise contour maps and 

an explanation of what they mean. 

• NOISE COMPLAINT MANAGEMENT. CSSA has the responsibility to 

maintain good public relations with its neighbors by being responsive to the 

concerns of these neighbors. Based on the relatively low noise conditions 

identified in Section 4.4, only minimal noise complaints are expected related to 

CSSA activities. Due to the small staff at CSSA and the rarity of noise 

complaints, the installation manager’s policy is to designate the PAO at Fort Sam 

Houston to receive any noise complaints. The PAO telephone number is (210) 

221-1151. 

• LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS. The land use guidelines outlined in an 

ENMP are meant to ensure compatibility with the noise environment while 

allowing maximum beneficial use of contiguous property. Based on the noise 

analysis for CSSA described in Section 4, the noise levels on adjoining properties 

are significantly below the threshold for land use restrictions. However, officials 

at CSSA stand ready to provide local governments with land use compatibility 

guidelines and information as set forth in Appendix D. 

• MITIGATIVE ACTIONS. All reasonable actions to reduce noise during 

periods requested by local officials, as well as actions to resolve individual 

complaints, are considered. 

5.5 CIVILIAN COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITIES 

Local government planning responsibilities include the protection of the environmental 

quality of life of the community and protection of individual and community investments. 

Communities near military installations have the additional responsibility of assisting in 

maintaining National security by protecting the mission capability of the installation. 

Local governments and neighborhood organizations have demonstrated a willingness to work 

with the local military installations regarding operational and development issues. The 

communities adjacent to CSSA and Camp Bullis readily supported the Camp Bullis JLUS study in 

1994 and 1995. The AACOG served as the local sponsor for the JLUS study. In general, the 

powers that local governments have in regulating land use around CSSA are limited when 

compared to those found in many areas of the United States. Even so, there are a number of 

techniques that can be used to help incorporate noise and safety related issues into land use 

planning. Techniques that may work in the communities surrounding CSSA include those listed 

below. (Note: Not all of the techniques will work in all of the communities). 

• PUBLIC AWARENESS. Local government has a responsibility to inform its 

citizens when noise levels in an area are intense enough to lower the quality of 

June 2005 5-2 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 5 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Army and Community Responsibilities 

life. Because CSSA has successfully managed its training noise, there are no 

civilian properties where levels are high enough to lower quality of life. 

• CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. Individual owners should be advised of capital 

improvements most acceptable to noise-sensitive urban activities, thus 

encouraging noise-sensitive buildings in compatible areas. 

5.6 RECOMMENDATIONS 

In providing these recommendations, neither the Army nor anyone at CSSA has any desire to 

make privately owned land economically useless. Although there are currently no incompatible 

off-installation land uses identified, when the development that has occurred around the CSSA is 

considered, it becomes apparent that actions are appropriate to guide the future development of the 

surrounding or adjoining private property. The following recommendations are provided to 

promote the orderly use and development of land for purposes that are compatible with CSSA’s 

mission requirements and the needs and concerns of the surrounding civilian community. 

CAMP STANLEY STORAGE ACTIVITY 

• Use the CSSA website to provide the public with access to the noise contour 

maps and other information about noise levels generated at CSSA. 

• Continue to use the Fort Sam Houston PAO as the single point of contact for 

noise complaints, and publish the noise complaint number on the CSSA website. 

• Continue to inform the public about any unusual operations through the Public 

Affairs Office. 

• Use environmental noise modeling capabilities to assess future mission changes 

and related noise impacts. 

• CSSA should distribute and/or present this Installation Environmental Noise 

Management Plan to the county and municipal governments and ensure that it is 

filed in the office of official records to become a matter of public records. 

• CSSA should continue to educate its personnel in the techniques needed to 

minimize the noise and safety impact from their training and operations. In 

addition, CSSA should educate the communities surrounding its facilities on its 

mission and what it is doing to minimize the negative impacts of its mission on 

the community. 

It can be assumed that federal and state environmental protection legislation will continue to 

mandate more stringent measures to enhance the safety of humans and property in the near future. 

5-3 June 2005 
Section 5 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Army and Community Responsibilities Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

LOCAL COMMUNITIES 

• County and municipal governments are encouraged to support public disclosure 

of noise zones. Disclosure of noise zones enables citizens to make more informed 

choices regarding the location of homes, businesses, and public facilities. Being 

so informed, members of the public may be less vocal in voicing their complaints 

about noise while developers and builders may be more discriminating when 

siting new construction. 

• Comprehensive Land Use Plans, initiated by any county or municipal 

government, should be coordinated with CSSA to ensure recommendations for 

adjacent land use are compatible with training and operations at CSSA. 

June 2005 5-4 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 6 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas References 

SECTION 6 

REFERENCES 

ANSI 1983. S1.4-1983, American National Standard Specifications for Sound Level Meters. 

ANSI 1986. S12.4-1986, American National Standard method for Assessment of High-Energy Impulsive 

Sounds with Respect to Residential Communities. 

CHABA 1981. Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics Working Group 84 Report, 

Assessment of Community Response to High-Energy Impulsive Sounds. 

DoDI 1977. Department of Defense Instruction 4165.57, Air Installation Compatible Use Zones. 

DoDI 1983. Department of Defense Instruction 3030.2, Community Planning and Impact Assistance. 

FAA 1990. “Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL), The Descriptor of Choice for Airport Noise 

Assessment.” Federal Aviation Administration. 

FICUN 1980. Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control. Federal Interagency 

Committee on Urban Noise. 

Lewis 1994. “Prediction of Impulsive Noise Levels: A Different Approach,” Presented at the 127th 

Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Luz G. A. and N.D. Lewis, 1979. “Problems in using the C-weighted day-night level to assess military 

blast noise environments,” Presented at the 97th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, 

Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Luz and Schomer 1983. An Analysis of Community Complaints to Noise. 

Luz 1985. “A statistical model for predicting the probability of complaints from Army weapon noise”, 

presented at the 110th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Nashville, Tennessee. 

Public Law 92-574, 1972, 92nd U.S. Congress, Noise Control Act of 1972. 

Public Law 95-609, 1978, 95th U.S. Congress, Quiet Communities Act of 1978. 

Raspet and Lewis 1986. “Reduction of artillery noise by natural barriers”, Journal of Applied Acoustics, 

Volume 19, Number 2, pages 117 - 130. 

Rosenblith and Stevens and the staff of Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., 1953. “Noise and Man,” 

Handbook of Acoustic Noise Control, Vol. 2, WADC TR-52-204, Wright-Patterson Air Force 

Base, Ohio: Wright Air Development Center, 1953. 

San Antonio Chamber of Commerce 2001. http://www.ci.sat.tx.us/. Accessed December 2004. 

Schomer et al., 1987. Expedient Methods for Rattle-Proofing Certain Housing Components, USA-CERL 

Technical Report N-87/24, December 1987. 

Schomer, P.D. 1994. “New descriptor for high-energy impulsive sounds,” Noise Control Engineering 

Journal. 

Sorenson and Magnusson, 1979. “Annoyance Caused by Noise from Shooting Ranges”, Journal of Sound 

and Vibration, Volume 62, pages 437-442. 

U.S. Air Force 1988. Report No. AARML-TR-88-060, ROUTEMAP Model for Predicting Noise Exposure 

from Aircraft Operations on Military Training Routes. 

6-1 June 2005 
Section 6 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

References Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

U.S. Air Force 1990a. Report No. AARML-TR-90-011, Air Force Procedure for Predicting Aircraft Noise 

Around Airbases: Noise Exposure Model (NOISEMAP) User’s Manual. 

U.S. Air Force, 1990b, Report No. AARML-TR-90-012, Air Force Procedure for Predicting Aircraft Noise 

Around Airbases: Airbase Operations Program (BASEOPS) Description. 

University of Utah, 1958, Explosives Research Group Report No. 12, Measurement of Air and Ground 

Shock Disturbances Arising from Demolition Activities at Letterkenny Ordnance Depot. 

U.S. Army 1976. USACERL Technical Report N-13, The Statistics of Amplitude and Spectrum of Blasts 

Propagated in the Atmosphere. 

U.S. Army 1984. Construction Engineering Research Laboratory Technical Report N-167, Community 

Reaction to Impulsive Noise: A 10 Year Research Summary, 1984. 

U.S. Army 1986. USACERL Technical Report No. N86/12, MicroBNOISE: A User’s Manual 

U.S. Army 1987a. Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) Technical Report N-87/24, 

“Expedient Methods for Rattle-Proofing Certain Housing Components,” December 1987. 

U.S. Army 1987b. Waterways Experiment Station Report, “Blast Effects from Bombing at Fort Carson, 

Colorado.” 

U.S. Army 1988a. Construction Engineering Research Laboratory Technical Report N-88/19, “Procedures 

for Conducting Installation Compatible Use Zone (ICUZ) Studies,” August 1988. 

U.S. Army 1988b. Army Regulation 95-2, “Air Traffic Control, Airspace, Airfields, Flight Activities and 

Navigational Aids.” 

U.S. Army 1989. USAEHA Environmental Noise Study No. 52-34-0421-90, Results of Demolition Range 

Monitoring, Sierra Army Depot, Herlong, California, 31 July-10 August 1989. 

U.S. Army 1991. USAEHA Environmental Noise Consultation No. 52-34-0652-91, Noise Contours and 

Monitoring Results, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey, 26 November - 20 December 1990. 

U.S. Army 1992. USAEHA Environmental Noise Survey No. 52-34-Q492-92, Results of Impulsive Noise 

Monitoring, Navajo Depot Activity, Bellemont, Arizona, 15 May - 13 November 1991. 

U.S. Army 1996. Corp of Engineers, Fort Worth District, Installation Compatible Land Use Zone (ICUZ) 

Report, Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas. 

U.S. Army 1997. Army Regulation 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement. 

U.S. Army 1999. Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, Directorate of Environmental 

Health Engineering, Environmental Noise Program, Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Bullis, San Antonio, Texas. 

USEPA 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and 

Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, Report 550/9-74-004, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington DC, March 1974. 

Wyle Laboratories 1989. ”Guidelines for the Sound Insulation of Residences Exposed to Aircraft 

Operations,” Wyle Research Report WR 89-7, November 1989, Arlington, Virginia 

June 2005 6-2 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 7 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Glossary 

SECTION 7 

GLOSSARY 

A-Weighted Sound Level, A-Level (AL) - The ear does not respond equally to sounds of all 

frequencies, but is less efficient at low and high frequencies than it is at medium or speech range 

frequencies. Thus, to obtain a single number representing the sound pressure level of a noise 

containing a wide range of frequencies in a manner approximating the response of the ear, it is 

necessary to reduce, or weight, the effects of the low and high frequencies with respect to the 

medium frequencies. Thus, the low and high frequencies are de-emphasized with the A-weighting. 

The A-scale sound level is a quantity, in decibels, read from a standard sound-level meter 

with A-weighting circuitry. The A-scale weighting discriminates against the lower frequencies 

according to a relationship approximating the auditory sensitivity of the human ear. The A-scale 

sound level measures approximately the relative “noisiness” or “annoyance” of many common 

sounds. 

Annual Average Busy Day - The average of the 12 monthly averages of workday 

operations. This is obtained by computing a workday average over a monthly period for each 

month and then averaging the 12 values. 

Average Busy Day – The average of the 12 monthly averages of workday operations. This 

is obtained by computing a workday average over a monthly period for each month and then 

averaging the 12 values. 

Average Sound Level - The mean-squared sound exposure level of all events occurring in a 

stated time interval, plus ten times the common logarithm of the quotient formed by the number of 

events in the time interval, divided by the duration of the time interval in seconds. 

C-Weighted Sound Level, C-Level (CL) - The C-scale sound level is a quantity, in 

decibels, read from a standard sound level meter with C-weighting circuitry. The C-scale 

incorporates slight de-emphasis of the low and high portion of the audible frequency spectrum. 

Community. Community means those individuals, organizations, or special interest groups 

affected by or interested in decisions affecting towns, cities, or unincorporated areas near or 

adjoining a military installation; and officials of local, state and federal governments, and Native 

American tribal councils responsible for decision making and administration of programs affecting 

those communities. 

Community Involvement Program. Community involvement program means a carefully 

designed program, using a variety of techniques, which, in addition to informing the public of 

possible decisions and their potential consequences, provides opportunities for consultation with 

the public, and considers the public’s views before making decisions and taking actions. 

Continuous Noise - On-going noise whose intensity remains at a measurable level without 

interruption over an indefinite or a specified period of time. 

7-1 June 2005 
Section 7 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Glossary Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

Controlled Firing Area - Airspace wherein firing activities are conducted under conditions 

so controlled as to eliminate hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft and to ensure the safety of 

persons and property on the ground. 

Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) - The 24-hour average frequency-weighted sound 

level, in decibels, from midnight to midnight, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels 

in the night from midnight up to 7 a.m. and from 10 p.m. to midnight (0000 up to 0700 and 2200 

up to 2400 hours). A-Weighting is understood unless otherwise specified. 

Decibels (dB) - The decibel is a logarithmic unit of measure of sound pressure. 

Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ) - The level of a constant sound which, in a given situation 

and time period, has the same energy as does a time varying sound. For noise sources, which are 

not in continuous operation, the equivalent sound level may be obtained by summing individual 

sound exposure level (SEL) values and normalizing over the appropriate time period. 

Frequency - Number of complete oscillation cycles per unit of time. The unit of frequency 

is the Hertz (Hz). 

Hertz - Unit of frequency equal to one cycle per second. 

Impulse Noise (Impulsive Noise) - Noise of short duration (typically less than one second), 

especially of high intensity, abrupt onset and rapid decay, and often rapidly changing spectral 

composition. Impulse noise is characteristically associated with such sources as explosions, 

impacts, the discharge of firearms, the passage of supersonic aircraft (sonic boom) and many 

industrial processes.

Intermittent Noise - Fluctuating noise whose level falls one or more times to low or 

immeasurable values during an exposure.

Involvement. Involvement means systematic opportunities for members of the public to 

know about and express their opinions regarding possible decisions to be made as part of the 

Installation Environmental Noise Management Program. 

Noise - Any sound without value. 

Noise Exposure - The cumulative acoustic stimulation reaching the ear of a person over a 

specified period of time (e.g., a work shift, a day, or a lifetime). 

Noise Hazard (Hazardous Noise) - Acoustic stimulation of the ear, which is likely to 

produce noise-induced permanent threshold shift in some portion of the population. 

Noise Level Reduction (NLR) - NLR is the difference in decibels, between the A-weighted 

sound level outside a building and the A-weighted sound level inside a designated room in the 

building. The NLR is dependent upon the transmission loss characteristics of the building surfaces 

June 2005 7-2 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for Section 7 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Glossary 

exposed to an exterior noise source, the particular noise characteristics of the exterior noise source 

and the acoustic properties of the designated room in the building. 

Noise Zone (NZ)- NZ III consists of an area around the source of the noise in which the daynight sound level (DNL) is greater than 75 decibels, A-weighted (dBA) or 70 dB, C-weighted 

(dBC). The noise level within NZ III is considered so severe that noise-sensitive activities should 

not be conducted therein. 

Noise Zone II - NZ II consists of a area where the day-night sound level is between 65 and 

75 dBA or 62 and 70 dBC. Exposure to noise within this area is considered significant and use of 

the land within NZ II should normally be limited to activities such as industrial, manufacturing, 

transportation and resource production. 

Noise Zone I - NZ I includes all areas around a noise source in which the day-night sound 

level is less than 65 dBA or 62 dBC. This area is usually suitable for all types of land use 

activities. 

Public. Public, for the purposes of this management plan, means the same thing as 

community.

Public Information Program. Public information program means a carefully designed 

effort, using a variety of techniques, to inform those people most likely to be interested or affected 

by actions resulting from the Installation Environmental Noise Management Program and Plan. 

Sound Exposure Level - The level of the sound pressure squared, integrated over a given 

time. 

Sound Level Meter - An instrument that provides a direct reading of the sound pressure 

level at a particular location. It consists of a microphone and electronic amplifier together with a 

meter having a scale graduated in decibels. Using appropriate built-in electrical filters, it is 

possible to directly measure the overall A- and C-weighted sound pressure levels. Standard sound 

level meters must satisfy the requirements of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 

Specification for Sound Level Meters, S1.4-1983. 

Standard Land Use Coding Manual (SLUCM) - Standard system for identifying and 

coding land use activities. Published by the United States Department of Commerce, 1965.

Urbanization - The term implies unguided use or development of the land surrounding a 

military installation. 

Vibration - An oscillation where the quantity is a parameter that defines the motion of a 

mechanical system. 

7-3 June 2005 
Section 7 Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Glossary Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

Zone of Influence (ZOI) - The zone of influence consists of land areas within a minimum 

1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the military boundary. The ZOI provides an additional buffer for longterm sustainable mission accomplishment. 

June 2005 7-4 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Appendix A 

APPENDIX A 

NOISE CONTOUR OPERATIONAL DATA 

INTRODUCTION 

This Appendix consolidates the data that was used to generate the noise contours in CSSA’s 

IENMP. Included are data for the noise environment for current operations as well as the data and 

noise contours resulting from any known future plans. These data were used as input to the 

BNOISE (large caliber weapons) and SARNAM (.50 caliber and smaller) noise model. 

SMALL ARMS FIRING DATA 

Inputs to the SARNAM and BNOISE noise models are shown in Table A-1 and A-2. 

Table A.1 Existing Outdoor Weapons Firing Data 

Range Weapon Day 

Rounds 

Night 

Rounds 

Day 

Rapid 

Fire 

Night 

Rapid 

Fire 

Small Arms 12 buckshot 200 0 0 0 

Small Arms 5.56 mm ball 480,000 0 0 0 

Small Arms 9 mm 600,733 0 0 0 

Small Arms 10 mm / 40 cal. 23333 0 0 0 

Small Arms 45 cal. 23334 0 0 0 

Test Range (100m Tunnel) .30 ball 420 0 0 0 

Test Range (100m Tunnel) .50 api 50 0 0 0 

Test Range (100m Tunnel) 5.56 mm ball 230 0 0 0 

Test Range (100m Tunnel) 5.56 mm tracer 400 0 0 0 

Test Range (100m Tunnel) 7.62 mm ball 2365 0 0 0 

Test Range (100m Tunnel) 9 mm 300 0 0 0 

LAWS Firing Point rockets, law 431 0 0 0 

Grenades Firing Point grenade 204 0 0 0 

Source: CSSA, 2004 

A-1 June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Appendix A Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

Table A.2 Future Outdoor Weapons Firing Data 

Range Weapon Day 

Rounds 

Night 

Rounds 

Day 

Rapid 

Fire 

Night 

Rapid 

Fire 

Small Arms 12 buckshot 400 0 0 0 

Small Arms 5.56 mm ball 960,000 0 0 0 

Small Arms 9 mm 1,201,466 0 0 0 

Small Arms 10 mm / 40 cal. 46,666 0 0 0 

Small Arms 45 cal. 46,668 0 0 0 

Test Range (100m Tunnel) .30 ball 840 0 0 0 

Test Range (100m Tunnel) .50 api 100 0 0 0 

Test Range (100m Tunnel) 5.56 mm ball 460 0 0 0 

Test Range (100m Tunnel) 5.56 mm tracer 800 0 0 0 

Test Range (100m Tunnel) 7.62 mm ball 4,730 0 0 0 

Test Range (100m Tunnel) 9 mm 600 0 0 0 

LAWS Firing Point rockets, law 862 0 0 0 

Grenades Firing Point grenade 408 0 0 0 

Source: CSSA, 2004 

.

June 2005 A-2 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Appendix B 

APPENDIX B 

DESCRIPTION OF THE NOISE ENVIRONMENT, NOISE 

EVALUATORS 

AND NOISE CONTOURING PROCEDURES 

INTRODUCTION

Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound is the variation of air pressure about a mean 

(atmospheric) pressure. These changes in the atmospheric pressure [100,000 Pascals (14.7 pounds 

per square inch) (psi)] vary from approximately 0.0006 Pascals for a whisper at 2 meters to 1,000 

Pascals for firing an M16 rifle at the firer’s ear. Because of this large range of sound pressure and 

the fact that the human ear responds more closely to a logarithmic scale rather than a linear scale, 

sound pressure level is defined as 20 times the common logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure 

to the reference pressure (0.00002 Pascal). The sound pressure level is measured in dBs. For 

example, if the sound pressure doubles from 0.2 to 0.4 Pascals, the level increases by 6 dB from 80 

to 86 dB. 

A characteristic of environmental noise is that it is not steady, but varies in amplitude from 

one moment to the next. To account for these variations in the sound pressure level with time, and 

to assess environmental noise in a consistent and practical manner, a statistical approach has been 

used to reduce the time-varying levels to single numbers. The currently accepted single-number 

evaluators are the equivalent sound level (LEQ) and the DNL. 

The physical basis of the noise system is the noise source, path, and receiver relationship. 

Noise emanates from a source, travels along a path, and is perceived by the receiver. The affect of 

noise on the receiver can be considered the focal point of the entire system. 

Before a noise problem can be resolved, however, the nature and intensity of the noise must 

be quantified. Because of the different types of noise, e.g., fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft flyovers, 

ground run-up, and explosive detonations, a weighting system was developed to measure these 

various types of noise. 

In environmental noise, the sound pressure level is usually measured using one of the 

frequency networks of the sound level meter. Since the human ear is more sensitive to sounds of 

1,000 Hertz and above than sounds of 125 Hertz and below, it is appropriate to apply a weighting 

function to the noise spectrum, which will approximate the response of the human ear. The 

A-weighting frequency network of the sound level meter de-emphasizes the lower frequency 

portion of the noise spectrum to approximate the human ear’s response to the noise. This 

A-weighting frequency response is specified by an ANSI standard (ANSI 1983). Thus, the 

A-weighting of the frequency content of the noise signal has been found to have an excellent 

correlation with the human subjective judgment of annoyance of the noise. The sound pressure 

levels measured using the A-weighting network are expressed as dBA. 

B-1 June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Appendix B Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

To assess the additional annoyance caused by low frequency vibration of structures, the 

C-weighting network is used to evaluate the impulsive noise from all weapons larger than small 

arms. This weighting is also specified by the standard. The sound pressure levels measured using 

the C-weighting network are expressed as dBC. 

HISTORY OF NOISE EVALUATORS

Before the mid 1970’s, every organization had its own set of preferred environmental noise 

evaluators. This resulted in a wide variety of evaluators. Since each evaluator was developed for a 

specific purpose, a noise environment measured with one evaluator could not be compared with an 

environment measured using another evaluator. 

In carrying out its responsibilities under the Noise Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-574 1972), 

the USEPA recommended the adoption of a single environmental noise evaluator, the LEQ and its 

24-hour version, DNL. The DoD, along with most other United States Government agencies 

followed the USEPA recommendation. The DNL is the most widely accepted descriptor for 

environmental noise (FAA 1990) because of the characteristics listed below. 

• The DNL is a measurable quantity. 

• The DNL is simple to understand and use by planners and the public who are not 

familiar with acoustics or acoustical theory. 

• The DNL provides a simple method to compare the effectiveness of alternative 

scenarios. 

• The DNL is a “figure of merit” for noise impacts, which is based on 

communities’ reactions to environmental noise. 

• The DNL is the best measure of noise exposure to identify significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment. 

• By Federal interagency agreement, the DNL is the best descriptor of all noise 

sources for land use compatibility planning. 

• The DNL is the only metric with substantial body of scientific survey data on the 

reactions of people to noise. 

In recommending the DNL, the EPA noted that most noise environments are characterized 

by repetitive behavior from day to day, with some variation imposed by differences between 

weekday and weekend activity, as well as seasonal variation. To account for these variations, an 

annual average is used. 

Since annoyance is caused by long-term dissatisfaction with the noise environment, the 

annual average is an excellent predictor of the average community annoyance when there is not a 

large variation in the day-to-day or season-to-season DNL. The annual DNL is not a good 

predictor of noise complaints, since complaints represent the person’s immediate dissatisfaction 

with the noise environment. 

June 2005 B-2 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Appendix B 

Currently, there are no guidelines for judging the land use compatibility for single noise 

events. Although much of the early work on annoyance was done on single events, each study was 

designed differently, and the results cannot be combined in a systematic fashion to form a 

statistically-valid sample. Most of these studies were either done inside a laboratory or, if done 

outdoors, in controlled settings. Only recently has equipment become available which would allow 

subjects to register their annoyance if single events are experienced during their routine activities. 

There is not enough of this information available to support setting standards on single events. 

For impulsive noise, the Department of the Army uses the C-weighted DNL. The use of 

C-weighting is based on the findings of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Hearing, 

Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA) (CHABA 1981). Studies have been performed by the 

U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (USACERL) (U.S. Army 1984) to 

define the average annoyance as a function of the C-weighted DNL. The ANSI (ANSI 1986) has 

endorsed this method for predicting the annoyance caused by impulsive noise. 

Recent research by the USACERL (Schomer 1994) confirms what Luz and Lewis (Luz and 

Lewis 1979) previously found. Annoyance from impulsive noise does not increase at the same rate 

as annoyance from continuous noise. It increases twice as fast. That is, if an increase in the 

continuous noise level causes the annoyance to double, the same increase in the impulsive noise 

level will cause the annoyance to increase fourfold. At an SEL of 103 dBs, the annoyance from 

continuous and impulsive noise is equal. 

LEQ/DNL NOISE EVALUATORS

The LEQ is defined as the equivalent steady state sound level, which, in a stated period of 

time, would contain the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound during the same period. 

The LEQ is an energy average. The energy average puts more emphasis on the higher sound 

pressure levels than the arithmetic average. The LEQ is usually computed for a 1-minute, 

10-minute, 30-minute, 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour segment of environmental noise. 

To assess the added annoyance of the environmental noise during the nighttime hours (2200 - 

0700 hours), the DNL is used. The DNL is the 24-hour LEQ, with a 10 dB penalty added to the 

nighttime levels. 

By using the LEQ and DNL, the three important determinants of noise annoyance can be 

described by using a single number. The three determinants are the intensity of the noise event, the 

duration of the noise event, and the number of times the noise event takes place. Numerous 

laboratory and field studies have confirmed that the tradeoff between intensity, duration and 

number is adequately described by averaging the total acoustical energy. 

NOISE CONTOURS

Noise contours for all noise sources are generated using the A- or C-weighted DNL. The 

contours are computed by averaging over the time period of interest, the acoustical energy from the 

operations of the set of noise sources of interest. The averaging period is usually a busy day, a 

B-3 June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Appendix B Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

training cycle, or a year. The contours, representing the boundaries between the noise zones, are 

constructed by connecting points of equal acoustical energy. 

For example, the contours for an airfield are computed by averaging at many points the 

acoustical energy arriving at these points from aircraft operations. A 10 dB penalty is added to all 

nighttime operations. The contours for the airfield are constructed by connecting all points having 

a total acoustical energy equal to 65 dBA and connecting all points equal to 75 dBA. 

IMPULSIVE NOISE

The noise simulation program used to assess heavy weapons noise is MicroBNOISE (U.S. 

Army 1986). The MicroBNOISE program requires operational data concerning type of weapons 

fired from each range or firing point including demolitions, the number and type of rounds fired 

from each weapon, the location of targets for each range or firing point and the amount of 

propellant used to reach the target. Existing records on range utilization along with reasonable 

assumptions are used as MicroBNOISE inputs. 

AIRCRAFT NOISE.

The noise contours for aircraft activity are generated using the NOISEMAP 6.5 computer 

program. This program was developed for the U.S. Air Force by Wyle Laboratories (U.S. Air 

Force 1990a). The required inputs to the program are the location of the flight tracks and the 

number of each type of aircraft using each flight track. The BASEOPS program (U.S. Air Force 

1990b) was used to enter these data into the NOISEMAP input file. 

The noise zones for the NOE routes were generated using the NOISESLICE computer 

program. The NOISESLICE is a simplified version of the NOISEMAP computer program. It was 

developed to predict the noise from operations at remote landing areas and from nap of the earth 

routes. The required inputs to this model include the number and type of aircraft using each area 

and the altitude of the aircraft at the point of interest. 

The noise contours for the corridors used for entering and exiting the air to ground range area 

were generated using ROUTEMAP (U.S. Air Force 1988). The ROUTEMAP is a model 

developed for the U.S. Air Force by Wyle Laboratories used for predicting noise exposure from 

aircraft operations on military training routes. The inputs to the model are the altitude, power 

setting, speed and number of operations by aircraft type for a one month period. 

The ROUTEMAP model computes and plots the LEQ, the ADNL, the onset rate-adjusted 

monthly day-night level (DNMRL), and the probability of high annoyance. These levels are 

computed for distances perpendicular to the corridor. 

June 2005 B-4 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Appendix B 

SMALL ARMS NOISE 

Small arms noise contours were generated using the SARNAM. It incorporates the latest 

available information on weapons noise source models (including directivity and spectrum), sound 

propagation, effects of noise mitigation and safety structures (walls, berms, ricochet barriers), and 

community response protocols for small arms noise. SARNAM uses a more suitable noise metric 

than has been previously used for small arms in the United States It includes an extensive 

selection of weapons in the source library, can handle multiple ranges of various types, and is 

designed to maximize user productivity. The graphical output shows noise contours and range 

boundaries and can also display installation features. 

SINGLE EVENTS

The noise level from a single event, such as artillery firings or explosive detonations, is 

useful to predict the annoyance and potential complaints caused by these events. To provide this 

supplemental information, single event levels are included in this assessment. The single event 

levels from detonations are predicted using the USAEHA’s SHOT computer model (Lewis 1994). 

This model is used to predict the expected mean linear peak sound level and the distribution of the 

levels about this mean for the proposed detonation weights and selected receiver locations. The 

effect of topography features between the noise source and the receiver is included. 

The inputs to this model are the explosive weight, distance between the source and the 

receiver, burial depth, and location and height of a barrier, if one exists, between the source and 

receiver. 

The SHOT model is based on an extensive measurement project by the USACERL at Fort 

Leonard Wood (U.S. Army 1976) and our analysis of these measurements (Luz 1985). These 

measurements of 5-pound charges are corrected for the different charge weights (U.S. Army 

1988b) with the relationship used by CERL in their linear peak sound level model. The accuracy 

of this model for large detonations was checked with the measurements taken at Sierra Army 

Depot (U.S. Army 1988a and U.S. Army 1989). For the 29 measurements taken at Sierra, the 

mean level predicted by the SHOT model underpredicted the measured levels by an average of 1.4 

decibels. 

The effect of the topography is also included in the SHOT program. The topography model 

was derived from monitoring at Forts Knox and Indiantown Gap (Raspet and Lewis 1986). This 

model was verified with the results of extensive monitoring at Picatinny Arsenal (U.S. Army 1991) 

and Navajo Depot Activity (U.S. Army 1992). 

NOISE LEVEL REDUCTION 

The outside noise environment can be reduced inside structures with the appropriate 

construction. Examples of aircraft and vehicle NLR between outside and inside a structure are 

given in Table B-1 for various types of construction. 

B-5 June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Appendix B Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

Table B.1 Typical Building Construction NLR Values (U.S. Army 1978) 

Type of Construction NLR, dBA 

Conventional wood frame - windows open 15 - 20 

- windows closed 25 - 30 

- no windows or 

0.25 inch glass windows sealed in place 30 - 35 

0.125 inch glass windows, sealed in place* 20 - 25 

0.25 inch glass windows, sealed in place* 25 - 30 

Walls and roof - weighting 20 to 40 

pounds per square foot, no windows* 35 - 40 

- weighting 40 to 80 

pounds per square foot, no windows* 40 - 45 

- weighting over 80 

pounds per square foot, no windows* 45 – 50 

*Assuming a surface area consisting of only this element. 

In addition to the types of construction listed in the Table, the NLR of a structure can be 

increased by: 

• WALLS. The NLR of walls can be increased by increasing the mass of the 

walls, using “dead” air spaces (increasing air space between walls), using 

staggered studs, sealing cracks and edges, using or increasing insulation, and 

using acoustic coatings. Also, special attention should be given to openings 

(electrical outlets, medicine cabinets, etc.) and the use of resilient materials to 

hold panels to studs. 

• ROOFS. The NLR of roofs can be increased by increasing the mass of the roof 

and sealing cracks and edges. 

• CEILINGS. The NLR of ceilings can be increased by using or increasing 

insulation, using acoustic coatings or ceilings, and using non-fixed suspension 

methods. 

• FLOORS. The NLR of floors can be increased by increasing the mass of the 

floor, blocking off all joists, and using resilient supports between joists and floor. 

• WINDOWS. The NLR of windows can be increased by using sealed windows, 

increasing glass thickness, using double glazed windows, and increasing the 

volume of “dead” air space in double glazed windows. 

• DOORS. The NLR of doors can be increased by using solid core doors and 

using doorframe gaskets. 

• INTERIOR DESIGN. The NLR of interior spaces can be increased by using 

heavy drapes and carpets, and using acoustic ceiling treatment.

June 2005 B-6 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Appendix B 

The Department of Defense has published two guides on reducing noise through architectural 

mitigation. The first, Guidelines for the Sound Insulation of Residences Exposed to Aircraft 

Operations (Wyle 1989), was jointly funded by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command and the 

Federal Aviation Administration. This document describes the options for quieting interior rooms 

from aircraft noise for 26 different types of residential construction. The second, Expedient 

Methods for Rattle-Proofing Certain Housing Components (Schomer et al., 1987), was prepared by 

the Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. This report is more limited in its scope. 

Rather than being a guide on how to reduce the transmission of explosive noise heard inside a 

house, it analyzes several different building elements to identify individual components 

contributing to rattle. Eliminating rattle is important because people exposed to the sound of large 

guns tend to complain about the rattling rather than the sound. 

CONCLUSION

A significant amount of noise is produced by military installations. By careful consideration 

of noise sources, the paths this noise will take and the effect it has on the receiver, adequate land 

use plans can be designed and adopted for military installations and adjacent land. 

By cooperative efforts on the part of military and civilian planners, the communities can be 

protected from sound levels that could endanger citizens’ health, safety and welfare and, at the 

same time, protect the military mission of the installations that produce this noise 

B-7 June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Appendix C 

C-1 June 2005 

APPENDIX C 

RECORD OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 

INTRODUCTION 

This appendix presents information related to past cooperation between the military and 

civilian communities. Past processes addressing noise compatibility in the CSSA area include the 

publishing of the Camp Bullis Joint Land Use Study (1995), the Installation Compatible Land Use 

Zone Report for Camp Stanley Storage Activity (1996), and the Environmental Noise Management 

Plan for Camp Bullis (1999). In addition to these cooperative planning efforts, an MOU (1990) 

exists between the major DoD installations in the San Antonio area and the AACOG. 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

The MOU states that “the DoD installations and the AACOG are interested in consistency 

and compatibility of all Federal, state, and local plans, programs, and projects in the twelve county 

AACOG region.” There is an agreement, consistent with military requirements, that any plans, 

programs, and projects of a DoD installation which may affect the plans, programs, and/or projects 

of other Federal, state, local, or regional agencies in this twelve county area will be submitted to 

AACOG for review. 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Appendix D 

APPENDIX D 

GUIDELINES FOR COMPATIBLE LAND USE 

Table D.1 Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control 

(FICUN 1980) 

NOISE ZONES/ADNL LEVELS 

NZ I NZ II NZ III 

0- 55- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85 

SLUCM 

No. LAND USE 

55 65 70 75 80 85 + 

10 RESIDENTIAL 

11 Household Units Yes Yes* 251 301 No No No 

12 Group Quarters Yes Yes* 251 301 No No No 

13 Residential Hotels Yes Yes* 251 301 No No No 

14 Mobile Home Parks or Courts Yes Yes* No No No No No 

15 Transient Lodgings Yes Yes* 251 301 351 No No 

16 Other Residential Yes Yes* 251 301 No No No 

20,30 MANUFACTURING 

21 Food & Kindred Products Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

22 Textile Mill Products Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

23 Apparel/Other Finished 

Products Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

24 Lumber & Wood Products Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

25 Furniture & Fixtures Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

26 Paper & Allied Products Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

27 Printing, Publishing/Allied 

Indust. Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

28 Chemicals & Allied Products Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

29 Petroleum Refining & Indust. Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

31 Rubber & Misc Plastic Products Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

32 Stone, Clay & Glass Products Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

33 Primary Metal Industries Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

34 Fabricated Metal Products Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

35 Professional, Scientific & 

Controls Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No 

39 Miscellaneous Manufacturing Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

40 TRANSPORT, COMMUNICATIONS & UTILITIES

D-1 June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Appendix D Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

NOISE ZONES/ADNL LEVELS 

NZ I NZ II NZ III 

0- 55- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85 

SLUCM 

No. LAND USE 

55 65 70 75 80 85 + 

41 Railroad, Rapid Rail 

 Transit & Street Rail Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 Yes4

42 Motor Vehicle Transportation Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 Yes4

43 Aircraft Transportation Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 Yes4

44 Marine Craft Transportation Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 Yes4

45 Highway & Street Right-of-Way Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 Yes4

46 Automobile Parking Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

47 Communications Yes Yes Yes 255 30^5 No No 

48 Utilities Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 Yes4

49 Other Yes Yes Yes 255 305 No No 

50 TRADE 

51 Wholesale Trade Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

52 Retail - Building Materials, 

 Hardware/ Farm Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

53 Retail - General Merchandise Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No 

54 Retail - Food Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No 

55 Retail - Auto, Marine, Aircraft 

Parts Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No 

56 Retail - Apparel & Accessories Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No 

57 Retail - Furniture, Furnishings Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No 

58 Retail - Eating & Drinking 

Facilities Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No 

59 Other Retail Trade Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No 

60 SERVICES 

61 Finance, Insurance & 

 Real Estate Services Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No 

62 Personal Services Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No 

62.4 Cemeteries 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 Yes6

63 Business Services Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No 

64 Repair Services Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes3 Yes4 No 

65 Professional Services Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No 

65.1 Hospitals, Nursing Homes Yes Yes* 25* 30* No No No 

June 2005 D-2 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Appendix D 

NOISE ZONES/ADNL LEVELS 

NZ I NZ II NZ III 

0- 55- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85 

SLUCM 

No. LAND USE 

55 65 70 75 80 85 + 

65.1 Other Medical Facilities Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No 

66 Contract Construction Services Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No 

67 Government Services Yes Yes* Yes* 25* 30* No No 

68 Educational Services Yes Yes* 25* 30* No No No 

69 Miscellaneous Services Yes Yes Yes 25 30 No No 

70 CULTURAL, ENTERTAINMENT & RECREATIONAL 

71 Cultural Activities, Including 

Churches Yes Yes* 25* 30* No No No 

71.2 Nature Exhibits Yes Yes* Yes* No No No No 

72 Public Assembly Yes Yes Yes No No No No 

72.1 Auditoriums, Concert Halls Yes Yes 25 30 No No No 

72.11 Outdoor Music Shells, Amph. Yes Yes* No No No No No 

72.2 Outdoor Sports Arenas Yes Yes Yes7 Yes7 No No No 

73 Amusements Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No 

74 Recreational Activities Yes Yes* Yes* 25* 30* No No 

75 Resorts, Groups & Camps Yes Yes* Yes* Yes* No No No 

76 Parks Yes Yes* Yes* Yes* No No No 

79 Other Cultural Entertainment & 

Rec Yes Yes* Yes* Yes* No No No 

80 RESOURCE PRODUCT & EXTRACT 

81 Agriculture (Except Livestock) Yes Yes Yes8 Yes9 Yes10 Yes10 Yes10

81.5 Livestock Farming & 

81.7 Animal Breeding Yes Yes Yes8 Yes9 No No No 

82 Agricultural Related Activities Yes Yes Yes8 Yes9 Yes10 Yes10 Yes10

83 Forestry Activities & Related 

Svcs Yes Yes Yes8 Yes9 Yes10 Yes10 Yes10

84 Fishing Activities & Related 

Svcs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

85 Mining Activities & Related 

Svcs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

89 Other Resource Production Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Legend: 

SLCUM Standard Land Use Coding Manual 

Yes Land use and related structures compatible without restrictions. 

No Land use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited. 

D-3 June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Appendix D Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

ADNL A-weighted day-night sound level 

NZ Noise Zone 

Yesx

 (Yes with restrictions) Land use and related structures generally compatible; see footnotes. 

25, 30, 35 Land use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve noise level reduction 

(NLR) of 25, 30 or 35 must be incorporated into design and construction of structure. 

25*, 30*, 35* Land use generally compatible with NLR; however, measures to achieve an overall NLR do not 

necessarily solve noise difficulties; additional evaluation is warranted. 

NLR Noise level reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise 

attenuation into the design and construction of the structure. 

Footnotes: 

*

 The designation of these uses as “compatible” in this zone reflects individual Federal agencies’ consideration 

of general cost and feasibility factors as well as past community experiences and program objectives. 

Localities, when evaluating the application of these guidelines to specific situations, may have different 

concerns or goals to consider.

1

 (a Although local conditions may require residential use, it is discouraged in 65-70 ADNL and strongly 

discouraged in 70-75 ADNL. The absence of viable alternative development options should be determined 

and an evaluation indicating that a demonstrated community need for residential use would not be met if 

development were prohibited in these zones should be conducted prior to approvals. 

(b) Where the community determines that residential uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to 

indoor NLR of at least 25 dB (65-70 ADNL) and 30 dB (70-75 ADNL) should be incorporated into building 

codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 

20 dB, thus the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard construction and 

normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year round. Additional consideration should 

be given to modifying NLR levels based on peak noise levels. 

(c) ©NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. However, building location and site planning, 

design, and use of berms and barriers can help mitigate outdoor noise exposure particularly from ground 

level transportation sources. 

Measures that reduce noise at a site should be used wherever practical in preference to measures that only 

protect interior spaces. 

2 Measures to achieve NLR of 25 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where 

the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. 

3 Measures to achieve NLR of 30 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where 

the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. 

4 Measures to achieve NLR of 35 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where 

the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. 

5 If noise-sensitive, use indicated NLR; if not, use is compatible. 

6 No buildings. 

7 Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. 

8 Residential buildings require a NLR of 25. 

9 Residential buildings require a NLR of 30. 

10 Residential buildings not permitted. 

11 In areas with ADNL greater than 80, land use not recommended, but if community decides use is necessary, hearing 

protection devices should be worn by personnel.

June 2005 D-4 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Appendix E 

APPENDIX E 

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 

E.1 PURPOSE OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 

The purpose of a community involvement plan is to educate the public, achieve negotiated 

mutual agreements with neighboring civilian communities and to promote compatible land use in 

areas around installations. The IENMP objectives are to protect the installation operational 

capability from the effects of incompatible land use and to assist local, regional, state, and federal 

officials. Although this IENMP did not identify CSSA generated noise levels which are currently 

incompatible with surrounding land uses, the community involvement procedures outlined in this 

appendix are useful in maintaining the established positive relationship with the local community, 

while ensuring future development and CSSA missions remain compatible. 

The purposes of the community involvement plan are to: 

• Maintain the installation’s position as a good neighbor in the community. 

• Inform the community of alternative actions and their potential impacts. 

• Solicit information from the public regarding possible impacts, future 

development in the community, and the acceptability of proposed actions. 

• Maintain an open and visible decision-making process that is fair and equitable to 

different people within the community. 

E.2 PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION 

The purpose of this section is to: 

• Provide a summary of the programs and policies developed by civilian 

communities to resolve Installation Environmental Noise Management issues 

presented in this study. 

• Document the steps taken to reach agreements between the installation and local 

communities on matters affecting land use in areas impacted by activities on the 

military installation. 

• Document unresolved land use conflicts. 

E.3 INTRODUCTION 

The specific techniques to be used for community involvement will be at the discretion of 

the installation manager and staff, taking into account the unique circumstances of the installation, 

the degree of controversy surrounding noise and other issues at the installation, and the 

characteristics of the local political institutions. But the installation manager will be asked to 

follow a carefully-designed thought process which will help them him through the design of his 

community involvement programs in an orderly and systematic manner. 

E-1 June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Appendix E Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

Implicit in this thought process is the recognition that people are different. Some people may 

be concerned because they hold an official position in the community. Others are concerned 

because the noise or other issues impact directly on them. While others are concerned with how 

the community is growing. Finally, those holding real estate in noise-impacted areas are concerned 

about their future development plans. To be credible to the community, any agreement needs to 

win acceptance not only of elected leaders, but also of those people that see themselves as having a 

stake in the issue. 

The Army’s experience with noise and other environmental issues suggests that most people 

will not be interested in the Installation Environmental Noise Management process unless they are 

directly impacted by these issues such as, planning regulations, changes in tax rates, or some other 

direct impact. 

But even when dealing with only part of the community, there are differences in the kind of 

information you can give or get from various people. The number of people that can understand 

the technical complexities of acoustical measurement is extremely small, but the opinion of this 

small technical group of people can be very important. They often influence whether public 

officials accept the IENMP study. Thus, it is important to balance the technical aspects of noise 

based on the people involved. In other words: “Do not tell people how to build a watch when all 

they want to know is the time.” The general attitudes towards the installation, perceptions of 

whether or not there is a noise problem, etc., is the key to success or failure. 

The reason it is so important to carefully target the people you want to reach is that this 

determines the techniques you will use. An appropriate technique for reviewing the technical 

methodology might be a small technical advisory group. But if you want general public 

perceptions you might hold community workshops in noise-impacted neighborhoods, or conduct a 

number of interviews. 

The person implementing a community involvement program will need to go through this 

kind of analysis in order to select from the considerable array of community involvement 

techniques, which have been developed, including: 

• Public Meetings 

• Public Hearings 

• Informal Workshops 

• Coffee Klatches 

• Interviews 

• Field Trips 

• Advisory Committees or Task Forces 

• Computer-Based Interactive Graphics 

• Homepages 

June 2005 E-2 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Appendix E 

• Questionnaires, Response Forms, Polls 

• Open Houses 

• Brochures 

• Newsletters 

• Hot Lines 

• News Releases 

This list is not exhaustive, but simply includes the most frequently used techniques, or 

techniques which may have particular suitability for noise-related community involvement. 

E.4 DESIGNING A COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM 

Installation Environmental Noise Management community involvement programs will 

usually not be a single event, such as one public hearing, but rather a series of coordinated 

activities, which provide different kinds of participation opportunities at different times. Like the 

NEPA process, environmental noise management requires continuous community involvement. 

There is no single community involvement program that can be prescribed for all 

circumstances. A program that has been very successful in one situation may be ineffective in 

another. The following will provide guidance to assist in identifying a community involvement 

program suitable to your circumstances. This guidance will include general principles, which will 

help you approach the design of community involvement programs in a logical manner. It should 

be remembered, however, that there are a number of special conditions surrounding each 

installation that can also influence the selection of community involvement techniques. Many of 

these conditions are described later in this section. These conditions do not negate the thought 

process, but are in addition to it. 

E.5 GENERAL PRINCIPLES 

Practical experience with community involvement has lead to four general observations 

about community involvement programs. 

Different people from the community will be involved at different stages of the decisionmaking process. A community involvement program - unless it lasts only a very short time - is 

not a simple linear thing. Rather, public participation will expand and contract. During technical 

phases, participation is likely to be limited to leaders of groups and interests, or staffs of agencies. 

In those phases where alternatives are being considered, a broader community based group may be 

involved. 

There are appropriate levels of involvement at each step in the decision-making 

process. It is possible to attempt “too much” community involvement at a particular step in the 

decision-making process. In particular, many agencies have “burned out” public enthusiasm by 

creating a very high level of interest at the very beginning of the process - where there is relatively 

little in which the general public can really get involved - disappointing people who might have 

E-3 June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Appendix E Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

made an important contribution in later stages of decision making. This often leads to them turning 

off the entire process. While this applies to the general public, opportunities for early participation 

should certainly be offered to other local, state, and federal agencies, identifiable interest groups, or 

directly impacted people. The thought process will assist you in identifying the most appropriate 

stages for more intense involvement of the general public. 

The participation of the public will increase as the decision-making process progresses.

While participation waxes and wanes, the overall pattern in community involvement is that more 

and more people will participate as you come nearer to a decision. This is a relatively 

understandable phenomenon: the closer you get to a decision, the more information there is for 

people to react to. While representatives of organized groups may be able to participate in the early 

stages of community involvement, the less organized people will be able to participate more 

effectively in the later stages of the process. This can be a mixed blessing. While you may feel 

delighted to receive more participation, you will also spend a lot of time explaining what has 

already taken place. People seem to assume that the program started the day they first began to 

participate, and feel a need to re-examine all the assumptions you’ve been working to build for 

many months. As a result, it is very important to document how people from the community have 

participated in the study, so that it is clear what decisions have preceded and who participated in 

making those decisions. 

Community involvement programs must be integrated with the Installation 

Environmental Noise Management Program. Each step of the community involvement program 

must be scheduled with an eye to what information is required from the public at each stage. Too 

often community involvement activities are scheduled “ad hoc,” without any awareness of how it 

fits in the overall scheme of things. The result is that the information received from the public is 

out of sequence with the decision-making process. Either the information is too late, and can’t be 

used any longer or would require major re-study, or the community involvement is too early and 

asks for participation before there is really much for the community to “sink its teeth into.” In 

either event there is frustration and damage to the credibility of the community involvement effort. 

 As the thought process below will illustrate, community involvement activities should be designed 

as an integrated part of the decision-making process itself. 

E.6 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROCESS 

The community involvement process must be integrated with and facilitate the IENMP, 

rather than being added on to it as a final review. To achieve this integration of the IENMP and the 

community involvement process, it is necessary to think first about how community involvement 

plan meets those needs and facilitates the IENMP process. 

Identify Decision-Making Process 

Each of the IENMP stages, as described in paragraph 1.1.5, is logically related to the stages 

that precedes and follows it. It is important, at the beginning of the development of the community 

involvement plan for each stage, to decide where in the program the community involvement 

process will best fit. 

June 2005 E-4 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Appendix E 

Identify the Objectives 

Because the community involvement plan must help the IENMP move along rather than 

impede or stop it, it is important to clearly identify what it is that the plan must achieve at each 

stage. The identification of program objectives should be specific (for example, an objective might 

be to update the installation’s data base about land use surrounding the facility; another might be to 

verify public perception of noise in comparison to presumptions about noise impact as portrayed 

by the contour maps.

Identify Constraints and Opportunities 

Before proceeding to identify the more specific community involvement activities, 

consideration should be given to those factors that might impede or advance the plan. Factors such 

as program schedule and budget limits, or command support, will affect the scope of community 

involvement action. Some installations may have considerable community controversy about noise 

problems, some may not. In some communities there are already groups organized to work on 

noise problems, in others there are not. The noise problems at some installations may have 

attracted the attention of powerful political figures, but this may not be so at other places. 

All of these special conditions can affect your community involvement planning. Table E-1 

summarizes many of the most important of these factors. 

Table E.1 How Various Factors May Affect Selection of Community Involvement 

Techniques 

Limited Alternatives 

If controversial, look first for approaches to expand the 

range of alternatives: Limited alternatives may prevent 

achieving an agreement. 

Limited Resources 

Attempt to get multiplier effect by getting interest groups 

to involve their membership. Expend resources on the 

period after alternatives have been identified but before 

plan selection. 

Duration of Program 

Prolonged decision-making processes may require use of 

techniques to maintain visibility over a prolonged period, 

e.g., newsletters or an advisory committee. 

E-5 June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Appendix E Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

Table E.1 How Various Factors May Affect Selection of Community Involvement 

Techniques (continued) 

Technical Complexity 

May need an advisory group that can get thoroughly 

informed. Need for publications to simplify technical 

concepts. May have to work most closely with other 

agencies and interest groups rather than “man on the 

street.” 

High Level of Interest 

Need to offer a variety of involvement opportunities. Use 

techniques stressing conflict resolution rather than 

speechmaking, e.g., workshops rather than hearings. 

Low Level of Interest 

If interest very low, consider whether a community 

involvement program is needed. Early part of program 

includes public information program on how the issue 

could affect the community. 

Interest in Community Use of techniques aimed specifically at interested people. 

Limited to a Few People Use interviews, workshops, or advisory committees rather 

than public meetings or hearings. 

Community Interest is 

Very Broad 

Use media to inform public. Use highly visible techniques 

such as meetings, workshops, newspaper inserts, etc. 

Noise Issues have High 

Level of Significance to Groups 

Put emphasis on conflict resolution techniques such as 

small group discussions, workshops, advisory committee, 

conflict mediation, etc. 

Uninformed Community Requires public information program. Work with interest 

groups to get them to inform their membership. 

Highly Informed 

Community 

Check whether or not they are accurately informed. 

Public information needs based on this appraisal. 

Hostile Community Create opportunities for ventilation of feelings. May need 

a series of meetings before things start being productive. 

Apathetic Community Provide public information program so people can decide 

whether or not to participate. 

Unified Community May be able to work through elected figures. 

June 2005 E-6 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Appendix E 

Table E.1 How Various Factors May Affect Selection of Community Involvement 

Techniques (continued) 

Divided Community 

Will have to deal with leadership of the various interests. 

Danger that this issue will get caught up in continuing 

community controversy. 

State or National People Interested May need to use newsletter or even briefings in state 

capitol or Washington, DC to keep all people informed. 

Highly Representative 

Local Political Institutions Potential for dealing through local representatives. 

Compact Geographic Area Potential for meetings, workshops, and face-to-face 

discussions. 

Dispersed Geographic Area 

May need to rely on newspaper inserts, mail-in or phonein responses. Any meetings will have to be repeated in 

several geographic locations. 

Low Credibility of Army Need to stay with “safe” traditional forms of participation. 

Past History of Community 

Involvement 

If successful, either repeats past practices or consider 

innovative techniques. If unsuccessful, stay with “proven”

techniques for that community. 

Community Involvement Objectives 

There may be more than one objective for community involvement at some stages of the 

IENMP. It is important to be specific in identifying these objectives. 

Here are some examples of community involvement objectives (Table E-2) that may be 

appropriate to the noise program - but note that the special needs, constraints, and opportunities at 

each military installation will require the development of a list of objectives that are specific to that 

facility. 

E-7 June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Appendix E Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

Table E.2 Examples of Community Involvement Objectives 

NOISE PROGRAM STAGE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT OBJECTIVES 

Identify noise-impacted areas. Identify the level of community interest in program. 

Identify community perceptions regarding the 

significance of noise problems at the installation. 

Identify existing or potential 

incompatible land uses. Identify existing land uses in noise-impacted areas. 

Identify land uses anticipated in the future. 

Identify alternative actions to 

minimize noise impacts. 

Identify alternative actions which the community 

believes could be taken to mitigate existing 

incompatible uses. 

Evaluate alternative actions. Identify community perceptions about the possible 

impacts of each of the alternatives. 

Determine the acceptability of each of the alternatives 

to the community. 

Negotiate agreements with local 

communities and agencies. 

Identify mutually acceptable actions to be taken by 

the communities, and actions to be taken by the 

installation. 

Submit agreements for review 

decision-makers. 

Determine acceptability of draft plans of by decisionmakers. 

Publish final report describing 

agreements and documentation. Inform community of agreements reached. 

Implement agreements. Determine community concerns about how the 

agreement is implemented. 

Update and review. Identify continuing or new noise problems. 

Identify the Information Exchange Which Must Take Place with the Community 

In the proceeding, you defined where you wanted to be at the end of each stage of the noise 

program. In this step, you will need to define what information you will need to exchange with the 

community in order to complete the IENMP. There is information you must give the community, 

and information you must get from the community. Thinking first, about what you need to get 

from the community can help you to define better, and more easily, what it is that you need to give 

to them. Thinking about this information exchange in a logical/organized sequence can help you 

avoid information omissions and/or overkill. 

Identify the Information Sources in the Community 

You will not be dealing with the same people at each stage of the program. And, at some 

stages, the information from the community may come from different people than those you gave 

your information to. (For example, you may ask the mayor of a municipality for information about 

June 2005 E-8 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas Appendix E 

the local plans and zoning after giving him a briefing on the noise program; but the information 

you get may come from the Planning Director who is responding to directives from the mayor.) 

During relatively technical stages of the program, you may be dealing primarily with a 

leadership group - governmental staff, technicians, or leaders of interest groups. They may be the 

only ones with the background information, technical knowledge, or interest to sustain their 

involvement in the program. 

When you are dealing with issues of how things “should” be, then a much larger public may 

have to be included. To determine the community’s attitude about future growth, you may need to 

deal with a broad cross section of community interests. 

Identify the Community Involvement Techniques to Use with the Public 

All of the analysis of community involvement has been leading to where you will decide how 

to get the job done. If you have applied this process at each stage of the IENMP, you will arrive at 

this step knowing these things: 

• What you need to accomplish at each stage of the program, and why you are 

going to involve the public in doing that work? 

• What, specifically, you need to get from the public and what you need to give 

them to get that? 

• Who it is that you need to involve in the information exchange at this stage? 

At this point there may be one or several community involvement techniques that might be 

considered. For each installation, it will be the combination of program needs, program and 

community involvement constraints and opportunities, size and composition of the people 

involved, and the character of the information needed from the public that will determine how the 

community involvement plan is carried out in this step. 

Identify When the Information Exchange Activities Should Take Place 

In working with the public in community involvement, care must be taken to pick times for 

involvement activities that take into consideration the people’ time schedules and needs, as well as 

those of the presenters. Daytime meetings may exclude citizens with 9-5 jobs, or with child care 

responsibilities. On the other hand, daytime meetings may make it possible for a parent to attend 

who might have to be at home after school hours. 

Identify the Place Where the Community Involvement Information Exchange Can Take 

Place 

Community involvement activities must be convenient in location as well as in time, for 

those you expect to be involved. There may be an ideal physical facility for a large public meeting, 

or for a small committee meeting on the military installation. If the public is not familiar with the 

layout of the installation, or if security regulations make access a complicated process, it maybe 

better to use the facilities at a public building in the community such as a library, school, or town 

E-9 June 2005 
Installation Environmental Noise Management Plan for 

Appendix E Camp Stanley Storage Activity, Texas 

hall. In some rural communities, the church meeting hall may be a more “comfortable” place to 

meet as well as convenient to that community. 

On-site activities may be very valuable as a means of getting information to the public. The 

care taken in planning the details of where community involvement might occur can help to 

improve and maintain relationships between the military and the public, and increase public 

acceptance and satisfaction with IENMP. 

June 2005 E-10