Aberdeen 

Proving Ground 

Joint Land Use 

Study
This study was prepared under 

contract with the Chesapeake 

Science and Security Corridor 

(part of the Harford County Office 

of Economic Development), with 

financial support from the Office of 

Economic Adjustment, Department 

of Defense. The content reflects 

the views of the key JLUS partners 

involved in the development of 

this study and does not necessarily 

reflect the views of the Office of 

Economic Adjustment.

Aberdeen 

Proving Ground 

Joint Land Use 

Study
ABERDEEN PROVING 

GROUND

JOINT LAND USE STUDY

Prepared for

Chesapeake Science and Security Corridor

Harford County

Prepared by

November 2015
This study was prepared under contract with the Chesapeake Science and Security Corridor (part of the Harford County 

Office of Economic Development), with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of 

Defense. The content reflects the views of the key JLUS partners involved in the development of this study and does 

not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment.
Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

The Executive Committee served an active and important role in the development of the Aberdeen Proving Ground

(APG) Joint Land Use Study (JLUS). The Chesapeake Science and Security Corridor would like to thank the following 

individuals for their review, guidance, and assistance:

Name Title Entity

Michael Bennett Mayor City of Aberdeen

David R. Craig County Executive (Former) Harford County

COL James E. Davis Garrison Commander APG Garrison

Wayne Dougherty Mayor (Former) City of Havre de Grace

Barry Glassman County Executive Harford County

Daniel Glasson Project Manager Office of Economic Adjustment

Robert J. Hodge Council Cecil County Council

COL David R Kennedy Project Manager Office of Economic Adjustment

William T. Martin Mayor City of Havre de Grace

COL Greg McClinton Garrison Commander (Former) APG Garrison

Tim McNamara (Ret.) Chief of Infrastructure/Community 

Relations/Security (Former)

Joint Program Executive Officer for 

Chemical and Biological Defense

William Short Commissioner Kent County

Lisa Swoboda Deputy Director Maryland Department of 

Commerce

John Wallace Tech Director Aberdeen Test Center

Alternates 

CSM Jeffrey O. Adams Garrison Command Sergeant Major APG Garrison

William K. Boniface Director of Administration Harford County

Mary Chance Director of Administration (Former) Harford County

Karen Holt Director, Office of Economic Development Harford County

Melissa L. Lambert, Esq. County Attorney Harford County

Robert McCord County Attorney (Former) Harford County

Doug Miller City Administrator City of Aberdeen

Tari Moore County Executive Cecil County

Jim Newby Director of Administration (Former) City of Havre de Grace
Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study

Name Title Entity

Executive Committee Alternates (continued) 

William Newton Command Staff Aberdeen Test Center

Carolyn C. Sorge Mayor (Former) Town of Betterton

Patrick Sypolt Director of Administration City of Havre de Grace

Donald E. Sutton Mayor Town of Betterton

Glenn Wait Deputy Garrison Commander (Former) APG Garrison

Al Wein County Administration Cecil County

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Advisory Committee also served a key role in the development of the APG JLUS. The Chesapeake Science and 

Security Corridor would like to thank the following individuals for their technical expertise and assistance:

Name Title Entity

Todd Beser Directorate of Public Works-Environmental 

Division, Chesapeake Bay Program

APG Garrison

Daniela Caughron Facility Program Manager US Army Research, Development 

and Engineering Command

Barbara Cindric Program Manager Communications-Electronics 

Research, Development and 

Engineering Center

Tony DiGiacomo Principal Planner, Office of Planning and 

Zoning

Cecil County

Pamela Fry Chief, Experimentation Support Division 

Laboratory Support

Army Research Laboratory

David Goad Lead, Compliance and Conservation Team Aberdeen Test Center

Carla Gerber GIS Specialist, Planning and Zoning Kent County

Phyllis Grover Director of Planning and Community 

Development

City of Aberdeen

Karen Holt Director, Office of Economic Development Harford County

CPT Nicholas Kiaunis Flight Instructor Supervisor Maryland National Guard Weide 

Army Heliport

Jenny King Deputy Director, Planning & Zoning Harford County

Tom Kuchar Director of Directorate of Public Works APG Garrison

Lisa McClure Plans, Analysis, Integration Office (PAIO) APG Garrison

Robert Melascaglia Installation Master Planner, 

Directorate of Public Works -Master 

Planning

APG Garrison

Kevin Melchior Director/Directorate of Plans, Training, 

Mobilization and Security

APG Garrison
Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study

Name Title Entity

Advisory Committee (continued)

Neal Mills Director of Planning City of Havre de Grace

Fred Orr G4, Engineering Chief Communications-Electronics 

Command

Nathan Osborne Chief, Directorate of Public Works-Master 

Planning

APG Garrison

Steve Overbay Deputy Director, Office of Economic 

Development

Harford County

Jim Richardson Director, Office of Economic Development 

(Former)

Harford County

Eric Sennstrom Director of Planning and Zoning Cecil County

James Sheehy Executive Officer United States Army Public Health 

Command

Alternates 

Amy Butler Adams Environmental Biologist Army Research Lab

Dave Andrews Lauderick Creek Training Manager Maryland Army National Guard

Lee Arnold Risk Manager Communications-Electronics 

Research, Development and 

Engineering Center

Martin Carroll Range Operations Aberdeen Test Center

Scott Flanigan Director, Public Works Cecil County

Joseph Kaffl Intelligence Operations Security & Treaty 

Compliance Officer/ Directorate of 

Plans, Training, Mobilization and 

Security

Matthew Lapinsky Director, Department of Public Works City of Aberdeen

Pamela Spelker Coordinator, Economic Development

(Former)

City of Havre de Grace

John Van Gilder Manager, Intergovernmental Affairs City of Havre de Grace

Lisa Webb Director, Office of Economic Development Cecil County

 Subject Matter Experts 

Theresa Adams Directorate of Public Works Housing Office APG Garrison

Jesse Bane County Sheriff Harford County

David Black Geographical Information System, Office of 

Planning and Zoning

Cecil County

Richard Brooks Director, Department of Emergency 

Services

Cecil County

Ralph Cardenuto Chief, Installation Safety Office APG Garrison

Denise Carnaggio Chesapeake Science and Security Corridor, 

Coordinator (former)

Harford County
Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study

Name Title Entity

Advisory Committee Subject Matter Experts (continued)

Jim Carnaggio Facilities Specialist Aberdeen Test Center

Joel Caudill Department of Public Works, Water and 

Sewer Division

Harford County

Jason Ebrite Carroll Island Wetlands Mitigation APG Garrison

Edward Engbert Communications-Electronics 

Research, Development and 

Engineering Center

Kim Fillinger Environmental Protection Specialist Army Test and Evaluation 

Command-Aberdeen Test Center

Tracey Hall Chief of Human Resources Program Executive Office: 

Command, Control and 

Communications-Tactical

Lynda Hartzell Directorate of Public Works-Environmental 

Division, Bald Eagle Management Program

APG Garrison

Vance Hobbs Energy Office Northern, Office of Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of the Army/Deputy 

Director Environmental Division

APG Garrison

Robert Kramer President, Kinnards Point Home Owners 

Association

Kent County

Jackie Ludwig Chief of Water and Sewer, Admin and 

Engineering

Harford County

Poneyboy Miller Installation Spectrum Manager, NEC APG Garrison

Dennis Overbay Directorate of Public Works, Engineering 

and Construction Division

APG Garrison

Steve Overbay Chesapeake Science and Security Corridor, 

Coordinator (former)

Harford County

Jansen Robinson APG Garrison

Dan Rooney Planner Harford County

Carroll Sparwasser Directorate of Public Works-Environmental 

Division

APG Garrison

Jeff Stratmeyer Department of Public Works, Traffic 

Engineer

Harford County

Russell Strickland Director, Emergency Services Harford County

Daniel Whipp Chesapeake Science and Security Corridor, 

Coordinator

Harford County
Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study

JLUS CONSULTANT

 Michael Hrapla, Project Manager

 Celeste Werner, AICP, Deputy Project Manager

 Richard Rust, AICP, Technical Director

 Patrick Small, AICP, Planning Lead
Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study

Please see the next page.
Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page i

Acronyms .........................................................................................................................................................iii

Chapter 1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1

What Is A Joint Land Use Study?..............................................................................................................1

Why Prepare A Joint Land Use Study? .....................................................................................................2

Public Outreach .......................................................................................................................................2

JLUS Study Area .......................................................................................................................................3

JLUS Implementation...............................................................................................................................4

Chapter 2 Community Profile ..........................................................................................................................7

Study Area Growth Trends.......................................................................................................................7

Chapter 3 Military Profile ...............................................................................................................................11

Aberdeen Proving Ground Economic Impact.........................................................................................11

Installation Setting.................................................................................................................................11

Military Operations................................................................................................................................12

Aberdeen Proving Ground Mission Footprint........................................................................................12

Chapter 4 Existing Compatibility Tools........................................................................................................17

Federal...................................................................................................................................................17

Aberdeen Proving Ground .....................................................................................................................17

State of Maryland ..................................................................................................................................18

Local Jurisdictions..................................................................................................................................18

Harford County ......................................................................................................................................19

Cecil County...........................................................................................................................................19

Kent County ...........................................................................................................................................19

City of Aberdeen....................................................................................................................................19

City of Havre de Grace...........................................................................................................................19

Chapter 5 Compatibility Assessment ...........................................................................................................21

Identification of Compatibility Issues.....................................................................................................21

Issues.....................................................................................................................................................21

Setting Priorities ....................................................................................................................................21

APG Compatibility Issues by Factor........................................................................................................22
Page ii Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study

Chapter 6 Implementation Plan.....................................................................................................................29

Implementation Plan Guidelines............................................................................................................29

APG Military Compatibility Areas...........................................................................................................29

How to Read the Implementation Plan..................................................................................................37

Figures and Tables

Figure 1 JLUS Study Area .......................................................................................................................................5

Figure 2 JLUS Study Area Growth 2000-2030 ........................................................................................................8

Figure 3 Military Footprint—Safety Zones, BASH, Noise Contours, Range / Training Areas................................14

Figure 4 Military Footprint —Imaginary Surfaces, FAA Part 77, Special use Airspace .........................................15

Figure 5 Military Compatibility Area Overlay District (MCAOD) ..........................................................................31

Figure 6 Noise MCA .............................................................................................................................................32

Figure 7 Safety MCA ............................................................................................................................................33

Figure 8 Vertical Obstruction MCA ......................................................................................................................35

Figure 9 BASH MCA..............................................................................................................................................36

Figure 10 Strategy Key...........................................................................................................................................38

Table 1 Regional Population Growth by Study Area Jurisdiction, 2000 – 2010 ....................................................7

Table 2 City and County Planning Tools..............................................................................................................20

Table 3 JLUS Strategies.......................................................................................................................................39

* * *
Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page iii

AA Aberdeen Area

AB Assembly Bill

ac acres

ACEC Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern

ACUB Army Compatible Use Buffer

AE Alternative Energy Development

AE Ammunition and Explosives

AEC US Army Evaluation Center

AGL above ground level

ALUC Advisory Land Use Committee

ALUC Airport Land Use Commission

ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

AMSAA Army Material Systems Analysis 

Activity

APG Aberdeen Proving Ground

APZ Accident Potential Zone

AR Army Regulation

AR Attainment Report

ARL Army Research Lab

ARWG Adaptation and Response Working 

Group

AQ Air Quality

AT / FP Anti-Terrorism / Force Protection

ATC Aberdeen Test Center

ATCT Air Traffic Control Tower

ATEC US Army Test and Evaluation 

Command

BAH Basic Allowance for Housing

BASH Bird / Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard

BEH Bachelor Enlisted Housing

BEMP Bald Eagle Management Plan

BHWG Bird Hazard Warning Group

BIO Biological Resources

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BOH Bachelor Officer Housing

BOS Board of Supervisors

BO Biological Opinion

BOSS Better Opportunities for Single 

Soldiers

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure

CALA Combat Aircraft Loading Ordnance 

Area

CAS Close-Air Support

CB Chemical and Biological

CBP Chesapeake Bay Program

CDNL C-weighted Day-Night Average Sound 

Level

CECOM US Army Communications Electronics 

Command

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act

CERDEC US Army Communications Electronics 

Research, Development and 

Engineering Command

CEWMP Comprehensive Energy and Water 

Master Plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIS Capital Investment Strategy

CL Community Legacy

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level

CNRSW Commander Naval Region Southwest

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

COA Critical Operations Area

COM Interagency Coordination / 

Communication

CP Comprehensive Plan

CR Cultural / Historic Resources

CRP Cultural Resources Program

CRPO Cultural Resources Program Office

CSAR Combat Search and Rescue

CSD Customer Service Desk

CSSA Chesapeake Science and Security 

Corridor

A

B

C
Page iv Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study

CTP Consolidated Transportation Program

CUP Conditional Use Permit

CWA Clean Water Act

CZ Clear Zone

CZMS Coastal Zone Management Act 

C4ISR Command, Control, Communications, 

Computers, Intelligence, Survivability 

and Reconnaissance

dB decibel

DeCA Defense Commissary Agency

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DNL Day-Night Level

DoD Department of Defense

DoDD Department of Defense Directive

DoDI Department of Defense Instruction

DON Department of Navy

DSS Dust / Smoke / Steam

E-1 Enlisted Sailor

EA Edgewood Area

EA Environmental Assessment

EAP Encroachment Action Plan

EAS Essential Air Service

EB Eastbound

ECBC Edgewood Chemical Biological Center

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act

EMS Emergency Management Services

EO Executive Order

EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESLC Eastern Shore Land Conservancy

EUL Enhanced Use Lease

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAD Floodplain Accommodation District

FCC Federal Communication Commission

FCD Floodplain Accommodation District

FISC Fleet Industrial Supply Center

FL flight level

FLPMA Federal Land Management and Policy 

Act

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FRC Fleet Readiness Center

FSC Frequency Spectrum Capacity

FSI Frequency Spectrum Interference / 

Impedance

ft feet / foot

FYDP Future Years Defense Plan

FY fiscal year

GATE Government and Technology 

Enterprise

GCA Ground Control Approach

GIS Geographic Information Systems

HA Housing Availability

HRZ Height Restriction Zones 

HUD US Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

D

E

F

G

H
Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page v

I Interstate

ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources 

Management Plan

ICUZ Installation Compatible Use Zone

IDA Intensely Developed Area

IE Infrastructure Extensions

IFR instrument flight rule

IGA Intergovernmental Agreement

ILA Industrial, Landscaping, and 

Agricultural

INRMP Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan

IRP Installation Restoration Program

ITAM Integrated Training Area Management

JLENS Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile 

Defense Elevated Netted Sensor 

System

JLUS Joint Land Use Study

JPEO-CBD Joint Program Executive Office for 

Chemical and Biological Defense

JSHS Junior Science & Humanities 

Symposium

km kilometers

LAS Land / Air / Sea Spaces

Ldn Day-Night Average Sound Level

LDA Limited Development Area

LG Light and Glare

LGTR Laser-guided Training Round

LI Legislative Initiatives

LRC Long Range Component

LS Competition for Land / Air Space

LSHG Lower Susquehanna Heritage 

Greenway

LU Land Use

LUO Land Use Ordinance

LUPZ Land Use Planning Zone

LZ Landing Zone

MAR / CA Marine Environments / Climate 

Adaptation

MARC Maryland Area Regional Commuter

MCA Military and Civilian Aviation

MCA Military Compatibility Area

MCCC Maryland Commission on Climate 

Change

MDA Maryland Department of Agriculture

MDARNG Maryland Army National Guard

MDE Maryland Department of the 

Environment

MDNR Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources

MDOT Maryland Department of 

Transportation

MEA Maryland Energy Administration

MET Maryland Environmental Trust

MGE Municipal Growth Element

MHT Maryland Historical Trust

MHEC Maryland Higher Education 

Commission

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOA Military Operating Area

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

I

J

K

L

M
Page vi Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study

MSL mean sea level

MTP Maryland Transportation Plan

MTR Military Training Route

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

NACo National Association of Counties

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NBW Neighborhood Business Works

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act

NEIEN National Environmental Information 

Exchange Network

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NGO Non-governmental Organization(s)

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NLR Noise Level Reduction

NM nautical mile

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NMP Nutrient Management Plan

NOx nitrous oxides

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

NOI Noise

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System

NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport 

Systems

NPS National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NV Noise and Vibration

NVG night vision goggles

O3 Ozone 

OCRM Office of Coastal Resource 

Management

OEA Office of Economic Adjustment

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle

ONMP Operational Noise Management 

Program

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PAAF Phillips Army Airfield

PEO C3T Program Executive Office for 

Command, Control and 

Communications - Tactical

PEO IEW&S Program Executive Office for 

Electronic Warfare & Sensors

PFA Priority Funding Areas

PG Policy Group

PL Public Law

PM Particulate Matter

PPE Priority Preservation Element

PSD Personnel Support Detachment

PT Public Trespassing

PUC Public Utilities Code

QD Quantity Distance Arcs

R Restricted Airspace

RAB Restoration Advisory Board

RC Roadway Capacity

RCA Resource Conservation Area

RCI Residential Communities Initiative

RCZ Range Compatibility Zone

RDECOM US Army Research, Development and 

Engineering Command

RDT&E Research, Development Test and 

Evaluation

REAT Renewable Energy Action Team

REPI Readiness and Environmental 

Protection Initiative

RESI Regional Economic Studies Institute

RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROD Record of Decision

ROW Right-of-Way

RPMP Real Property Master Plan

O

Q

R

N

P
Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page vii

RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard

RSZ Range Safety Zone

RTLP Range and Training Land Program

RV Recreational Vehicle

R&D Research and Development

SA Safety Zones

SAR Search and Rescue

SB Senate Bill

SBR Sensitive Biological Resources

SEAP Science and Engineering Apprentice 

Program

SF square feet

SG Smart Growth

SGSC Smart Growth Subcabinet

SHA State Highway Administration

SIP State Implementation Plan

SLR Sea Level Rise

SMART Science, Mathematics & Research for 

Transformation

SME Subject Matter Expert

SNR Scarce Natural Resources

SOI Sphere of Influence

SOP Standard Operating Procedures

SPA Specific Plan Area

SR Slow Route

SR State Route

SRBC Susquehanna River Basin Commission

SRP Sustainable Range Program

SRT State Report on Transportation

STA State Transit Assistance 

STC sound transmission class

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, 

and Mathematics

SUA Special Use Airspace

SWDA Safe Water Drinking Act

SWPP Source Water Protection Plan

S&E Scientists and Engineers

TACTS Tactical Aircrew Combat Training 

System

TACAN Tactical Air Navigation

TOD Transit Oriented Development

TDA Transportation Development Act

TDML Total Maximum Daily Loads

TR Town-Residential Zoning

TWG Technical Working Group

UAS Unmanned Aerial System

UGB Urban Growth Boundaries

US United States

USAF United States Air Force

USAPHC United States Army Public Health 

Command

USEPA United States Environmental 

Protection Agency

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service

USMC United States Marine Corps

UXO Unexploded Ordnance 

VFR visual flight rule

V Vibration

VO Vertical Obstructions

S

T

U

V
Page viii Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study

WAH Weide Army Heliport

WB Westbound

WCM Water Conservation Measure

WIP Watershed Implementation Plan

WISS Weapons Impact Scoring System

WQQ Water Quality / Quantity

WRE Water Resources Plan Element

WUI Water Use Intensity

ZO Zoning Ordinance

W

Z
Military installations are critical to local, regional, and 

state economies, generating thousands of jobs and 

millions of dollars in annual economic activity and tax 

revenue. In the past, incompatible development has 

been a factor in the loss of training operations and 

restructuring of mission-critical components to other 

military installations. The loss of military missions and 

closure of military installations have been detrimental 

to their host communities. To protect the missions of 

military installations and health of local economies and 

industries that rely on them, encroachment must be 

addressed through collaboration and joint planning 

between installations and local communities. This Joint 

Land Use Study (JLUS) attempts to mitigate existing 

compatibility issues, facilitate the prevention of future 

issues, and improve coordination between the local 

communities and Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). 

The APG JLUS advocates a proactive approach to 

encourage increased communication about decisions 

relating to land use regulation, conservation and 

natural resource management issues affecting the 

Study Area communities and the military. This study 

seeks to avoid conflicts previously experienced 

between the United States (US) military and local 

communities in other areas of the US and throughout 

the world by engaging the military and local decisionmakers in a collaborative planning process. 

Gateway signage at Aberdeen Proving Ground entry 

What Is A Joint Land Use Study?

A JLUS is a planning process accomplished through the 

collaborative efforts of a comprehensive list of 

stakeholders in a defined Study Area. These 

stakeholders include local community, state, and 

federal officials, residents, and the military who come 

together to identify compatible land uses and growth 

management recommendations within, and adjacent 

to, active military installations. The intent of the 

process is to establish and encourage a working 

relationship between the local communities, agencies 

and APG.

Joint Land Use Study Goal

The goal of the APG JLUS is to protect the viability of 

current and future military operations, while 

simultaneously guiding community growth, sustaining 

the environmental and economic health of the region, 

and protecting public health, safety, and welfare.

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 1
To help meet this goal, three primary guiding principles 

were identified:

 Understanding. Convene community and military 

representatives to identify, confirm, and 

understand the issues in an open forum, taking 

into consideration both community and APG 

perspectives and needs. This includes public 

awareness, education, and input organized in a 

cohesive outreach program.

 Collaboration. Encourage cooperative land use 

and resource planning among APG and 

surrounding communities so that future 

community growth and development are 

compatible with the operational missions at 

APG, while at the same time seeking ways to 

reduce operational impacts on adjacent lands 

within the Study Area.

 Actions. Provide a set of mutually supported 

tools, activities, and procedures from which local 

jurisdictions, agencies, and APG can select, 

prepare, and approve / adopt and then use to 

implement the recommendations developed 

during the JLUS process. The actions proposed 

include both operational measures to mitigate 

installation impacts on surrounding communities 

and local government and agency approaches to 

reduce community impacts on military 

operations. These tools will help decision makers 

resolve compatibility issues and prioritize 

projects within the annual budgeting process of 

their respective entity / jurisdiction. 

Why Prepare A Joint Land Use Study?

Although military installations and nearby communities 

may be separated by a fenceline or geography 

including water bodies they often share natural and 

manmade resources such as land use, airspace, water, 

and infrastructure. Despite the many positive 

interactions among local jurisdictions, agencies, and 

the military, and because so many resources are 

shared, the activities or actions of one entity can 

produce unintended negative impacts on another, 

resulting in conflicts. As communities develop and 

expand in response to growth and market demands, 

land use approvals have the ability to locate potentially 

incompatible development closer to military 

installations and operational areas. The result can 

initiate new, or exacerbate existing, land use and other 

compatibility issues, often referred to as 

encroachment, which can have negative impacts on 

community safety, economic development, and 

sustainment of military activities and readiness. This 

threat to military readiness is currently one of the 

military’s greatest challenges.

Collaboration and joint planning among military 

installations, local communities, and agencies should 

occur to protect the long-term viability of existing and 

future military missions. Working together also 

enhances the health of economies and industries of 

the communities before incompatibility becomes an 

issue. Recognizing the close relationship that should 

exist between installations and adjacent communities, 

the Department of Defense, Office of Economic 

Adjustment (OEA) implemented the JLUS program in 

an effort to mitigate existing and future conflicts and 

enhance communication and coordination among all 

affected stakeholders. This program aims to preserve 

the sustainability of local communities within the JLUS 

Study Area while protecting current and future 

operational and training missions at APG.

Public Outreach

The JLUS process is designed to create a locally 

relevant document that builds consensus and obtains 

support from the various stakeholders involved. To 

achieve the JLUS goals and objectives, the process 

included a public outreach program with a variety of 

participation opportunities for interested and affected 

parties.

Stakeholders

An early step in any planning process is the 

identification of stakeholders. Informing or involving 

them early in the project is instrumental to 

understanding, addressing, and resolving their most 

important issues through the development of 

integrated strategies and measures. Stakeholders 

include individuals, groups, organizations, and 

governmental entities interested in, affected by, or 

affecting the outcome of the JLUS document. 

Stakeholders identified for the APG JLUS included, but 

were not limited to, the following:

Page 2 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
 Local jurisdictions (counties and cities)

 DOD officials (including OEA representatives) 

 APG

 Local, regional, and state planning agencies

 Nongovernmental organizations

 The public (including residents and landowners)

Executive and Advisory Committees

The development of the APG JLUS was guided by two 

committees, comprising city, county, APG personnel, 

federal and state agencies, local governments, and 

other stakeholders.

Executive Committee. The Executive Committee (EC) 

consists of officials from participating jurisdictions, 

military installation leadership, and representatives 

from APG and federal and state agencies. The EC is 

responsible for the overall direction of the JLUS, 

preparation and approval of the study design, approval 

of policy recommendations, and approval of draft and 

final JLUS documents.

Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee (AC) is 

responsible for identifying and studying technical 

issues. Membership includes county and municipal 

planners, military base planners and staff, and other 

subject matter experts as needed to help assist in the 

development and evaluation of implementation 

strategies and tools. Items discussed by the AC were 

brought before the EC for consideration and action.

The EC and AC served as liaisons to their respective 

stakeholder groups. The EC and AC members were 

charged with conveying committee activities and 

information to their organizations and constituencies 

and relaying their organization’s comments and 

suggestions to both committees for consideration. The 

EC members were encouraged to conduct meetings 

with their organizations and / or constituencies to 

facilitate this input. 

Public Workshops

In addition to the EC and AC meetings, a series of 

public workshops were held throughout the 

development of the JLUS. These workshops provided 

an opportunity for the exchange of information with 

the greater community, assisted in identifying the 

issues to be addressed in the JLUS, and provided an 

opportunity for input on the proposed strategies. Each 

workshop included an interactive presentation and 

facilitated exercise for the public to participate in the 

development of the plan. 

Public Outreach Materials

Joint Land Use Study Overview / Compatibility Factors 

Fact Sheet. At the beginning of the JLUS process, a Fact 

Sheet was developed describing the JLUS program, 

objectives, public participation methods, and the APG 

JLUS proposed Study Area. This Fact Sheet was made 

available at the meetings for review by interested 

members of the public.

This Fact Sheet also served as an informational 

brochure describing each of the 24 compatibility 

factors used for JLUS analysis. While not every factor 

may apply to the APG JLUS, this list provides an 

effective tool to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of 

compatibility factors is conducted within the JLUS 

Study Area.

Strategy Tools Fact Sheet. JLUS strategies comprise a 

variety of actions that local governments, military 

installations, agencies, and other stakeholders can take 

to promote compatible land use planning. This Fact 

Sheet provided an overview of the strategy types that 

could be applied to address compatibility issues in the 

Study Area.

Website. A project website was developed to provide 

stakeholders, the public, and media representatives 

with access to project information. This website was 

maintained for the entire duration of the project to 

ensure information was easily accessible. Information 

contained on the website included program points of 

contact, documents, maps, public meeting 

information, and other JLUS resources. The project 

website is located at www.apgjlus.com.

JLUS Study Area

APG is situated on the northwestern shore of the 

Chesapeake Bay in Harford County, Maryland. The 

installation comprises approximately 72,165 acres, 

including nearly 40,425 acres of land at noncontiguous 

locations with the remaining area of 31,740 acres 

consisting of portions of the Chesapeake Bay and Bush 

and Gunpowder Rivers. 

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 3
APG is approximately 35 miles northeast of the 

Maryland state capital of Annapolis, and strategically

located between major cities - approximately 30 miles 

northeast of Baltimore, 60 miles northeast of 

Washington DC, and 65 miles southwest of 

Philadelphia. 

The APG JLUS Study Area encompasses all land near 

APG and areas that may impact current or future 

military operations or be impacted by operations. Due 

to its location and operational areas including the 

surrounding waters, the general JLUS Study Area was 

identified as the APG Aberdeen Area; Edgewood Area; 

Churchville Test Area; Spesutie Island; Graces Quarters; 

Carroll Island; range areas including portions of the 

Chesapeake Bay, Bush and Gunpowder Rivers; and the 

general area affected by operations including military 

airspace, range safety areas, and noise contours within 

the counties of Harford, Cecil, and Kent, and the cities 

of Aberdeen and Havre de Grace as illustrated on 

Figure 1. 

JLUS Implementation

It is important to note that once the JLUS process is 

completed, the final document is not an adopted plan, 

but rather a set of strategies to be used by local 

jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations in the APG 

JLUS Study Area to guide their future compatibility 

efforts. Acceptance of the study by stakeholders (e.g.,

committees, jurisdictions, and the public) will be 

sought to confirm their collective support for identified 

implementation efforts. For instance, local 

jurisdictions and counties may use the strategies in this 

JLUS to guide future subdivision regulation, growth 

policy, and zoning updates, as well as formal 

coordinating procedures for the review of 

development proposals.

APG may use the JLUS process as a guide for 

interaction with local jurisdictions on future projects, 

and to manage internal planning processes with a 

compatibility-based approach. 

Page 4 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Bush

River

Elk

River

North

East

River

Butlertown

Worton

Chesapeake

Bay 445 ¬«

Gunpowder

River

Susquehanna

River

ABERDEEN

PROVING

GROUND

%&'(95

%&'(695

%&'(895

%&'(95

%&'(695

¬«40

£¤301

¬«1

£¤222

¬«7

213 ¬«

¬«147

¬«272

¬«152

¬«543

177 ¬«

292 ¬«

¬«298

¬«20

¬«173

165 ¬«

¬«24

446 ¬«

¬«146

¬«269

¬«291

¬«300

¬«282

¬«23

¬«924

290 ¬« 544 ¬«

¬«22

¬«161

145 ¬«

164 ¬«

444 ¬«

¬«150

¬«43

156 ¬«

¬«275

¬«288

151 ¬«

159 ¬«

302 ¬«

¬«561

¬«21

462 ¬«

702 ¬«

¬«700

100 ¬«

132 ¬«

289 ¬«

¬«718

¬«444

647 ¬«

155 ¬«

¬«267

¬«7

290 ¬«

¬«7

¬«22

¬«20

924 ¬«

¬«695

¬«20

¬«24

¬«152

Harford County Cecil County

Aberdeen

Havre de Grace

Kent County Baltimore County

Anne Arundel County

Fallston

Edgewood

Dundalk

Essex

Bel Air North

Kingsville

Jarrettsville

Bel Air South

Lake Shore

Edgemere

Carney

Rosedale

Perry Hall

Rossville

Perryman

Joppatowne

Fairlee

Bel Air

Overlea White Marsh

Pleasant Hills

Perryville

Riverside

Kingstown

North East

Port Deposit

Bowleys Quarters

Rock Hall

Georgetown

Betterton

Darlington

Charlestown

Church Hill

Tolchester

Kennedyville

Deer Creek

Wint ers Run

Little Gunpowder Falls

Gunpowder Falls

Romney

Creek

Ch e ster River

Northeast Creek

Legend

Installation Area

Airfield

Partnering JLUS Jurisdictions

County Boundary

City / Town /

Unincorporated Community

Interstate

Highway

Major Road

Railroad

Water Body

River

Source: APG, 2014.

0 1 2

Miles

Figure 1

JLUS Study Area

^

^

^

Maryland

Pennsylvania

New

Jersey

Delaware

District

of Columbia

Washington DC

Philadelphia

Baltimore

Trenton

Allentown

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 5
Please see the next page.

Page 6 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
The APG JLUS was a collaborative process developed 

for the region and communities surrounding APG in 

Maryland. The Study Area included APG and the 

surrounding communities of Harford County, Cecil 

County, Kent County, and the cities of Aberdeen and 

Havre de Grace. An analysis of the population and 

economic trends in these communities was conducted 

to gather baseline information on potential areas of 

conflict or concern between military operations and 

civilian uses. 

Study Area Growth Trends

The following section provides a summary of the study 

area’s population growth, housing trends, and median 

home values. This information establishes a regional 

context for growth and development in the JLUS Area 

while providing a broad understanding of growth 

potential for compatibility analysis based planning.

Population

The following section provides a comparison of the 

changes in population in the APG JLUS Study Area 

between 2000 and 2010 which is illustrated in Table 1 

and the light blue circles on Figure 2.

The study area experienced an overall increase in 

population between 2000 and 2010. Harford County 

had the greatest population growth with the addition 

of 23,498 people, while Kent County experienced the 

least population growth at only 1,000. Similarly, 

Cecil County had the highest percentage of growth 

with an 18 percent increase during the 10-year period, 

while Kent County had the least percentage of growth 

with only a 5 percent increase within the same 

timeframe. Similar to Harford County, this growth can 

be partially attributed to BRAC activities but also the 

continued growth of both the Baltimore and 

Wilmington, Delaware Metropolitan areas. Kent 

County’s smaller population growth is due to a greater 

out-migration of youth in relation to a smaller inmigration of retirees as well as local desires to remain 

a rural, agrarian area.

Table 1 Regional Population Growth by Study 

Area Jurisdiction, 2000 – 2010

Jurisdiction 2000 2010 

Number 

Change

Percent 

Change

Maryland 5,296,486 5,773,552 477,066 9% 

Harford 

County* 193,417 216,915 23,498 12% 

Cecil County 85,951 101,108 15,157 18% 

Kent County 19,197 20,197 1,000 5% 

City of 

Aberdeen 13,842 14,959 1,117 8% 

City of Havre 

de Grace 11,331 12,952 1,621 14% 

*Harford County population includes the community of Bel 

Air but does not include City of Aberdeen or City of Havre de 

Grace

Source: United States Census Bureau, profile of General 

Population and Housing Characteristics; 2000, 2010; 

Historical and Projected Total Population for Maryland’s 

Jurisdictions, Maryland Department of Planning, 2014

The dark blue circles in Figure 2 graphically depict 

population growth for study area jurisdictions through 

2030. Each county in the study area is expected to see 

population growth over the coming decades. 

Cecil County is expected to reach an approximate 

population of 125,250 by year 2030, a 24 percent 

increase from year 2010. Harford County is expected 

to reach an approximate population of 254,967 by year 

2030, an 18 percent increase from the year 2010. 

Kent County is expected to reach an approximate 

population of 22,600 by year 2030, a 12 percent 

increase from the year 2010.

The City of Aberdeen is expected to have a population 

of approximately 18,183 by year 2030, a 21 percent 

increase from year 2010. The City of Havre de Grace 

does not have readily available population projects.

Future growth will most likely be driven by the 

continued growth of major metropolitan areas in the 

region and the presence of APG.

 

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 7
Bush

River

Elk

River

North

East

River

Chesapeake

Bay 445 ¬«

Gunpowder

River

Susquehanna

River

ABERDEEN

PROVING

GROUND

%&'(95

%&'(695

%&'(895

%&'(95

%&'(695

¬«40

£¤301

¬«1

£¤222

¬«7

213 ¬«

¬«147

¬«272

¬«152

¬«543

177 ¬«

292 ¬«

¬«298

¬«20

¬«173

165 ¬«

¬«24

446 ¬«

¬«146

¬«269

¬«291

¬«300

¬«282

¬«23

¬«924

290 ¬« 544 ¬«

¬«22

¬«161

145 ¬«

164 ¬«

444 ¬«

¬«150

¬«43

156 ¬«

¬«275

¬«288

151 ¬«

159 ¬«

302 ¬«

¬«561

¬«21

462 ¬«

702 ¬«

¬«700

100 ¬«

132 ¬«

289 ¬«

¬«718

¬«444

647 ¬«

155 ¬«

¬«267

¬«7

290 ¬«

¬«7

¬«22

¬«20

924 ¬«

¬«695

¬«20

¬«24

¬«152

Harford County

Cecil County

Aberdeen

Havre de Grace

Kent County

Anne Arundel County

Lake Shore

Kingstown

Church Hill

Deer Creek

Wint ers Run

Little Gunpowder Falls

Gunpowder Falls

Romney

Creek

Ch e ster River

Northeast Creek

Legend

Installation Area

Airfield

Partnering JLUS Jurisdictions

County Boundary

City / Town /

Unincorporated Community

Interstate

Highway

Major Road

Railroad

Water Body

River

Source: APG, 2014.

0 1 2

Miles

 Figure 2 

JLUS Study Area Growth 2000-2030

^

^

^

Maryland

Pennsylvania

New

Jersey

Delaware

District

of Columbia

Washington DC

Philadelphia

Baltimore

Trenton

Allentown

Population growth between 2000 and 2010

(whole numbers) 

Projected population growth between 

2000 and 2030 (whole numbers)

* data unavailable for Havre de Grace 

23,498 

61,550 

1,117 

5,096 5,096 

1,621 

15,157 15,157 39,299 

1,000 

3,403 

Page 8 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Economy

The Study Area is home to a diverse economy. While 

agriculture is still a major economic sector in the Study 

Area, the presence of APG has increased the amount of 

government and professional jobs in the Study Area. 

Unemployment is below the state average in Harford 

and Kent Counties and in the City of Havre de Grace. 

Unemployment is roughly equal to the State average in 

Cecil County. The unemployment rate in Aberdeen is 

above both the state average and national average 

(6.0 percent).

Harford County

BRAC brought numerous research and development 

firms to APG and thus Harford County. Since BRAC 

began implementation, approximately 99 new defense 

contractors and 8,000 contract employees relocated to

Harford County. APG has approximately 

$13.6 billion dollars committed to future research and 

development projects. The Harford County Office of 

Economic Development hopes to capture some of this 

funding by supporting the Entrepreneurs Edge 

program, which pushes the innovation process for 

individuals to develop ideas into a business. 

Harford County has also grown in non-defense related 

sectors. Major companies, including Clorox and Pier 1, 

have set up distribution centers that will add over 

1.5 million square feet of commercial floor space to the 

county. Health care is also a growing industry, adding 

130,000 square feet of health-care space through an 

expansion of the Upper Chesapeake Health System. 

Harford County is also home to two Enterprise Zones, 

Edgewood/Joppa and Aberdeen/Havre de Grace. 

Cecil County

Cecil County economic growth is due in part to the 

county’s location midway between the Baltimore and 

Philadelphia/Wilmington Metropolitan areas. Between 

2002 and 2008, Cecil County experienced 14 percent 

job growth. The largest increases in jobs occurred in 

the manufacturing, education and health services, 

retail trade, transportation and utilities, and local 

government sectors. The fastest growing sectors in 

terms of growth rate were education and health 

services, manufacturing, professional and business 

services, and local government. According to the 2010 

Cecil County Comprehensive Plan, Cecil County has an 

average annual employment of 28,351. Despite the 

experienced economic growth, Cecil County still has a 

negative jobs/housing balance.

Cecil County offers real property and income tax 

credits to businesses that locate within the designated 

Cecil County Enterprise Zone. The availability of 

developable land, mounting growth pressure of 

surrounding jurisdictions, and the many transportation 

corridors which link Cecil County to the Northeast 

Region are indicators of future economic growth in the 

county. 

Kent County

Historically, Kent County has had an economy based on 

farming and commercial fishing. Today, Kent County’s 

largest job sector is management, business, science, 

and arts.

Kent County’s Economic Development Plan seeks to 

capitalize on growth in high quality service industries 

such as financial, health and elder care, recreational 

charter boat fishing, and outfitter hunting. Kent 

County also looks to travel and tourism industries and a 

continued focus on agriculture. Kent County hopes to 

increase availability of high capacity internet access to 

support new and existing business. Kent County also 

hopes to attract new business by marketing the lower 

business costs and attractive features of living within 

the county.

City of Aberdeen

The City of Aberdeen is heavily influenced 

economically by APG. As part of the 2005 BRAC, APG 

brought 8,200 new positions to APG and Aberdeen 

looks to take advantage of the contractors and services 

that have followed. BRAC is seen as a way for 

Aberdeen to redevelop and expand commercial 

properties and shape the future for commercial 

districts in the City. 

Aberdeen is also home to national companies such as 

C&S Wholesalers, Frito Lay, Home Depot, 

Pier I Imports, and Saks Fifth Avenue, which have 

warehouses within city limits. 

Aberdeen has several business incentive programs to 

help attract new businesses, including: the Greater 

Aberdeen/Havre de Grace Enterprise Zone Program, 

Aberdeen BRAC Revitalization Zone, Historically 

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 9
Underutilized Business (HUB) Zone, Community Legacy 

Façade Program, and the Aberdeen Revolving Loan 

Fund Program. Future economic potential lies in 

Aberdeen’s ability to expand the existing business 

base, attract high-tech businesses, and grow hospitality 

and food service sectors. 

City of Havre de Grace

Havre de Grace has a strong tourism, industrial, and 

health care base which provides approximately 

2,500 employment opportunities. The historic 

downtown and waterfront are an important part of 

Havre de Grace’s economic viability. Specialty stores 

and water activities help to increase the tourism 

market. Chesapeake Health Systems operates the 

Harford Memorial Hospital in Havre de Grace. The 

area surrounding the hospital has numerous health 

related businesses. 

Havre de Grace has numerous resources to help foster 

business including the City Department of Economic 

Development, various business development 

programs, the Chamber of Commerce, and the 

Economic Development Commission. Harford County 

Government also provides business support through 

the Harford County Office of Economic Development. 

Both organizations work with the Maryland 

Department of Business and Economic Development to 

further local economic well-being. As stated earlier, 

Havre de Grace is located within the Greater 

Aberdeen/Havre de Grace Enterprise Zone. As of 

2004, the Enterprise Zone had created $58 million in 

new capital investment in Havre de Grace alone. This 

equated to roughly 600 new jobs.

Havre de Grace’s location within the I-95/US Route 40 

Corridor and the Northeast Rail Corridor in proximity to 

APG creates an environment for sustained economic 

growth. Future economic opportunities include new 

development of corporate and technology office parks, 

availability of small flexible office space for start-up 

businesses, and attracting APG technology affiliates.

Page 10 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
This chapter provides an overview of the military 

profile including the history and current operations at 

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) within the Joint Land 

Use Study (JLUS) Study Area.

Identifying and describing the various activities 

performed on the military installation provides 

valuable insight into the importance of APG as a 

national defense strategic asset. This information 

enables stakeholders to make informed decisions 

about the future development and economic growth of 

communities in proximity of APG, which could 

potentially impact the existence and future role of the 

facility.

Aberdeen Proving Ground Economic 

Impact

The APG JLUS Study Area spans the counties of 

Harford, Cecil, and Kent, and the cities of Aberdeen 

and Havre de Grace in the northeast region of 

Maryland. APG is the leading employer in the Study 

Area with more employees than the next 20 major 

employers combined, resulting in a significant footprint 

in the regional and local economy. 

APG generates $4.3 billion in economic activity and 

supports approximately 29,000 jobs that result in 

$1.6 billion in employee compensation. Economic 

impact categories are divided into two categories, 

economic output, and employee compensation. These 

categories are further divided into direct, indirect, and 

induced. Direct impacts are those which occur as a 

direct result of the spending associated with APG. 

Indirect impacts are those which are created as a result 

of the in-state expenditures associated with APG. 

Induced impacts are estimates based on the increase in 

local incomes due to the operation of APG.

Installation Setting

APG is owned by the DOD, Department of the Army. 

APG is located on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay

and occupies over 72,165 acres in Harford and 

Baltimore Counties. This area is further divided in 

40,425 acres of land and 31,740 acres of water. APG is 

centrally located between Baltimore and Wilmington, 

Delaware as well as Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania. 

APG is divided amongst several areas spread across 

Harford and neighboring Baltimore County: 

 The Aberdeen Area (AA) is approximately 28,708 

acres of land located in the northern part of 

APG. The AA is mostly used for testing and 

research. The AA also includes Spesutie Island 

and the Phillips Army Airfield.

 The Edgewood Area (EA) is approximately 

10,126 acres of land located to the south of the 

AA. The EA is the chemical research and 

engineering center for the United States (US) 

Army. The EA is also the home of Maryland 

Army National Guard (MDARNG) Weide Army 

Heliport and the future home of the Northeast 

Maryland Additive Manufacturing Authority. 

 The Churchville Test Area (CTA) is approximately 

221 acres located in northern Harford County, 

approximately 10 miles north of APG. The CTA is 

the site of the Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) 

vehicle testing facility. 

 Carroll Island and Graces Quarters are 

noncontiguous portions of APG located across 

the Gunpowder River in adjacent Baltimore 

County. Carroll Island and Graces Quarters 

comprise 1,164 acres of land. Carroll Island is 

used for wetland mitigation while Graces 

Quarters is home of the Joint Land Attack Cruise 

Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System 

(JLENS) project.

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 11
 Pooles Island is a 206 acre island in the 

Chesapeake Bay containing an operational 

lighthouse. 

Military Operations

APG’s primary missions are to conduct research, 

development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E) of 

ordnance and military equipment and to train 

personnel. APG is home to 19 major commands and 

supports more than 80 tenants, 20 satellite, and 

17 private activities. 

Major operations at APG include: performance and 

durability testing of weapons, equipment, and supplies; 

testing of projectiles for accuracy, speed, reliability, 

and penetration; extensive research and development 

in the areas of chemical and biological weapons and 

materials; human factors; computational and 

information sciences; survivability and lethality 

analysis; and vehicle technology. 

Military Strategic Importance 

APG serves as a premier Army RDT&E center. The site 

is located along major transportation corridors that put 

APG within reach of some of the largest cities on the 

Eastern Seaboard. APG has experienced growth over 

the course of the BRAC. Several tenants relocations to 

APG have helped maintain the installation’s 

importance for national defense.

Major Commands

APG has five core areas of operations or military 

support:

 Public Health and Medical Research

 Test and Evaluation

 Research and Development

 Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and 

Explosives (CBRNE)

 US Army Command, Control, Communications, 

Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and 

Reconnaissance Team (C4ISR)

The base is home to 19 major commands. Major 

commands usually have subordinate units that conduct 

specific research in accordance with the Major 

Command primary objective. Some major commands 

may in fact be considered Major Subordinate 

Command units of higher major commands. 

Aberdeen Proving Ground Mission 

Footprint 

Mission and training activities at APG generates a 

number of impacts that can affect the health, safety, 

and overall quality of life in the surrounding 

community. Examples of these mission impacts may 

include noise and vibration from military testing or the 

risk of an aircraft accident.

Conversely, the military mission is susceptible to 

hazards created by nearby civilian activities, land use 

development, and environmental constraints that may 

obstruct air space, locate noise sensitive uses in high 

noise zones, or gather large numbers of people in 

safety zones. Understanding the overlapping spatial 

patterns of these impacts around the installation and 

ranges is essential for promoting compatible and fully 

coordinated land use decisions. 

These overlapping spatial patterns comprise the 

mission footprint. The mission footprint serves as a 

compatibility tool for surrounding communities in 

making land use decisions. Several elements of 

mission profiles comprise the mission footprint that 

extends outside the APG installation. These elements 

are either tangible, meaning that they are either 

physically seen and / or heard, or intangible, meaning 

that they exist within space without being seen or 

heard.

The following outlines the different elements or 

mission profiles that comprise the APG Mission 

Footprint:

 Aircraft Safety Zones

 Noise Contours for Aircraft

 Imaginary Surfaces

 FAA Part 77 for Vertical Obstructions

 Bird / Wildlife Air Strike Hazard (BASH) Relevancy 

Area

 Range and Training Areas

 Noise Contours for Large Caliber Weapons and 

Detonations

 Quantity Distance Arcs (QD)

 Special Use Airspace

 Microwave Line-of-Sight

Page 12 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Aberdeen Proving Ground Airfields

Aberdeen is home to two airfields, Phillips Army 

Airfield (PAAF) and Weide Army Heliport (WAH). 

Phillips Army Airfield is located in the AA south of the 

Maryland Blvd Gate and is owned by APG but operated 

by the Aberdeen Test Center (ATC). The Airfield 

includes one 8,000-foot by 200-foot hard-surfaced 

runway, four drop zones, one helipad, and three bomb 

ramps. Aircraft utilizing PAAF include the C-12U Huron 

and RQ-7B Shadow, as well as the UH-72A Lakota. 

Weide Army Heliport (WAH) is located at the EA, is 

utilized as a heliport, and is home to the Maryland 

Army National Guard. Weide Army Heliport includes a 

1,600-foot, rotary-wing-only runway. The types of 

aircraft that are used at WAH include UH-60 A/L Black 

Hawk, CH-47D Chinook, and UH-72A Lakota.

Aircraft Safety Zones

Aircraft safety zones for APG are based on historical 

data of aircraft collisions, geography, and runway

classification. The purpose of safety zones is to provide 

for the general safety of the public as it relates to the 

land uses under and near these zones. Safety zones 

help limit and guide development to enable the 

provision of safety of the public and pilots while 

simultaneously allowing for continued economic 

growth. There are three safety zones: Clear Zone (CZ) 

and Accident Potential Zones (APZ) I and II. The CZ 

extends outward from the end of each runway. 

Development is not recommended within the CZ. The 

APZs extend outward from the CZ where development 

restrictions are recommended. The safety zones at 

APG are illustrated on Figure 3. The CZs at PAAF and 

WAH do not extend outside APG, although portions of 

APZ I and II for PAAF extend into Harford County and 

the City of Aberdeen. 

Bird / Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard

Birds and wildlife can represent a significant hazard to 

military training and flight operations. Certain types of 

land uses, such as standing water, grasslands, golf 

course with water features, and landfills attract birds 

and wildlife. While there have been an insignificant 

number of accidents associated with bird / wildlife 

aircraft strike hazards (BASH) at APG, the concern 

associated with BASH is the significant amount of 

damage a BASH incident can cost the federal 

government in terms of aircraft repair and lost training 

hours. Figure 3 shows potential BASH relevancy area

for PAAF and WAH. 

Imaginary Surfaces

The imaginary surfaces of an active runway are used to 

determine where vertical obstructions could exist in 

the vicinity of aviation operations. Each type of 

imaginary surface has different dimensions and 

different planes or slopes in which a structure intruding 

upon it may be considered a vertical obstruction. The 

conical surfaces and the approach-departure clearance 

surfaces are the two primary areas of concern, and 

both go over populated areas in the nearby 

communities. Figure 4 illustrates the imaginary 

surfaces associated with PAAF and WAH. These areas 

extend radially outwards a distance of 8.5 miles from 

runways, covering portions of all Study Area 

jurisdictions.

Associated with the imaginary surfaces of an active 

airfield and in relation to flight operations from an 

airport (military or civilian), vertical obstructions are 

assessed through compliance with Federal Regulation 

Title 14 Part 77, which establishes standards and 

notification requirements for objects affecting 

navigable airspace. Figure 4 illustrates the Part 77 

footprint. 

Aberdeen Proving Ground Target Ranges and 

Training Areas

The RDT&E character of the APG mission means that a 

large part of the base is considered range area. The 

total range areas are approximately 66,000 acres 

including water (34,454 acres of land mass) and are 

located mainly within the AA and EA but are also 

located within other areas such as Graces Quarters and 

Carroll Island. Figure 3 illustrates the location of range 

and training areas.

Range areas also include water impact areas, which are 

located in parts of the Bush River, Gunpowder River, 

Romney Creek, Spesutie Narrows, and Chesapeake 

Bay. Munitions of any type are not permitted to be 

fired into the waters within and surrounding APG. 

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 13
Page 14 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study

445¬«

Bush

River

Elk

River

North

East

River

Chesapeake

Bay

Gunpowder

River

Susquehanna

River

ABERDEEN

PROVING

GROUND

%&'(95

%&'(

695

%&'(

895

%&'(95

%&'(

695

¬«

40

£¤

301

¬«1

£¤

222

¬«7

213¬«

¬«

147

¬«

272

¬«

152

¬«

543

177¬«

292¬«

¬«

298

¬«

20

¬«

173

165¬«

¬«

24

446¬«

¬«

146

¬«

291

¬«

300

¬«

282

¬«

23

¬«

924

290¬« 544¬«

¬«

22

¬«

161

145¬«

164¬«

444¬«

¬«

150

¬«

43

156¬«

¬«

275

¬«

288

151¬«

159¬«

302¬«

¬«

561

¬«

21

462¬«

702¬«

¬«

700

100¬«

132¬«

289¬«

¬«

718

¬«

444

647¬«

155¬«

¬«

267

¬«7

290¬«

¬«7

¬«

22

¬«

20

924¬«

¬«

695

¬«

20

¬«

24

¬«

152

Harford County Cecil County

Aberdeen

Havre de Grace

Kent County Baltimore County

Anne Arundel County

Queen Anne's County

Legend

5-Mile BASH

R e le vancy Are a

Training Are a

R ange Are a

Large Caliber Weapons /

Demolitions Noise

LUP Z – 57 CDNL

Zone II – 62 CDNL

Zone III – 70 CDNL

Peak Blast Noise Contour

115 PK15(m e t)

130 PK15(m e t)

Safety Zone

Cle ar Zone

APZ 1

APZ 2

Installation Are a

Airfie ld

Partne ring JLUS

Jurisd ictions

County Bound ary

City / Tow n /

Unincorporate d Com m unity

Inte rstate

High way

Major R oad

R ailroad

Wate r Bod y

R ive r

Source : APG, 2014.

0 1 2

Mile s

Figure3

 MilitaryFootprint 

 Safety Zones, BASH, Noise Contours, Range / Training Areas 
445¬«

Bush

River

Elk

River

North

East

River

Chesapeake

Bay

Gunpowder

River

Susquehanna

River

ABERDEEN

PROVING

GROUND

%&'(95

%&'(

695

%&'(

895

%&'(95

%&'(

695

¬«

40

£¤

301

¬«1

£¤

222

¬«7

213¬«

¬«

147

¬«

272

¬«

152

¬«

543

177¬«

292¬«

¬«

298

¬«

20

¬«

173

165¬«

¬«

24

446¬«

¬«

146

¬«

291

¬«

300

¬«

282

¬«

23

¬«

924

290¬« 544¬«

¬«

22

¬«

161

145¬«

164¬«

444¬«

¬«

150

¬«

43

156¬«

¬«

275

¬«

288

151¬«

159¬«

302¬«

¬«

561

¬«

21

462¬«

702¬«

¬«

700

100¬«

132¬«

289¬«

¬«

718

¬«

444

647¬«

155¬«

¬«

267

¬«7

290¬«

¬«7

¬«

22

¬«

20

924¬«

¬«

695

¬«

20

¬«

24

¬«

152

Harford County Cecil County

Aberdeen

Havre de Grace

Kent County Baltimore County

Anne Arundel County

Queen Anne's County

Legend

 Airfield Imaginary Surface Safety Zones FAA Part 77 

Prim a ry Su rfa ce

Approa ch /De pa rtu re Cle a ra nce

Su rfa ce (g lide a ng le ) = 50 ft to 

1 ft u p to 500 ft

Approa ch /De pa rtu re Cle a ra nce

Su rfa ce (h orizonta l) = 500 ft

Inne r Horizonta l Su rfa ce = 150 ft

Conica l Su rfa ce = 20 ft to 1 ft

Ou te r Horizonta l Su rfa ce = 500 ft

Tra nsitiona l Su rfa ce = 7ft to 1 ft

 

R-4001A – Su rfa ce to

U nlim ite d 0700-2400;

Su rfa ce to 10,000 

M SL 0000-0700

R-4001B – Su rfa ce to

10,000 ft. M SL

R-4001C – Su rfa ce

to 10,000 ft. M S

U p to 200' @ 3NM

U p to 300' @ 4NM

U p to 400' @ 5NM

U p to 500' @ 6NM

Insta lla tion Are a

Airfie ld

Pa rtne ring JLU S Ju risdictions

Cou nty Bou nda ry

City / Town /

U nincorpora te d Com m u nity

Inte rsta te

Hig h wa y

M a jor Roa d

Ra ilroa d

W a te r Body

Riv e r

Sou rce : APG, 2014.

 

0 21

M ile s

Figure4

 Military Fo o tprint Imaginary Surfaces, FAA Part 77, Special Use Airspace 

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 15
Range Noise Contours

The main source of noise at APG is from military 

testing. All operations, which will or can produce noise 

off-base, are conducted between specified hours:

 Weekdays between 8:30 AM and 10:00 PM

 Saturdays between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM

 Sundays and federal holidays between 10:00 AM 

and 3:30 PM with command approval

 Other times with command approval

During normal workdays, a noise model calibration 

shot is conducted between 7:30 AM and 8:00 AM. The 

type and extent of testing conducted during a normal 

work day will depend on off-installation noise monitor 

readings from the noise model calibration shot, noise 

modeling results, and the potential for adverse noise 

impacts on the surrounding communities. 

The noise generated from large caliber weapons and 

demolitions activity and peak blast noise are illustrated 

on Figure 3. Though military activity at APG can 

frequently be heard off-installation, noise from large 

weapons / demolitions generally extends offinstallation to immediate areas of Harford County and 

over the Chesapeake Bay, reaching shoreline areas of 

Kent and Cecil Counties. 

Peak blast noise contours are associated with singleevents. Moderate risks of noise complaints are 

associated with 115 PK15(met) the noise contour and 

high risks of noise complaints are associated with 130 

PK15(met) noise contour. Blast noise from APG 

generates noise complaints in Cecil, Harford, and Kent 

Counties. 

Depending on the amount and intensity of 

development that occurs off base, any source of noise 

may begin to conflict with local residents. This could 

put mission critical activities at APG at risk.

Aberdeen Proving Ground Special Use Airspace

Special Use Airspace (SUA) is airspace where military 

activity or unusual flight conditions may occur. The 

designation of SUA serves to alert nonparticipating 

aircraft (civilian or military) to the possible presence of 

these activities. The type of SUA at APG is Restricted 

Airspace. The restricted area contains airspace that is 

subject to restrictions of use due to unusual, often 

invisible, hazards to aircraft. The RDT&E uses at APG 

create restrictions on outside aircraft operations 

because of the potential to interfere with myriad 

testing that occurs at APG. 

Restricted airspace encompasses 133 square nautical 

miles in the immediate vicinity of APG which is divided 

into three areas: R-4001 A, B, and C. R-4001 A and B 

surround APG and R-4001C is a restricted airspace 

around the JLENS aerostats. Figure 4 displays APG 

SUAs.

Page 16 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
There are many existing tools that can be used to 

encourage, promote, and manage compatibility 

between military installations and their neighboring 

communities. These tools exist at the local, regional, 

state, and federal level and are used not only for 

compatibility purposes, but to guide every day 

scenarios and development in communities and on 

military installations. The following pages list some of 

the key tools that are currently, or are recommended 

to be more efficiently, utilized for the compatibility 

issues identified during the APG JLUS process. The 

tools listed in this section are not an exhaustive list, but 

are meant to provide a brief overview of the primary 

tools currently utilized in the JLUS Study Area.

Federal

Federal Aviation Act 

An important outcome of the Act is FAA Regulation 

Title 14 Part 77, commonly known as Part 77, which 

provides the basis for evaluation of vertical obstruction 

compatibility. This regulation determines compatibility 

based on the height of proposed structures or natural 

features in relation to their distance from the ends of a 

runway. Using a distance formula from this regulation, 

local jurisdictions can easily assess the height 

restrictions near airfields. 

The FAA has identified certain imaginary surfaces 

around runways that are used to determine how 

structures and facilities are evaluated to identify if they 

pose a vertical obstruction in relation to the airspace 

around a runway. The levels of imaginary surfaces 

build upon one another and are designed to eliminate 

obstructions to air navigation and operations, either 

natural or man-made. The dimension or size of an 

imaginary surface depends on the runway 

classification.

Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was 

created in 1972 and is administered by NOAA’s Office 

of Coastal Resource Management (OCRM). In 1978, to 

manage its extensive coastline (more than 

7,000 miles), estuarine embayment’s, tidal flats, tidal 

wetlands, creeks and other coastal assets, Maryland 

developed its Coastal Program. 

In general, the program emphasizes protection of 

coastal resources, water dependent uses, and 

“facilities in the national interest” located in coastal 

areas (including military bases). Public access to the 

shore is also a primary CZMA objective. The CZMA is 

administered at the state level through Maryland’s 

Coastal Program. 

Aberdeen Proving Ground

Aberdeen Proving Ground Master Plan

Long Range Component (LRC). The LRC outlines APG’s 

long-term strategies for growth with consideration of 

regional, local, installation, and site-specific planning 

issues. It contains focused, detailed planning strategies 

that guide the long-range use of land and facilities 

throughout APG. It is a broad-based area analysis of 

the entire installation projected over a period of 20 to 

50 years. It describes the existing conditions and 

baseline data used to develop the plans contained in 

this component, as well as the remaining components 

of the RPMP.

Operational Noise Management Plan

The ONMP serves as a primer on operational noise for 

installation personnel and the community. Prepared 

by the US Army Public Health Command at APG in 

2006, the ONMP identifies the specific noise 

environment for APG, the impacts of the noise 

environment and provides recommendations to 

manage this environment as a responsible neighbor. 

The objectives of the ONMP are:

 Provide a document which can educate both the 

military and the public about the noise 

generated from APG operations. 

 Management of noise complaints to reduce the 

potential for conflict between APG and the 

surrounding communities.

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 17
 Assessment of the compatibility of the noise 

environment with the existing and proposed 

land uses.

 Mitigation of the noise and vibration 

environments, where feasible, to increase land 

use compatibility.

State of Maryland

Chesapeake Bay & Atlantic Coastal Critical Areas 

Act & Protection Program

The Critical Area Act establishes the Chesapeake Bay 

Critical Area and Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area 

Protection Program and the Critical Area Commission 

to enable the State and local governments to jointly 

address the impacts of land development on habitat 

and aquatic resources. 

The law governing the Program requires that 

development projects within 1,000 feet of the tidal 

influence of the Chesapeake Bay meet standards 

designed to mitigate adverse effects on water quality, 

and fish, plant and animal habitat. Local governments 

can also prohibit uses that they believe would 

adversely affect habitat or water quality within the 

Critical Area. Each jurisdiction within a critical area 

develops and implements a plan to achieve the 

objectives of the Program, which is subject to review 

and approval by the Commission. 

Coastal Zone Management Act & Program

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 

provides for the management of the nation’s coastal 

resources and helps balance economic development 

with environmental conservation. Maryland’s Coastal 

Zone Management Program was approved in 1978 in 

response to the CZMA. With Coastal Zone boundaries 

that include 17 of the state’s 23 counties bordering the 

Atlantic Ocean and the Chesapeake Bay, the program 

coordinates multi-agency initiatives that provide a 

framework for statewide water quality, hazard 

mitigation, public access and habitat restoration. 

“PlanMaryland”

Maryland has implemented comprehensive state level 

and statewide planning and growth management 

policies and practices to promote “Smart Growth” (SG) 

principles. Smart Growth protects natural resources 

and promotes community character by leveraging 

investments in existing developed areas and limiting 

low density, single use “sprawl” development patterns 

and their associated public costs. Since 2009 local 

government Comprehensive Planning requirements 

have been expanded to include sustainable growth. 

PlanMaryland resulted in a sustainable growth plan for 

the 21st century focusing on trends and land use, 

visioning, state coordination and implementation, 

management and best management practices. 

Local Jurisdictions

In Maryland authority to regulate land use is delegated 

by the state to counties and municipalities. The nature 

of a jurisdiction’s authority to regulate local land use 

depends on that jurisdiction’s form of local 

government. For instance, the “Land Use Article” of 

the Annotated Code of Maryland provides the legal 

basis for planning at the municipality and county level 

throughout most of Maryland. In such cases, the 

Article grants the authority to prepare a 

comprehensive or master plan, a zoning ordinance, 

and subdivision regulations for many of the state’s 

municipalities.

Two of the Maryland counties within the APG JLUS 

study area, Cecil and Kent Counties, are “non-charter” 

counties and therefore derive their authority to 

regulate land use from the Land Use Article. Harford 

County is a charter county granted planning and zoning 

authority under the “Express Powers Act” in lieu of the 

Land Use Article.

These distinctions have relevance to the particular 

scope of the delegated authority, to procedural 

requirements affecting land use planning and 

regulation. In addition to their comprehensive plans 

and zoning ordinances, counties and municipalities 

may also elect to use other tools to address specific 

compatibility issues. For example, Maryland state 

regulations require a general notification of potential 

noise from military installations, but local jurisdictions 

may further specify that this notification be 

accomplished through the land development process 

or supplementary noise abatement techniques.

Page 18 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Harford County 

Harford County Zoning Code 

The Harford County Code contains the codified zoning 

ordinance which categorizes the land within the 

County into seventeen districts, several overlay 

districts, and provides development regulations for 

each district. Harford County does not include overlay 

districts for airport or military zoning, although it does 

contain an overlay district for the Chesapeake Bay 

Critical Area. Article VII: District Regulations details 

each of the seventeen districts, their density 

allocations, and height maximums. Article XI of the 

ordinance details regulations for telecommunication 

facilities. Articles V, VII and IX of the ordinance details 

regulations for outdoor lighting. 

Cecil County

Cecil County Zoning Ordinance

The Cecil County Zoning Ordinance categorizes the 

land within Cecil County into eighteen districts and 

includes regulations for each. For each respective 

district the Code details maximum residential density 

provisions, building heights and outdoor lighting 

requirements. Article V, Part VIII regulates 

telecommunication structures and communication 

towers. Article VI Schedule of Zone regulations details 

yard requirements, as well as building height 

limitations per district. Article V details several 

regulations for lighting. 

Kent County

Kent County Zoning Code

Chapter 222 of the Kent County Code details the Land 

Use Ordinance. The Kent County Land Use Ordinance 

divides the land within the county into seventeen 

major districts and respective development 

regulations. Several zoning districts fall within the APG 

peak blast noise contours. Maximum height 

restrictions are regulated by district, in which many are 

specific to the heights of residential and commercial 

buildings. Collocation of personal wireless facilities on 

existing facilities is permitted in most zoning districts

and communication towers are permitted only as a 

special exception. New communication towers are 

limited to 199 feet unless a variance is granted. Article 

V details regulations for outdoor lighting and maximum 

density by district.

City of Aberdeen

City of Aberdeen Development Code

City of Aberdeen Municipal Code Chapter 235 contains 

the approved development code. The code divides the 

land within the county into fifteen districts, and 

provides development regulations for these districts. 

Lot size requirements, lot area, parking, and height 

regulations are detailed under Article IV: Provisions 

Applicable to All Districts. The City of Aberdeen does 

not include an overlay district relative to APG. The 

Aberdeen Development Code details General Height 

requirements for residential, commercial and industrial 

districts, as well as exceptions and modifications. 

Communication towers are permitted by special 

exception. Additionally, several sections in the Code 

detail regulations for outdoor lighting.

City of Havre de Grace

City of Havre de Grace Zoning Code

City of Havre de Grace Municipal Code Chapter 205 

contains the zoning code which divides land within the 

city into seven districts. Lot size requirements, lot 

area, and height regulations are detailed by district. 

The City of Havre de Grace does not include an overlay 

district relative to APG. Height regulations are detailed 

in the zoning ordinance by district. Telecommunication 

towers are expressly permitted in one district, but no 

other height provisions that reference communication 

or transmission towers are specified. The zoning code 

provides additional regulations for density and outdoor 

lighting. 

Table 2 provides an overview of existing local 

jurisdiction planning tools in the Study Area. The table 

identifies the tool, whether it is used in a particular 

jurisdiction and whether or not it is effective at 

addressing compatibility issues between the 

jurisdiction and the military. The specific deficiencies 

are outlined in a subsequent sub section.

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 19
Tabl

e

Juri

HarfoCecilKent City 

o

City 

o

Legen

===

=

=

e 2 City and

C

sdiction

ord County 

l County 

County 

of Aberdeen of Havre de Grac

e

nd: 

The tool exists buThe tool exists buThe tool exists an

=  The tool exists, b

The jurisdiction

C

 d

ounty Planning

T

Comprehensive Plan 

Zoning Code Height 

e

  ut does not address  ut only partially add  nd addresses land us

 but does not affect la

 does not employ thi

T

s 

ools

Zoning Code Height 

Restrictions 

Zoning Code 

Density 

land use issue(s) rel

dresses land use issu

  se issue(s) related to 

  and use issue(s) rela

s tool.

Zoning Code Sound 

Attenuation 

Zoning Code Outdoor 

Lighting 

  lated to Military Co

m

e(s) related to Milita

  o Military Compatib

ted to military comp

Airport Land Use 

Compatibility 

mpatibility.     

ary Compatibility.

ility.                

patibility as adopted

Subdivision Regulations 

Special Area Plans +

  +   =

 =

d. 

Building Codes 

Annexation (Sphere of 

Influence) 

N/AN/AN/A

Each Special Area pUnknown whether 

Acquisition (For 

Easements) 

Flood Control ( Other Tools 

 plan is unique. 

r the jurisdiction em

( p

Ordinance) 

Other Tools (Real Estate 

Disclosure) 



ploys this tool. 

Page 20 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Identification of Compatibility Issues

Compatibility, in relation to military readiness, can be 

defined as the balance or compromise between 

community needs and interests and military needs and 

interests. The goal of compatibility planning is to 

promote an environment where both community and 

military entities communicate, coordinate, and 

implement mutually supportive actions that allow both 

to achieve their respective objectives.

A number of factors assist in determining whether 

community and military plans, programs, and activities 

are compatible or in conflict. For this Joint Land Use 

Study (JLUS), 24 compatibility factors were reviewed to 

identify, determine, and establish a prioritized set of key 

study area issues. These compatibility factors are listed 

below. 

Of the 24 compatibility factors considered, several were 

determined to be inapplicable to this JLUS: Air Quality, 

Anti-Terrorism / Force Protection, Cultural Resources, 

Energy Development, Light and Glare, and Public 

Trespassing. 

Similar issues were consolidated into single 

compatibility factors. For example, the Marine 

Environments and Climate Adaption issues were 

consolidated into one factor since the impacts 

associated with each of these are very similar. 

Issues

At the initial committee workshops and subsequent 

public forums, groups were asked to identify the 

location and type of compatibility issues they thought 

existed today, or could occur in the future, using the 24

factors as a guide. A number of individual issues were 

identified for each factor. Additional technical issues 

were analyzed and added based on available 

information and similarity with other community JLUS 

experiences around the country. 

Setting Priorities

The public and committees provided input on 

establishing priorities for the compatibility factors and 

issues. Priorities were used to determine the type and 

timing of associated actions for each issue. Three 

criteria were utilized to prioritize the compatibility 

factors: 

 Is it a Current Impact? Each issue was considered 

based on its current impact to the compatibility 

of either APG or the surrounding areas. Issues 

posing the most extensive operational constraints 

or community concerns constitute the highest 

priority.

 Location. This criterion assesses the proximity of 

each issue in relation to activities occurring on 

APG and surrounding areas. Issues occurring 

near the installation are often more critical than 

those occurring remotely. 

 Potential Impact. Although an issue may not have 

a current impact on the installation or the 

community, it may possess the ability to become 

an issue in the future. Should conditions change, 

adjacent or proximate development increase, or 

other issues become apparent, new conflicts with 

existing or future missions and operational 

activities at APG could arise. Issues were 

considered based on their future potential using 

the same criteria that were established for 

current impact.

With a comprehensive list of issues to address in the 

JLUS, the public and Advisory Committee (AC) identified 

the relative priority of each compatibility factor. The 

Executive Committee finalized the prioritization of 

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 21
issues based on public and AC input, categorizing the 

factors into four categories: 

 High-Priority. Due to the nature of these issues, 

an immediate response is warranted. Issues 

identified as High Priority are to be initiated 

within 1-2 years following completion of the JLUS. 

 Medium-Priority. To be initiated within 3-4 years 

following completion of the JLUS.

 Low Priority. To be initiated in 5 or more years 

following completion of the JLUS.

 Awareness Factors. Awareness factors are those 

issues that pose a minimal impact to APG and/or 

the surrounding jurisdictions and are 

documented in this JLUS for the purpose of 

maintaining operational awareness. These items 

do not require action at the current time, but 

should be monitored in the long term.

APG Compatibility Issues by Factor

Coordination / Communication refers to the programs 

and plans that promote interagency coordination. 

Interagency communication serves the general welfare 

by promoting a more comprehensive planning process 

inclusive of all affected stakeholders. Interagency 

coordination also seeks to develop and include mutually 

beneficial policies for both communities and the 

military in local planning documents such as general 

plans. The following Coordination / Communication 

issues were identified:

 Coordination between APG and Jurisdictions. 

Coordination between APG and local jurisdictions 

on area planning and land use issues is informal 

and inconsistent leading to a lack of information 

sharing and coordinated evaluation of 

development impacts. Jurisdictions do not 

understand APG requirements that affect longrange development plans. 

 Communication of Remediation Activities. 

Installation’s Water quality improvement efforts 

are not adequately conveyed to the public. 

 Formal Coordination Process. No formal process 

to notify APG of development actions outside the 

fenceline. 

 Base Community Relations Outreach. APG 

community relations outreach extends to Harford 

and Cecil County but does not include Kent 

County which is informed only through media 

alerts. 

 Communication of APG Activities. Public’s nominal 

mission understanding affects community 

support for APG. 

 Communication from APG with Outside 

Community. Because communications are not 

formalized, the level of APG communication with 

outside jurisdictions is perceived as dependent 

on leadership interest which can fluctuate with 

changes in leadership. 

 Coordination on Multi-Jurisdictional Infrastructure 

Improvements. Coordinate multijurisdictional 

infrastructure improvements to ensure all 

jurisdictions are notified and can plan 

appropriately for impacts in affected areas. This 

will help avoid previous scenarios where 

intersection improvements were not fully 

coordinated across jurisdictions and resulted in 

relocation of water lines and regulatory takings of 

homes in roadway widening areas. 

 Engagement from APG on Area Planning Issues. 

Installation planners attend local jurisdiction 

planning meetings but lack of active participation 

is perceived as indifference. 

 Security Issues Not Communicated. Harford 

County Sheriff is not regularly informed about 

events that happen on the installation that affect 

the outside community. 

 Complaint Documentation Process. Notifying APG 

and documenting noise and vibration complaints, 

particularly when there is private property 

damage, is perceived as onerous to homeowners. 

 Energy Conservation Efforts. Need for 

coordinated effort on regional energy 

conservation efforts to ensure that solutions 

from all parties are considered. Providing an 

inclusive process that considers solutions from 

multiple sources will ensure the best outcomes 

for all regional stakeholders. This will alleviate 

organizations potentially working at crosspurposes such as with the waste-to-energy plant 

Page 22 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
where the decision to potentially reuse or 

demolish the facility was made after significant 

investment and without the transparent 

exploration of alternatives. 

 Coordination on Public-Private Partnerships. Need 

for coordination between APG and surrounding 

jurisdictions on Public-Private Partnerships, such 

as housing and Enhanced Use Leasing that may 

impact areas outside APG to balance the viability 

of communities while addressing the ongoing 

needs of APG. 

 Wildlife Hazards. Communication and 

coordination between various agencies is 

required to manage bird populations and control 

the size of the deer herd in the Aberdeen Area 

and Edgewood Areas to reduce the potential for 

negatively affecting military activities including 

aircraft strikes. 

Dust / Smoke / Steam is a by-product generated by both 

military and civilian activities. The primary dust, smoke, 

and steam-related issues in this JLUS are associated 

with military vehicle testing. Dust, smoke, and steam 

are compatibility issues if sufficient in quantity to 

impact military and / or flight operations, such as 

reduced visibility or cause equipment damage, or if 

military activities cause dust, smoke, or steam to 

interfere with civilian uses or quality of life. The 

following Dust, Smoke, and Steam issue was identified:

 Dust Generation from Testing Activities at APG 

and Dust, Smoke, and Steam from Activities 

outside APG. Military activities at APG 

automotive test areas can create fugitive dust 

impacts outside APG and dust, smoke, and steam 

from activities outside APG can migrate onto 

APG.

Frequency Spectrum Capacity is the entire range and 

capacity of electromagnetic frequencies used for 

communications and other transmissions, which 

includes communication channels used for radio, 

cellular phones, and television. In the performance of 

typical operations, the military relies on a range of 

frequencies with reliable capacities for communications 

and support systems. Similarly, public and private users 

rely on a range of frequencies in the use of cellular 

telephones and other wireless devices used on a daily 

basis. The following Frequency Spectrum issue was

identified:

 Comprehensive Frequency Management Program.

Need for a comprehensive Frequency 

Management Program to assess current and 

future frequency needs of all APG tenants inside 

and outside the fenceline to deconflict frequency 

requirements.

Frequency Spectrum Impedance / Interference is the 

interruption of electronic signals due to the existence of 

a structure or object between the source of the signal 

and its destination (receptor). Such obstructions can 

include wind turbines, cell towers, and tall buildings 

depending on the ground-level elevation at the site and 

the numbers of structures within a confined area. The 

following Frequency Spectrum Interference / 

Impedance issues were identified: 

 No Coordinated Assessment of Hazards Associated 

with Frequency. Though there is informal 

coordination between CERDEC, other tenants, 

and APG to deconflict frequency use during 

CERDEC ground-to-satellite tests, there is no plan 

to coordinate and assess near-zone and far-zone 

hazards associated with ground-to-satellite tests. 

 Potential for Ground-Based Interference. Line-ofsight signal transmission between Aberdeen Area 

and Churchville Test Site can be impacted from 

potential signal interference.

 Potential to Disrupt Aircraft Navigational Systems.

Coordination of signal transmission frequency 

testing and angle of transmission with area 

aircraft is required to ensure that potential 

disruption to aircraft navigational systems does 

not occur.

 Potential for Harford Metropolitan Area Network 

to Impact APG. Harford County is pursuing the 

Harford Metropolitan Area Network (HMAN) 

project for high speed fiber optic transmission for 

the County, the municipalities of Havre de Grace, 

Bel Air and Aberdeen, and businesses throughout 

the county. Though current phases include only 

hardwiring, any proposed Wi-Fi in the future may 

create a radiating signal bloom that could 

potentially impact APG frequency testing. 

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 23
 Radio Frequency Interference Affects Emergency 

Services Communications. Jurisdictions on both 

sides of Chesapeake Bay have experienced EMS 

radio system outages from unknown sources 

speculated to come from APG. 

 APG Electronic Warfare Footprint. Concern that 

electronic warfare footprint associated with APG 

research and testing activities can spill-over into 

adjacent jurisdictions. Land uses that occur 

outside of APG that rely on wireless signals could 

have the potential to impact activities at APG. 

 Coordination with Broadband Providers. Lack of 

coordination between broadband providers and 

APG can result in signal interference from use of 

bi-directional amplifiers outside the fenceline. 

 Marine Frequency on Range. Potential for signal 

interference with waterfront lanes / marine 

frequencies on range.

Housing Availability addresses the supply and demand 

for housing in the region, the competition for housing 

that may result from changes in the number of military 

personnel, and the supply of military family housing 

provided by the installation. The following Housing 

Availability issue was identified:

 Urban Environments. Urban city environments 

such as Baltimore City provide amenities and 

lifestyle attractive to young professionals. These 

urban environments are unavailable proximate to 

APG. APG personnel choosing to reside in an 

urban environment will have a longer commute 

adding to regional roadway congestion. The lack 

of urban environments proximate to APG may 

put the installation at a disadvantage for 

attracting younger job seekers.

Infrastructure Extensions covers the extension or 

provision of infrastructure (i.e., roads, sewer, water, 

etc.). The extension or expansion of community 

infrastructure to a military installation or areas 

proximate to an installation have the potential to induce 

growth, potentially leading to incompatible uses and 

conflicts between military missions and civilian 

communities. Through careful planning, the extension 

of infrastructure can serve as a mechanism to guide 

development into appropriate areas, protect sensitive 

land uses, and improve compatibility of land uses and 

military missions. The following Infrastructure 

Extensions issues were identified:

 Water provision to APG Edgewood Area. The 

current service agreement with Harford County 

for water provision to the Edgewood Area is a 

non-binding short-term temporary solution for 

Winters Run Creek production deficiencies. Longterm solutions for Edgewood water will require 

new infrastructure. 

 Coordination of Easements on APG Property. 

There is utility infrastructure traversing APG 

property without a formal agreement with APG at 

the Churchville Test Site. Formal easements are 

necessary to know which agency requires 

maintenance access, to coordinate access when 

needed, and to prevent potential liability issues.

Land / Air / Sea Spaces is the management or use of land 

and air space to accomplish testing, training, and 

operational missions. These resources must be 

available and of a sufficient size, cohesiveness, and 

quality to accommodate effective training and testing. 

Military and civilian air operations can compete for 

limited air space, especially when the airfields are in 

close proximity to each other. Use of this shared 

resource can impact future growth in operations for all 

users. The following Competition for Land and Air 

Spaces issue was identified:

 JLENS Program. Public perception that the JLENS 

program could impact rights to privacy.

Land Use planning and regulation relates to the 

government’s role in protecting the public’s health, 

safety, and welfare. Local jurisdictions’ general plans 

and zoning ordinances can be the most effective tools 

for avoiding or resolving land use compatibility issues. 

These tools balance land use compatibility with safety 

and noise zones and imaginary surfaces to promote 

development patterns appropriate for the airfield 

vicinity while protecting public property rights. Land 

use separation also applies to properties where the use 

of one property may adversely impact the use of 

another. For instance, industrial uses are often 

separated from residential uses to avoid impacts related 

Page 24 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
to noise, odors, lighting, and so forth. The following 

Land Use issues were identified:

 Incompatible Land Development. More intense 

land development throughout the Study Area has 

the potential to inhibit mission-critical activities 

at APG.

 Real Estate Disclosures Inconsistent Across 

Jurisdictions. Inconsistent application of real 

estate disclosures results in patchwork of new 

home buyer knowledge of installation impacts on 

properties.

 Potential for New Mission Footprints Constrained 

by Environmental Constraints. Buffers for 

wetlands, wildlife, and eagle nesting potentially 

reduce developable land for additional missions 

at Aberdeen Area.

 Eastern Shore Properties Present Possible 

Encroachments. Real estate easement 

instruments for properties with noise monitoring 

equipment on Eastern Shore do not contain legal 

descriptions resulting in access that may be 

outside the easements. 

 Identification of Encroachment Buffers.

Encroachment buffers around APG are not 

identified on City and County planning 

documents.

Legislative Initiatives are proposed changes in relevant 

policies, laws, regulations or programs which could 

potentially have a significant impact on one or more 

substantive areas of concern to both the facility and to 

the stakeholder communities. The focus of this 

compatibility issue is on initiatives with general and 

broad implications. The following Legislative Initiative

issue was identified:

 Environmental Regulatory Impacts. Federal and 

state environmental regulations reduce the APG 

buildable footprint and ability to accommodate 

new missions.

Marine Environments / Climate Adaptation is attempting 

to mitigate the potential impacts caused by climate 

change, which is the gradual shift of global weather 

patterns and temperature resulting from natural factors 

and human activities (e.g. burning of fossil fuels) that 

produce long-term impacts on atmospheric conditions. 

The effects of climate change vary and may include 

fluctuations in sea levels, alterations of ecosystems, 

variations in weather patterns, and natural resource 

availability issues. The results of climate change, i.e. 

ozone depletion and inefficiencies in land use, can 

present operational and planning challenges for the 

military and communities as resources are depleted and 

environments altered. The following Marine 

Environments / Climate Adaptation issues were 

identified:

 Dredging Requests to Aberdeen Proving Ground. 

The Port of Baltimore has engaged APG over the 

last couple of decades about receiving dredging 

spoils. Though APG is not currently a designated 

receiver site in the Army Corps of Engineers 

Dredged Material Management Plan, the upland 

placement of dredging spoils could be used to 

combat potential sea-level rise.

 Long-Term Plan for Environmental Impacts from 

Climate Change. Sea level rise studies indicate 

that portions of APG may be underwater as early 

as 2050 necessitating a long-term mitigation plan 

for APG. 

 Conowingo Dam Impacts Aberdeen Proving 

Ground. When Conowingo Dam floodgates are 

open, debris, sediment, and flooding occur along 

Spesutie Island.

 Disposal of Dredged Material Destined for Cecil 

County and Associated Risk from Unexploded 

Ordnance. Concern that dredging spoil disposed 

of in Cecil County may carry risks of unexploded 

ordnance. Consideration that these spoils could 

be used for shoreline stabilization at APG to 

combat sea-level rise. 

Noise is the result of military mission exercises, testing,

and construction and development activities. This 

factor can be incompatible with sensitive land uses. 

Noise that is loud and extending into night hours can 

disrupt the lives of the public. The following Noise 

issues were identified:

 

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 25
 Noise from Installation Activity. Noise from 

activities at APG has the potential to affect 

sensitive noise receptors in surrounding 

communities.

 Regional Noise Sources. There are other sources 

of blasting than APG within the region which can 

be misattributed to APG testing. 

 Overflight of the City of Havre de Grace. APG 

overflight of the City of Havre de Grace creates 

general noise nuisance.

Roadway Capacity relates to the ability of existing 

freeways, highways, arterials, and other local roads to 

provide adequate mobility and access between military 

installations and their surrounding communities. The 

following Roadway Capacity issues were identified:

 Peak Hour Traffic (Traffic Loads at Gates). Peak 

hour traffic including a mid-day peak causes 

congestion and traffic delays outside the 

installation which have a quality of life impact for 

those working at APG and those traveling the 

area. 

 Public Transportation Connections. Amtrak and 

MARC commuter trains stop near the boundary 

of both APG and Edgewood, but there is no direct 

transit connection from the stations into the 

installation. 

 Increased APG Commuter Traffic Affects Local 

Roads and Level of Service. APG commuter traffic 

affects local roads and contributes to level of 

service impacts:

• Westbound commuter traffic to APG cuts 

through local subdivisions via I-95 to reach 

the installation 

• Traffic switching between Route 40 and I95 to avoid higher I-95 eastbound toll 

creates failing LOS at US Route 40 and 

State Hwy. 222 interchange

• Congestion on Harford County cross 

arteries such as MD 543 and 152

 Traffic congestion creates safety hazard at MD 

543 at I-95 interchange.

Safety Zones are areas in which development should be 

more restrictive, in terms of use and concentrations of 

people, due to the higher risks to public safety. Issues to 

consider include aircraft accident potential zones, 

weapons firing range safety zones, and explosive safety 

zones. The following Safety issues were identified:

 Awareness of Range Fires. During dry months of 

the year, certain testing procedures can cause 

brush fires. These fires need to be maintained 

and proper communication needs to be provided 

outside of APG regarding their potential effects.

 Unexploded Ordnance. Areas at APG could still 

contain unexploded ordnance buried 

underground which potentially pose a safety risk 

for adjacent development outside the fenceline.

 Incompatible Uses in Accident Potential Zones. 

Incompatible uses in the Accident Potential Zones 

extend into Harford County and the City of 

Aberdeen creates a safety concern. 

Scarce Natural Resources involves pressure to gain 

access to valuable natural resources, such as oil, natural 

gas, and minerals, located on military installations, 

within military training areas, or on public lands 

historically used for military operations, can impact land 

utilization and military operations. The following Scarce 

Natural Resources issue was identified:

 Water Quantity / Quality at Edgewood. Harford 

County water supply to Edgewood is temporary 

because of Harford County’s own service 

demand.

Sensitive Biological Resources include federal and state 

listed species (threatened and endangered species) and 

their habitats. These resources may also include areas 

such as wetlands and migratory corridors that are 

critical to the overall health and productivity of an 

ecosystem. The presence of sensitive biological 

resources may require special development 

considerations and should be included early in the 

planning process. The following Sensitive Biological 

Resources issue was identified:

 

Page 26 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
 Eagle Nesting Sites. Eagle nesting site buffers 

impact ability to carry out mission-critical activity 

and contribute to reduced development areas.

Vertical Obstructions are structures that impede 

navigable airspace for both military and civilian aircraft 

operations. Structures that pose a threat to the 

airspace for military and civilian aviation include tall 

wind turbines and wireless communication towers. It is 

important to ensure the communities adjacent to APG

plan accordingly to safeguard against unintended safety 

concerns relative to structures that obstruct navigable 

airspace. The following Vertical Obstructions issue was

identified:

 Vertical Obstructions Understanding. Lack of 

awareness of vertical obstruction requirements 

within jurisdictions surrounding APG can lead to 

incompatible development. 

Vibration is an oscillation or motion that alternates in 

opposite directions and may occur as a result of an 

impact, explosion, noise, mechanical operation, or 

other change in the environment. Vibration may be 

caused by military and / or civilian activities. Siskind 

(1989) found that homeowners become concerned 

about structural rattling and potential damage when 

the noise level exceed 120 dBP (decibels peak), but

structural damage isn’t likely to occur at decibels lower 

than 150 dBP. The following Vibration issue was

identified:

 Vibration Damage in Study Area Communities. 

Vibration from APG operations has the ability to 

cause physical property damage in areas 

throughout the study area on both sides of the 

Chesapeake Bay.

Water Quality / Quantity is the factor that assesses the 

quantity and quality of water resources in the APG JLUS 

Study Area. This factor evaluates the amount of water 

that is utilized by the installation relative to the 

available supply of water and then compares that with 

the demand and supply that is utilized by the 

surrounding communities to provide for the necessary 

public services. In addition to evaluating the water 

supply, this factor also reviews the overall quality of 

public water use in the JLUS Study Area. Water quality 

can be affected by military operations, public recreation 

use and stormwater drainage. The following Water 

Quality and Quantity issue has been identified:

 Havre de Grace Marina Siltation. The Spesutie 

Island Causeway is a potential source of sediment 

buildup near the Havre de Grace Marina which is 

reported to affect local boating and the 

Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

 Edgewood Area Lacks an Uninterruptable Water 

Supply. The Edgewood Area water source is 

subject to periodic production shortages. 

Supplemental water to the Edgewood Area from 

Harford County is temporary. A reliable source of 

water to serve the Edgewood Area is needed to 

meet current and future needs.

 Aberdeen Area Lacks an Uninterruptable Water 

Supply. The source of water for the Aberdeen 

Area suffers from periodic production shortages 

due to flows that cannot be maintained during 

moderate drought periods. Back-up water 

supplies are provided from Harford County by 

way of the City of Aberdeen through a collective 

MOU which expires in 2017. 

 EUL Site On Top of Aquifer Recharge Infiltration 

Field. The EUL site is located within the Source 

Water Protection Area that encompasses the 

water wells for Harford County and the City of 

Aberdeen. There is a concern that future EUL 

development can impact the aquifer recharge 

associated with the wells. 

 Stewardship of Chesapeake Bay Waters.

Perception that counties are providing a 

disproportionate amount of funding versus APG 

to clean the Chesapeake Bay.

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 27
Please see the next page.

Page 28 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Implementation Plan

This section identifies and organizes the recommended 

courses of action (strategies) that have been developed 

through a collaborative effort between representatives 

of Harford County and its JLUS partners: local 

jurisdictions, APG, state and federal agencies, local 

organizations, the general public, and other 

stakeholders that own or manage land or resources in 

the region. Because the APG JLUS is the result of a 

collaborative planning process, the strategies in this 

section represent a true consensus plan; a realistic and 

coordinated approach to compatibility planning 

developed with the support of stakeholders involved 

throughout the process.

The JLUS strategies incorporate a variety of actions that 

can be taken to promote compatible land use and 

resource planning. Existing and potential compatibility 

issues arising from the civilian / military interface can be 

removed or mitigated through implementation. The 

recommended strategies function as the heart of the 

JLUS document and are the culmination of the process.

The key to the implementation of strategies is the 

establishment of the JLUS Implementation Coordination 

Committee (see Strategy COM-1A) to oversee the 

execution of the JLUS. Through this committee, local 

jurisdictions, APG, and other selected partners can 

continue their collaboration to establish procedures, 

recommend, or refine specific actions, and adjust 

strategies over time to promote the resolution of key 

compatibility issues through realistic strategies and 

implementation.

Implementation Plan Guidelines

The key to a successful plan is balancing the different 

needs of all involved stakeholders. In working towards 

a balanced plan, several guidelines became the basis 

upon which the strategies were developed. These 

guidelines included:

 In concert with the Maryland state laws, the 

Implementation Plan was developed with the 

understanding that the recommended strategies 

must not result in a taking of property value. In 

some cases, it may be determined that 

recommended strategies can only be 

implemented with new enabling legislation.

 In order to minimize regulation, where 

appropriate, strategies were recommended only 

for specific geographic areas to resolve the 

compatibility issues identified. 

 Similar to other planning processes that include 

numerous stakeholders, the challenge is to create 

a solution or strategy that meets the needs of all 

parties. In lieu of eliminating strategies that do 

not have 100% buy-in by all stakeholders, it was 

determined that the solution / strategy may 

result in the creation of multiple strategies that 

address the same issue but would be tailored to 

individual jurisdictions or agencies.

APG Military Compatibility Areas

In compatibility planning, the generic term “Military 

Compatibility Area” (MCA) is the term used to formally 

designate a geographic area where military operations 

may impact local communities, and conversely, where 

local activities may affect the military’s ability to carry 

out its mission. The MCAs are geographic areas where 

the majority of the recommended strategies apply. The 

proposed APG Military Compatibility Area Overlay 

District (MCAOD) is an area that incorporates all of the 

MCAs. 

The use of MCAs and the MCAOD ensures that 

strategies are applied to the appropriate areas, and that 

locations not affected by a specific compatibility issue 

are not impacted by regulations or policies that are not 

appropriate for their location or circumstance.

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 29
The MCAs are proposed to accomplish the following 

purposes: 

 Promote an orderly transition between 

community and military land uses so that land 

uses remain compatible.

 Protect public health, safety, and welfare.

 Maintain operational capabilities of military 

installations and areas.

 Promote the awareness of the size and scope of 

military mission areas to protect areas separate 

from the actual military installation (i.e., critical 

air space) used for mission purposes.

 Establish compatibility requirements within the 

designated area, such as requirements for sound 

attenuation, real estate disclosure, and air 

navigation easements.

There are four proposed MCAs for the area around APG

that comprise the MCAOD. These MCAs (described in 

the following paragraphs) are:

 Noise MCA 

 Safety MCA 

 Vertical Obstruction MCA 

 BASH MCA

Figure 5 shows the combined MCAOD and Figures 6 

through 9 provide maps of the respective MCAs. 

Noise Military Compatibility Area

The Noise MCA includes all land located outside APG 

within the 115 PK15 (met) peak blast noise contours or 

57 CDNL (C-weighted Day-night average sound level) 

Land Use Planning Zone associated with testing and 

other military activities at APG.. This MCA encompasses 

land areas which are identified by APG as posing the 

potential for noise complaints from APG operations. 

The APG Noise MCA is illustrated on Figure 6. 

Noise is often a concern to the public surrounding 

military installations that have flying, testing, and/or 

training missions. The siting of residential and other 

land uses such as schools and hospitals which are 

particularly sensitive to noise, are not recommended 

within areas identified in this MCA. 

Coordination among local jurisdictions, developers, and 

organizations and agencies responsible for the siting of 

noise sensitive uses is recommended within the Noise 

MCA. Including the Noise MCA in local planning 

documents will provide public awareness, and where 

possible, land use controls may be used to reduce the 

potential for the proliferation of noise sensitive uses 

where they are most impacted by APG operations. 

Additional information and technical background 

explaining the various noise measurement units [i.e. 

CDNL vs. PK15 (met)] and specific noise contours 

associated with ordnance testing is provided in the 

Military Profile found within the Chapter 3 of the 

Background Report.

Safety Military Compatibility Area

The Safety MCA comprises the existing Phillips Army 

Airfield Clear Zone (CZ), Accident Potential Zones I and II 

(APZ I and APZ II), and the Weide Army Heliport CZ and 

APZ I. The APG Safety MCA is illustrated on Figure 7. 

The proposed Safety MCA identifies areas where 

measures would be applied to regulate compatible land 

use types and densities / intensities of development 

outside APG. Since the safety zones at Weide Army 

Heliport and the Phillips Army Airfield CZs do not extend 

off the installation, the MCA contains only portions of 

APZ I and APZ II associated with Phillips Army Airfield 

that extend into Harford County and the City of 

Aberdeen. The current location of the safety MCA is 

based on the Phillips Army Airfield layout and air 

operations identified in the APG Master Plan and 

dimensions identified in DOD’s United Facilities Criteria 

(UFC) 3-260-01, Airfield and Heliport Planning and 

Design. 

Each of the safety zones has recommended guidelines 

of the type of development that should not occur within 

them. These guidelines are found in the DID Instruction 

4165.57. Compatibility guidelines preclude land uses 

that concentrate large numbers of people, such as 

residences, apartments, churches, and schools, from 

being sited within APZs. While the likelihood of an 

accident is remote, the DOD recommends low density 

land uses within the APZs to ensure the maximum 

protection of public health and property. 

Page 30 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Kent County Baltimore County

Queen Anne's County

Harford County 543 Cecil County

Anne Arundel County

Aberdeen

Havre de Grace

95

695

895

95

695

40

301

1

222

7

213

147

272

152

177

292

298

20

173

165

24

446

146

291

300

282

23

924

290

544

22

161

145

164

444

150

43

156

275

288

151

159

302

561

21

462

702

700

100

132

289

718

444

647

155

267

7

290

7

22

20

924

695

20

24

152

ABERDEEN

PROVING

GROUND

445

Bush

River

Elk

River

North

East

River

Chesapeake

Bay

Gunpowder

River

Susquehanna

River

Source: APG, 2014.

ABERDEEN

PROVING

GROUND

Aberdeen

Havre de Grace

0 2.5 5

Miles Military Compatibility Area Overlay District (MCAOD)

Legend

MCAOD Noise MCA

BASH MCA

Safety MCA

Vertical Obstruction MCA

Installation Area

Airfield

Partnering JLUS

Jurisdictions

County Boundary

City / Town /

Unincorporated Community

Interstate

Highway

Major Road

Railroad

Water Body

River

Figure 5

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 31
¬«

445

Bush

River

Elk

River

North

East

River

Chesapeake

Bay

Gunpowder

River

Susquehanna

River

ABERDEEN

PROVING

GROUND

%&'(95

%&'(

695

%&'(

895

%&'(95

%&'(

695

¬«

40

£¤

301

¬«1

£¤

222

¬«7

213¬«

¬«

147

¬«

272

¬«

152

177¬«

292¬«

¬«

298

¬«

20

¬«

173

165¬«

¬«

24

446¬«

¬«

146

¬«

291

¬«

300

¬«

282

¬«

23

¬«

924

290¬« 544¬«

¬«

22

¬«

161

145¬«

164¬«

444¬«

¬«

150

¬«

43

156¬«

¬«

275

288¬«

151¬«

159¬«

302¬«

¬«

561

¬«

21

462¬«

702¬«

¬«

700

100¬«

132¬«

289¬«

¬«

718

¬«

444

647¬«

155¬«

¬«

267

¬«7

290¬«

¬«7

¬«

22

¬«

20

924¬«

¬«

695

¬«

20

¬«

24

¬«

152

Aberdeen

Havre de Grace

Kent County Baltimore County

Queen Anne's County

Harford County ¬«

543 Cecil County

Anne Arundel County

0 1 2

Mile s

Figure 6

Noise MCA

Page 32 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Bush

River

Edgewood

Aberdeen

Perryman

Riverside

Weide

Army

Heliport

Phillips

Army

Airfield

ABERDEEN

PROVING

GROUND

Harford County

Kent County

Harford

County

%&'(95

£¤40

¬«7

¬«159

¬«22

¬«543

¬«924

¬«136

¬«132

¬«462

¬«24

¬«715

¬«543

Romney Creek

Winters Ru n

0 0.5 1

Mile

Figure 7

Safety MCA

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 33
Within APZ I, residential uses are not recommended 

and only limited low intensity non-residential uses are 

recommended. Detached single family residential uses 

– up to 2 units per acre are recommended within APZ II. 

Other compatible uses in APZ II include agriculture, 

limited intensity office / retail, and light industrial. 

Development within the areas proximate to these 

safety zones should be reviewed for compatibility with 

both current military mission and future missions. 

Vertical Obstruction Military Compatibility Area

The Vertical Safety MCA is based on the DOD Imaginary 

Surfaces – a set of surfaces in 3-dimensional space 

designated to prevent the risk of structures becoming 

vertical obstruction hazards to aircraft. These surfaces 

include both sloping surfaces radiating outward from 

the runway and surfaces with maximum heights that 

extend along the horizontal plane. Some of the more 

critical surfaces include the Inner Horizontal Surface, 

which restricts development of structures up to 150 

feet above airfield elevation and the ApproachDeparture Clearance Surface which includes a 500-foot 

slope from the end of the runway out to a distance of 

approximately 4.7 miles. The Vertical Obstruction MCA 

is intended to follow the DOD imaginary surfaces with 

regard to structure height and is not intended to reduce 

or change DOD guidance with regard to maximum 

height of structures.

A potential source for aircraft accidents to occur is 

related to the presence of vertical obstructions in areas 

that are frequently used by low flying aircraft. Vertical 

obstruction issues are a major concern to flight 

operations and training due to the potential for a

building or structure to extend into navigable airspace 

and impede the safety of flight operations. Vertical 

obstructions can affect flight safety, line of sight, and 

even frequency. Examples of potential vertical 

obstructions include communications towers (radio, 

television, cellular, microwave, etc.), silos, electric 

transmission towers and lines, and similar manmade 

structures. 

While the presence of vertical obstructions can 

sometimes be mitigated by altering flight tracks, 

increasing minimum allowable flight altitudes or similar 

risk reduction measures, the proliferation of vertical 

obstructions or their placement along key flight routes 

can cause long term changes in the viability of navigable 

airspace, ultimately affecting the sustainability of 

military missions. The APG Vertical Obstruction MCA is 

illustrated on Figure 8. 

BASH Military Compatibility Area

The APG Bird and Wildlife Strike Hazard (BASH) MCA 

extends out from nearest air operations area of both 

the Phillips Army Airfield and the Weide Army Heliport a 

distance of five statute miles. This MCA is meant to 

include areas around the airfield with the highest safety 

concerns if concentrations of birds or bird-attracting 

uses were located there. Bird strikes with aircraft can 

have serious safety concerns, including the potential for 

loss of life and / or aircraft. Even minor bird strikes can 

cause costly repairs to aircraft and interfere with flight 

missions. However, helicopters are less likely than most 

fixed-wing aircraft to suffer major damage from BASH 

incidents. 

The five-mile distance associated with the BASH MCA is 

an FAA recommended standard for managing bird 

attractants around runways. Developments like 

landfills, landfill transfer stations, developments with 

major water features are just some examples of uses 

that may attract birds within the approach and 

departure flight corridors in an around APG. The APG 

BASH relevancy area MCA is illustrated on Figure 9. 

Page 34 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
¬«445

Bush

River

Elk

River

North

East

River

Chesapeake

Bay

Gunpowder

River

Susquehanna

River

Weide

Army

Heliport

Phillips

Army

Airfield

ABERDEEN

PROVING

GROUND

%&'(95

%&'(695

%&'(895

%&'(95

%&'(695

¬«40

£¤301

¬«1

£¤222

¬«7

213 ¬«

¬«147

¬«272

¬«152

177 ¬«

292 ¬«

¬«298

¬«20

¬«173

165 ¬«

¬«24

446 ¬«

¬«146

¬«291

¬«300

¬«282

¬«23

¬«924

290 ¬« 544 ¬«

¬«22

¬«161

145 ¬«

164 ¬«

444 ¬«

¬«150

¬«43

156 ¬«

¬«275

288 ¬«

151 ¬«

159 ¬«

302 ¬«

¬«561

¬«21

462 ¬«

702 ¬«

¬«700

100 ¬«

132 ¬«

289 ¬«

¬«718

¬«444

647 ¬«

155 ¬«

¬«267

¬«7

290 ¬«

¬«7

¬«22

¬«20

924 ¬«

¬«695

¬«20

¬«24

¬«152

Aberdeen

Havre de Grace

Kent County Baltimore County

Queen Anne's County

Harford County ¬«543 Cecil County

Anne Arundel County

0 21

Miles

Figure 8

Vertical Obstruction MCA

Legend

Prim a ry Su rfa ce

Approa ch /De pa rtu re Cle a ra nce

Su rfa ce (g lide a ng le ) = 50 ft to 

1 ft u p to 500 ft

Approa ch /De pa rtu re Cle a ra nce

Su rfa ce (h orizonta l) = 500 ft

Inne r Horizonta l Su rfa ce = 150 ft

Conica l Su rfa ce = 20 ft to 1 ft

Ou te r Horizonta l Su rfa ce = 500 ft

Tra nsitiona l Su rfa ce = 7ft to 1 ft

 

Insta lla tion Are a

Airfie ld

Pa rtne ring JLU S Ju risdictions

Cou nty Bou nda ry

City / Town /

U nincorpora te d Com m u nity

Inte rsta te

Hig h wa y

M a jor Roa d

Ra ilroa d

W a te r Body

Riv e r

Sou rce : APG, 2014.

 

Vertical Obstruction MCA Airfield Imaginary Surface

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 35
¬«445

Bush

River

Elk

River

North

East

River

Chesapeake

Bay

Gunpowder

River

Susquehanna

River

Weide

Army

Heliport

Phillips

Army

Airfield

ABERDEEN

PROVING

GROUND

%&'(95

%&'(695

%&'(895

%&'(95

%&'(695

¬«40

£¤301

¬«1

£¤222

¬«7

213 ¬«

¬«147

¬«272

¬«152

177 ¬«

292 ¬«

¬«298

¬«20

¬«173

165 ¬«

¬«24

446 ¬«

¬«146

¬«291

¬«300

¬«282

¬«23

¬«924

290 ¬« 544 ¬«

¬«22

¬«161

145 ¬«

164 ¬«

444 ¬«

¬«150

¬«43

156 ¬«

¬«275

288 ¬«

151 ¬«

159 ¬«

302 ¬«

¬«561

¬«21

462 ¬«

702 ¬«

¬«700

100 ¬«

132 ¬«

289 ¬«

¬«718

¬«444

647 ¬«

155 ¬«

¬«267

¬«7

290 ¬«

¬«7

¬«22

¬«20

924 ¬«

¬«695

¬«20

¬«24

¬«152

Aberdeen

Havre de Grace

Kent County Baltimore County

Queen Anne's County

Harford County ¬«543 Cecil County

Anne Arundel County

0 1 2

Miles

Figure 9

BASH MCA

Source: APG, 2014.

Legend

BASH MCA Installation Area

Airfield

Partnering JLUS

Jurisdictions

County Boundary

City / Town /

Unincorporated Community

Interstate

Highway

Major Road

Railroad

Water Body

River

Page 36 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
How to Read the Implementation Plan

The strategies developed are designed to address the 

issues identified during preparation of the JLUS. The 

purpose of each strategy is to:

 avoid future actions, operations, or approvals 

that would cause a compatibility issue,

 eliminate an existing compatibility issue,

 reduce the adversity of an existing issue, and / or

 provide for on-going communications and 

collaboration.

In an effort to list and describe the strategies in an 

efficient manner, they have been arranged in a table to 

correspond with their compatibility factor. The issue 

within each factor topic is presented first to provide a 

linkage between the strategy and the condition it is to 

resolve or minimize. The following paragraphs provide 

an overview of how to read the information presented 

for each strategy in the JLUS. 

Issue / Strategy ID Number. Each strategy is assigned a

unique identifier (i.e., COM-1A, COM-1B, COM-1C, etc.)

to provide an easy reference. A Strategy ID is 

composed of the Compatibility Issue to which it applies, 

i.e. “COM” for Communications / Coordination 

strategies and a sequential number. The corresponding 

compatibility issue precedes each set of applicable 

issues. 

Geographic Area. The geographic Area identifies the 

geographic area applicable to the strategy (i.e., General, 

Study Area, MCAOD, Safety MCA, Noise MCA, etc.). The 

MCAOD and MCA geographies for the APG strategies 

are described and illustrated on the previous pages of 

this JLUS. Some of the strategies are designated as 

“General” if they do not have a specific associated 

geography; some are designated as “Study Area’ if they 

apply to across the entire Study Area or a specific 

geography; some are designated as “MCAOD” if they 

apply to the entire MCAOD for the JLUS Study Area, 

while others may apply to a specific MCA. 

Strategy. In bold type is a title that describes the 

strategy. This is followed by the complete strategy 

description of a recommended action.

Timeline. The timeline is an estimate of when a strategy 

is anticipated to be initiated – High [2016]; Medium 

[2017-2018] and Low [2019 and beyond]). Awareness

refers to strategies that will be needed on a continuous, 

intermittent, or as-needed basis.

Responsible Partner. At the right end of the strategy 

table are a set of columns, one for each jurisdiction, 

military entity, agency, and organization with 

responsibilities relevant to implementation of the JLUS 

strategies. A column is also assigned as “Other” where 

parties are only required for select strategies. These 

parties are identified at the end of the strategy 

description if they apply. 

If an entity has responsibility relative to implementing a 

strategy, a mark is shown under their name. This mark 

is one of two symbols that represent their role. A solid 

square () designates that the entity has a primary 

responsibility for implementing the strategy. A hollow 

square () designates that the entity plays a key 

supporting role, but is not directly responsible for 

implementation. The responsible parties are identified 

by their name or assigned acronym in the heading at 

the top of the page.

Figure 10 illustrates how to read the JLUS Strategies. 

The JLUS strategies are presented on the following 

pages in Table 2, organized alphabetically by 

compatibility factor.

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 37
Figure 10 Strategy Key 

 

Page 38 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Table 3 JLUS Strategies Issue / Strategy ID Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

Coordination / Communication

COM-1 

Coordination Between APG and Jurisdictions

Coordination between APG and local jurisdictions on area planning and land use issues is informal and 

inconsistent leading to a lack of information sharing and coordinated evaluation of development impacts. 

Jurisdictions do not understand APG requirements that affect long-range development plans.

COM-1A General Establish a JLUS Coordination 

Committee 

Establish a JLUS Coordination Committee 

to maintain efficient and effective 

coordination among the JLUS partners and 

to oversee the implementation of JLUS 

recommendations. The JLUS Coordination 

Committee should meet on a regular basis 

as agreed upon by the Committee and be 

responsible for establishing effective and 

timely means of communication for the 

purpose of coordinating and addressing 

compatibility concerns and issues. 

Consider committee membership from the 

JLUS Executive Committee as well as other 

community partners as deemed appropriate 

to maintain continuity and institutional 

project knowledge. Consider the formation 

of a technical subcommittee comprising 

Advisory Committee members to address 

technical aspects of the JLUS 

implementation.

Other Partners: Town of Perryville, other 

members as deemed required 

2016        

COM-1B General Provide Mutual Briefings 

To perpetually enhance support and 

cooperation, and reinforce the partnership 

between APG and local jurisdictions, APG 

should annually present a “state of the 

installation” briefing including strategic 

goals, operational changes, and proposed 

construction projects that may impact the 

greater community to the Study Area county 

commissions and city councils. The counties 

and cities should provide annual briefings to 

APG of changes within the communities that 

may impact the installation including 

2016       

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 39
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

COM-1B

Cont’d

comprehensive plans, master plans, 

transportation plans, zoning, development 

projects, and capital improvement plans.

Other Partner: Town of Perryville 

COM-1C General Conduct Quarterly Planning 

Coordination Meetings

APG Department of Public Works Planning 

Division and the planning department heads 

from Study Area jurisdictions should 

conduct quarterly meetings to share short 

and long-term visions and goals including 

changes in federal agency, DOD and APG 

policy / guidelines as they apply to 

development outside the fenceline, real 

property development at APG, and changes 

to jurisdiction comprehensive plans, master 

plans, transportation plans, zoning, 

development projects, and capital 

improvement plans. 

Other Partner: Town of Perryville

2016

      

COM-1D Study Area Develop and Maintain a Repository of 

Requirements Documentation to Inform 

the Community Planning Decision-

Making Process

APG Department of Public Works Planning 

Division should develop and maintain a 

repository of non-classified requirements 

documentation relevant to planning and 

development outside the fenceline. 

Requirements documentation may include 

information related to vertical obstructions, 

frequency spectrum, energy development, 

bird and wildlife attractants, etc. The 

repository should be available to Study Area 

jurisdictions to ensure development is 

compatible with APG operations. 

2016

 

Page 40 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

COM-2 Communication of Remediation and Water Improvement Activities

Installation’s remediation and water quality improvement efforts are not adequately conveyed to the public.

COM-2A General Reinstate the Restoration Advisory 

Board Website

Reinstate and maintain the APG Restoration 

Advisory Board (RAB) website. Include 

updates on restoration activities as part of 

outreach activities to educate the 

community outside the fenceline and foster 

community support. Consider leveraging 

APG social media to disseminate 

information to the public. Consider 

leveraging APG social media to maximize 

communication to the public of RAB 

activities and remediation status. 

2016 

COM-2B General Public Communication of Water Quality 

Improvements

Identify public outreach methods to convey 

status of water quality improvements at 

APG. Leverage existing APG resources and 

outreach methods. Consider incorporating 

water improvement activities as part of the 

outreach efforts recommended in Strategies 

COM-5A, COM-5B, and COM-5C. 

2016 

COM-3 Formal coordination process for Development Notification 

No formal process to notify APG of development actions outside the fence line.

COM-3A General Include APG in an Advisory Capacity to 

Local Planning Commissions and 

Development Advisory Committees

Establish a formal agreement between all 

Study Area jurisdictions and APG to 

formalize a process that provides copies of 

certain types of development proposals, 

rezoning, and other land use or regulation 

changes for lands located within the APG 

influence area for review and comment. The 

agreement should address an effective 

method that promotes a productive 

communication and coordination process 

that can be maintained and reproduced in 

the future. This supports a proactive 

approach for identifying potential conflicts 

early in the proposed development 

application. Review periods shall conform to 

2016       

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 41
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

COM-3A

Cont’d

existing community processes for providing 

comment. 

The process of formalizing Army review and 

comment should include:  Definition of project types that require 

review

 Definition of project types that require 

military attendance at pre-application 

meetings, if applicable 

 

the points of contact for all coordination 

Formal procedures for requesting and 

receiving comments

 Standard timelines for responses 

consistent with State law and 

local/county procedures.

The Army representative will provide 

technical information on items being 

considered, but shall not directly vote to 

approve, conditionally approve, or deny a 

project or development application.

Procedures should be reviewed annually 

and updated as appropriate by the JLUS 

Coordination Committee. 

Other Partner: Town of Perryville

COM-3B General Formalize Development Review 

Coordination 

Consider formalizing coordination processes 

to ensure long-term consistency in 

information sharing and communication 

between local jurisdictions and agencies 

with APG that will also supplement existing 

coordination requirements in overlay district 

regulations. Establish a Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) to formalize processes 

for APG review and comment on 

development proposals, rezoning 

applications, other land use or regulation 

changes or master plans that may pose 

operational impacts on APG. The MOA 

should outline an effective process that 

promotes productive communication and 

coordination that can be maintained and 

replicated in the future. The MOA should 

provide a proactive approach for identifying 

potential conflicts with the military as early in 

2016

     

Page 42 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

COM-3B

Cont’d

the development review process as 

possible. The MOA with APG should 

include:

 Definition of project types that require 

review

 Definition of project types that warrant 

military participation at development 

review meetings 

 Identification of points of contact for all 

coordination

 Notification procedures for requesting 

and receiving comments

 Timeframes for responses consistent 

with state law and similar jurisdiction 

procedures.

 Provide notice to APG on all public 

hearings regarding projects identified 

for coordination.

Procedures should be reviewed annually 

and updated as appropriate by the JLUS 

Coordination Committee.

Other Partner: Town of Perryville

COM-3C General Consider Web-Based Tool for 

Coordinated Development Reviews

Consider implementing a web-based 

tracking tool for coordinating development 

reviews with APG using automation through 

e-mail notifications. The tool could provide a 

clearinghouse to discuss various project 

types and a forum for discussion on broader 

long-term project review, such as 

comprehensive plan updates, zoning 

ordinance language, and capital 

improvement plans for public facilities. 

Ensure that project uploads include contact 

information, project location information, a 

project description, and a deadline for 

comments.

2016      

COM-4 

Base Community Relations Outreach within Study Area

APG community relations outreach extends to Harford and Cecil County but does not include Kent County 

which is informed only through media alerts.

COM-4A Study Area Strengthen Outreach to Eastern Shore

APG should develop and implement a plan 

to strengthen outreach efforts and 

2019   

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 43
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

COM-4A

Cont’d

coordination with the Eastern Shore 

including Kent County and the portion of 

Cecil County east of the Chesapeake Bay to 

educate the public and garner support for 

APG. Outreach should include press 

releases, notification of events, education, 

and operational changes and anomalies 

outside of normal procedures that may 

impact the Eastern Shore. Outreach should 

employ community meetings, area 

newspapers, television, radio, jurisdiction 

websites, social media, and other outreach 

methods as employed with Harford County. 

COM-5 Communication of Aberdeen Proving Ground Activities with Outside Communities

Public’s nominal mission understanding affects community support for APG.

COM-5A General Develop an Outreach Campaign Plan 

Develop an Outreach Campaign Plan to 

identify public outreach goals and action 

items, metrics and milestones for activities, 

and responsible parties for conducting 

outreach activities. Goals should support a 

range of activities including public 

appearances, speaking engagements, 

educational seminars, open houses, media 

engagements, exhibits, press and news 

release and publication 

development/distribution that reinforces the 

community understanding of APG, 

enhances its strategic value within the 

community, and strengthens the community 

support base. The Public Outreach 

Campaign Plan should address current 

issues, concerns, and potential changes at 

APG. Consideration should be given to a 

broad mix of outreach channels including in 

person, print, video, and digital tools such 

as websites, social media, and podcasts 

and support from area jurisdictions and 

organizations.

Other Partner: CSSC

2019       

COM-5B General Establish an APG Public Outreach 

Program

APG should create an outreach plan to 

share information with the community. The 

2019  

Page 44 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

public outreach program should describe 

outreach activities to include possible 

installation tours / open houses, 

development of informational brochures to 

be mailed to neighbors and posted on the 

APG website, a single location identifying 

public relations points of contact for APG, 

and making contact information widely 

available. It should also include a military 

and community communication protocol 

directory that identifies the different level of 

communication channels between the 

appointed and elected officials, to staff, to 

the general public and APG.

COM-5C MCAOD Conduct a Good Neighbor Program

APG should conduct, on a bi-annual basis, 

a Good Neighbor Program where they send 

out letters to property owners within the 

region inviting them to an APG Open 

Forum. The meeting should allow for an 

open exchange of information to maintain 

transparent communication and provide a 

platform for APG to inform neighbors and 

interested citizens of upcoming mission 

changes or operations and maintenance 

events that may have an impact on the 

neighbors, and to give attendees an 

opportunity for input and to pose questions 

to Army representatives. 

The open houses would be held in rotating 

locations on or near APG and within the 

region on a semi-annual basis and require 

participation by each local jurisdiction.

Other Partner: CSSC

2019





Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 45
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

COM-5D General Make APG Points of Contact More Widely 

Known

Advertise and increase awareness of APG 

Public Affairs Office and other contact 

numbers for all community complaints and 

inquiries. Communication procedures, 

including methods for providing input, 

posing inquiries, and expected response 

time should be made publicly available 

through the APG and local jurisdiction 

websites, social media sources, and posted 

in public facilities such as community 

centers, municipal buildings, and local 

newsletters.

Other Partner: CSSC

2019       

COM-6 

Communication from APG with Outside Community

Because communications are not formalized, the level of APG communication with outside jurisdictions is 

perceived as dependent on leadership interest which can fluctuate with changes in leadership. 

COM-6A Study Area Expand Communication Efforts with All

Jurisdictions within the Study Area

Update jurisdictions’ and regional planning 

organizations websites to recognize APG, 

its mission, location, links to the APG 

webpage, contact information for key 

organizations, and relevant installation 

activities potentially affecting the 

communities. 

Other Partner: CSSC

2019       

COM-6B General Increase Awareness through APG News 

Publication

Increase circulation of the APG News at 

public locations throughout the Study Area 

and publish distribution locations on the 

APG website.

2019  

For other strategies that address this issue 

see Strategies COM-1B, COM-1C, and 

COM-3A. 

 

Page 46 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

COM-7 

Coordination on Multi-Jurisdictional Infrastructure Improvements 

Coordinate multijurisdictional infrastructure improvements to ensure all jurisdictions are notified and can plan 

appropriately for impacts in affected areas. This will help avoid previous scenarios where intersection 

improvements were not fully coordinated across jurisdictions and resulted in relocation of water lines and 

regulatory takings of homes in roadway widening areas.

COM-7A Study Area Regional Infrastructure Technical 

Working Group

Consider the formation of a regional 

Infrastructure Technical Working Group 

comprising subject matter experts to 

collaborate, share information, and 

coordinate during the planning, 

programming, design, and construction of 

multi-jurisdictional infrastructure projects. 

Other Partners: Town of Perryville, 

Maryland DOT, CSSC, BMC, WILMAPCO

2019       

COM-7B Study Area Participation on Baltimore Regional 

Transportation Board

Request participation on the Baltimore 

Regional Transportation Board, which 

functions as the Metropolitan Planning 

Organization serving Harford County, to 

ensure that MPO mission of providing 

comprehensive, coordinated and continuous 

(“3C”) transportation planning is inclusive of 

the cities of Aberdeen, Havre de Grace 

during all project phases to provide the 

cities with a shared awareness of planned 

and programmed improvements 

surrounding APG and to appropriately 

coordinate and budget for impacts.

Other Partner: Baltimore Regional 

Transportation Board (BRTB)

2019    

COM-8 

Engagement from Aberdeen Proving Ground on Area Planning Issues

Installation planners attend local jurisdiction planning meetings but lack of active participation is perceived 

as indifference.

For strategies that address this issue see 

Strategies COM-1C and COM-3A.

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 47
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

COM-9 

Security Issues Not Communicated to Outside Law Enforcement

Harford County Sherriff is not regularly informed about events that happen on the installation that affect the 

outside community.

COM-9A General Establish and Formalize Coordination 

Procedures and Protocols

Establish an MOA to formalize procedures, 

protocols, and points of contact for the 

coordinated and timely dissemination of 

security and safety information reciprocally 

between APG and Study Area law 

enforcement offices and departments that 

affect areas outside and inside the 

fenceline. Ensure that all MOA’s are current 

and updated.

Other Partner: CSSC 

2019       

COM-10

Complaint Documentation Process to Aberdeen Proving Ground 

Notifying APG and documenting noise and vibration complaints, particularly when there is private property 

damage, is perceived as onerous to homeowners.

COM-10A General Consolidate Information on Damage 

Claims Process

Preparation and development of a fact sheet 

on the damage claims process can be 

provided upon request to homeowners if 

they believe damage from vibration caused 

by mission activities has occurred. The fact 

sheet should include where to locate and 

submit claim forms, points of contact for the 

process, and what to expect during the 

claims review process.

2019 

COM-11

Coordination on Regional Energy Conservation Efforts

Need for coordinated effort on regional energy conservation efforts to ensure that solutions from all parties 

are considered. Providing an inclusive process that considers solutions from multiple sources will ensure 

the best outcomes for all regional stakeholders. This will alleviate organizations potentially working at crosspurposes such as with the waste-to-energy plant where the decision to potentially reuse or demolish the 

facility was made after significant investment and without the transparent exploration of alternatives. 

For a strategy that addresses this issue see 

Strategy COM-7A.

Page 48 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

COM-12

Coordination on Public-Private Partnerships 

Need for coordination between APG and surrounding jurisdictions on Public-Private Partnerships, such as 

housing and Enhanced Use Leasing that may impact areas outside APG to balance the viability of 

communities while addressing the ongoing needs of APG. 

For a strategy that addresses this issue see 

Strategy COM-1C.

COM-13

Communication and Coordination to reduce Wildlife Hazards

Communication and coordination between various agencies is required to manage bird populations and 

control the size of the deer herd in the Aberdeen Area and Edgewood Areas to reduce the potential for 

negatively affecting military activities including aircraft strikes.

COM-13A Study Area Educate the Public Surrounding APG 

about Wildlife Hazards 

Provide enhanced public awareness and 

educational programs and brochures to 

improve the public awareness and 

understanding of the hazards of bird 

attractants and wildlife habitats on the 

activities at APG including aviation 

operations to enhance interagency 

management. Coordinate the education 

process with area agencies to incorporate 

as part of their outreach. Include this 

information on agency, jurisdiction and APG 

websites, and include as part of the Public 

Outreach Program in COM-5B.

Other Partners: Maryland Department of 

Planning and Maryland Department of 

Natural Resources 

2021       

Dust / Smoke / Steam

DSS-1 

Dust Generation from Testing Activities 

Military activities at the Automotive Test Areas and Churchville Test Area can create fugitive dust impacts 

outside the test sites.

DSS-1A MCAOD Pursue Acquisition and Easements 

through ACUB Program

Identify priority property outside APG 

subject to the potential for fugitive dust 

impacts from test facilities and incorporate 

in ACUB program for either fee simple

acquisition or the acquisition of easements.

Other Partners: Harford Land Trust 

2021    

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 49
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

DSS-1B Study Area Ensure Community Activities such as 

Construction, Prescribed Burns and 

Industrial Processes Employ Best 

Management Practices 

Ensure regulations require best 

management practices and enforcement 

mechanisms to control fugitive dust, smoke, 

and steam impacts that may migrate onto 

APG and impact operations.

2021  

Frequency Spectrum Capacity

FSC-1 

Comprehensive Frequency Management Program

Need for a comprehensive Frequency Management Program to assess current and future frequency needs 

of all APG tenants inside and outside the fence line to deconflict frequency requirements.

FSC-1A General Develop a Comprehensive Frequency 

Management Program

Develop and implement a Comprehensive 

Frequency Management Program for all 

tenants at APG to establish a spectrum 

planning process that ensures the current 

and future availability of spectrum and 

procedures for deconflicting future spectrum 

needs.

2019 

Frequency Spectrum Impedance / Interference

FSI-1 

No Coordinated Assessment of Hazards Associated with Frequency Use 

Though there is informal coordination between CERDEC, other tenants, and APG to deconflict frequency 

use during CERDEC ground-to-satellite tests, there is no plan to coordinate and assess near-zone and farzone hazards associated with ground-to-satellite tests. 

FSI-1A General Develop a Plan to Formalize Assessment 

and Mitigation of Frequency Hazards 

Develop and implement a Frequency 

Hazard Mitigation Plan to coordinate, 

assess, and establish mitigation procedures 

for potential near-zone and far-zone 

hazards associated with ground-to-satellite 

tests that may impact other APG tenant 

operations, APG personnel, and activities 

outside the fenceline. 

2019 

Page 50 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

FSI-2 

Potential for Ground-Based Interference

Line-of-sight signal transmission between Aberdeen Area and Churchville Test Area can be impacted from 

potential signal interference.

FSI-2A General Establish Procedures to Avoid 

Frequency Conflicts

The City of Aberdeen and Harford County 

should coordinate with APG on review of 

projects with frequency requirements that 

could impact communications offinstallation. The criteria that triggers 

coordination includes:

 proximity to APG

 tower height

 power emission from tower sources 

 high output transmission devices

2019   

FSI-2B MCAOD Pursue Acquisition and Easements 

through ACUB Program

Identify priority property outside APG within 

the line-of-sight requirement and incorporate 

in ACUB program for either fee simple 

acquisition or the acquisition of easements.

Other Partners: Harford Land Trust 

2019    

FSI-3 

Potential to Disrupt Aircraft Navigational Systems 

Coordination of signal transmission frequency testing and angle of transmission with area aircraft is required 

to ensure that potential disruption to aircraft navigational systems does not occur.

For a strategy that addresses this issue see 

Strategy FSI-1A.

 

FSI-4 

Potential for Harford Metropolitan Area Network to Impact APG

Harford County is pursuing the Harford Metropolitan Area Network (HMAN) project for high speed fiber optic 

transmission for the County, the municipalities of Havre de Grace, Bel Air and Aberdeen, and businesses 

throughout the county. Though current phases include only hardwiring, any proposed Wi-Fi in the future 

may create a radiating signal bloom that could potentially impact APG frequency testing. 

FSI-4A General Coordinate on Harford County LongTerm IT Infrastructure Planning 

Include ongoing coordination for the HMAN 

long-term IT infrastructure project including 

any pre-planning for future wireless 

requirements throughout the service area as 

part of coordination in Strategies COM-1B, 

COM-1C, and COM-3A.

2019    

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 51
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

FSI-5 

Radio Frequency Interference Affects Emergency Services Communications

Jurisdictions on both sides of Chesapeake Bay have experienced EMS radio system outages from unknown 

sources speculated to come from APG. 

FSI-5A General Formalize Communication Procedures

Identify and convene a coalition of spectrum 

stakeholders to discuss use of frequencies 

and notification procedures for mitigating 

and troubleshooting possible service 

interruptions.

Other Partner: CSSC

2019       

FSI-6 

APG Electronic Warfare Footprint

Concern that electronic warfare footprint associated with APG research and testing activities can spill-over 

into adjacent jurisdictions. Land uses that occur outside of APG that rely on wireless signals could have the 

potential to impact activities at APG. 

FSI-6A MCAOD Ensure Compatible Frequencies

The Federal Communications Commission 

is the government entity responsible for 

managing frequency usage. The military is 

assigned certain frequencies to use that 

generally do not interfere with civilian uses. 

The continued usage of only assigned 

frequencies should ensure no interference 

between military and civilian uses. 

Other Partner: Federal Communications 

Commission

2019       

FSI-6B MCAOD Employ RF Spectrum Analysis 

Technology

Employ “RF spectrum analyzer” 

technologies used to detect interference 

between frequency bands. Identify 

interference from on‐ and off-installation 

sources including military and 

public/commercial users.

2019 

Page 52 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

FSI-7 

Coordination with Broadband Providers

Lack of coordination between broadband providers and APG can result in signal interference from use of bidirectional amplifiers outside the fenceline. 

FSI-7A General Develop an Educational Outreach 

Program with Broadband Providers to 

Ensure They are Aware of APG 

Frequency Requirements 

APG should work with broadband providers 

to ensure that providers are aware of the 

installation frequency requirements when 

planning wireless broadband transmission 

facilities to deconflict and prevent future 

interference with required installation 

frequencies.

Other Partner: Local Broadband providers

2019  

FSI-7B General Develop Outreach Materials

Work with affected jurisdictions to develop 

public outreach materials including website 

updates and public service announcements 

to inform the public about the potential for 

interruption of cellular service and GPS 

devices within areas associated with APG 

testing.

Other Partner: CSSC

2019       

FSI-7C General Establish Procedures to Avoid 

Frequency Conflicts / Issues

Identify telecommunications projects that 

should be referred to the military for review 

and communicate this information to 

jurisdictions. The criteria that triggers 

coordination includes tower height, proximity 

to APG, power emission from tower 

sources, and high output transmission 

devices. 

Coordinate with jurisdictions on RF projects 

that could impact off-installation 

communications.

Other Partners: Federal Communications 

Commission

2019     

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 53
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

FSI-7D General Adjust Frequency Usage

Evaluate the feasibility of adjusting 

frequency usage to utilize different 

frequencies that would not interfere with, or 

be impacted by, bi-directional amplifiers.

2019 

FSI-8 Marine Frequency on Range

Potential for signal interference with waterfront lanes / marine frequencies on range.

For strategies that addresses this issue see 

Strategies FSI-5A and FSI-6A.

Housing Availability

HA-1 

Urban Environments 

Urban city environments such as Baltimore City provide amenities and lifestyle attractive to young 

professionals. These urban environments are unavailable proximate to APG. APG personnel choosing to 

reside in an urban environment will have a longer commute adding to regional roadway congestion. The lack 

of urban environments proximate to APG may put the installation at a disadvantage for attracting younger 

job seekers.

HA-1A Study Area Implement Transit Oriented Development 

Master Plan

Continue implementation of Master Plan for 

the Transit Oriented (TOD) development in 

downtown Aberdeen including strategies 

and coordinated funding. 

2016/

Ongoing



HA-1B Study Area Coordinate Aberdeen TOD Development 

with APG

Coordinate the development of the TOD 

with APG to leverage opportunities and 

synergies to support the APG workforce. 

2016  

HA-1C Study Area Master Plan for Transit Oriented 

Development in Edgewood

Develop a Master Plan for Edgewood that 

creates a pedestrian-oriented live / work / 

play community leveraging local and 

regional transportation connections 

incorporating the MARC Station. Conduct a 

market analysis to determine the optimum 

mix of housing types, commercial 

opportunities and amenities to attract a 

diverse workforce and support area growth 

into the future.

2016   

Page 54 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

HA-1C

Cont’d

Other Partner: Harford County Office of 

Economic Development

HA-1D Study Area Edgewood Community Area Plan 

Amend the Harford County Land Use 

Element Plan and Edgewood Community 

Area Plan to recognize the development of 

TOD for Edgewood. 

Develop specific regulations that support 

and incentivize its development. Identify 

and evaluate partnership opportunities with 

APG for (P4) Private-Public Public-Public 

development to catalyze investment and 

buildout. 

2019  

HA-1E Study Area Incorporate Infrastructure Improvements 

in Harford County Capital Improvements 

Plan to facilitate Edgewood Transit 

Oriented Development

Identify and program necessary 

infrastructure projects in the Harford County 

Capital Improvements Plan to facilitate the 

creation and development of the Edgewood 

TOD.

2019 

Infrastructure Extensions

IE-1 

Water provision to APG Edgewood Area 

The current service agreement with Harford County for water provision to the Edgewood Area is a nonbinding short-term temporary solution for Winters Run Creek production deficiencies. Long-term solutions for 

Edgewood water will require new infrastructure. 

IE-1A General Master Plan for Long-Term Infrastructure 

Improvements for Potable Water 

Provision to Edgewood Area

Develop a Master Plan including 

assessment of existing conditions; 

quantified supply and future demand based 

on anticipated need; defined courses of 

action for supply including a reliable source 

of water and any conservation and reuse 

measures; and funding for infrastructure 

improvements to achieve the safe and 

reliable provision of water to the Edgewood 

Area without relying on temporary sources. 

Consider as options:

2016   

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 55
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

IE-1A

Cont’d

 A long-term service agreement with 

Harford County 

 Provision from the Aberdeen Area by 

way of Harford County infrastructure 

(connection fees which support capital 

construction of the County system to 

provide the water and capital 

construction by the Army to enhance 

the connection to the county system 

would be required) 

 Provision form the Aberdeen Area 

entirely within the jurisdiction of APG to 

reduce all reliance on external 

infrastructure and safeguard the 

potable water supply.

Other Partners: Army Corps of Engineers, 

US Environmental Protection Agency, 

Maryland Department of the Environment, 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 

Harford County 

IE-1B General Plan and Coordinate for the 

Implementation of Infrastructure 

Improvements to Achieve a Safe and 

Reliable Potable Water Supply to the 

Edgewood Area 

Develop a coordinated Implementation Plan 

to execute the Water Provision Master Plan 

in Strategy IE-1A. Include measurable 

milestones, Capital Improvement Plan 

projects, dedicated funding sources, and 

multijurisdictional / multiagency 

coordination.

Other Partners: Army Corps of Engineers, 

US Environmental Protection Agency, 

Maryland Department of the Environment, 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

2017





IE-1C General Implement Water Reduction Projects 

Implement programmed projects to reduce 

potable water usage in the Edgewood Area 

through the beneficial reuse of treated 

groundwater for non-potable uses.

2016



   

Page 56 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

IE-2 

Coordination of Easements on APG Property

There is utility infrastructure traversing APG property without a formal agreement with APG at the 

Churchville Test Area. Formal easements are necessary to know which agency requires maintenance 

access, to coordinate access when needed, and to prevent potential liability issues. 

IE-2A General Research Undocumented Utilities and 

Execute any Necessary Access 

Easements with Respective Utility 

Companies

Confirm with APG DPW Master Planning 

Real Estate Branch whether active 

easement instruments are located at the 

Churchville Test Area. Research historical 

real property instruments to identify whether 

utilities are present. Consider employing 

Miss Utility to identify subsurface utilities 

onsite. Execute easement instruments for 

utilities without an easement agreement.

Other Partners: Miss Utility, utilities 

2019  

Land / Air / Sea Spaces

LAS-1 JLENS Program

Public perception that the JLENS program could impact rights to privacy.

LAS-1A General Develop a JLENS Educational Program

Create an informational brochure and/ or 

packet to distribute to the public in 

surrounding communities about the nature 

of the JLENS program, reinforcing the public 

safety benefit. Incorporate the brochure into 

public outreach efforts in Strategies COM5B and COM-6A.

Awareness



Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 57
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

Land Use

LU-1 

Incompatible Land Development

More intense land development throughout 

the Study Area has the potential to inhibit 

mission-critical activities at APG.

LU-1A MCAOD Define and Establish Military 

Compatibility Areas (MCAs)

Create a Military Compatibility Area Overlay 

District (MCAOD) containing Military 

Compatibility Areas (MCAs) that reflect the 

types and intensity of compatible uses. The 

MCAOD is the collective geographic area of 

all of the MCAs combined. 

The MCAs established should be used by 

local jurisdictions to identify areas where 

specific compatibility issues are more likely 

to occur and address ways to avoid 

compatibility issues. The MCA's should 

include: 

Safety MCA - Includes the Accident 

Potential Zones (APZs) I and II.

Noise MCA - Includes areas within the 57 

CDNL Land Use Planning Zone and 115 

PK15 (met) and 130 PK15 (met) peak blast 

noise contours. 

Vertical Obstruction MCA – Based on the 

DOD imaginary surfaces map, horizontal 

area which limits development of buildings 

and structures.

BASH MCA – 5-mile radius from the center 

of the airfield at Phillips Army Airfield and 

the Weide Army Heliport. 

Where appropriate, the jurisdictions should 

incorporate the MCAOD and MCA 

boundaries on their zoning map and future 

land use maps and include the zones on 

their websites for easy access and 

understanding by the public.

Other Partner: Town of Perryville

2017





Page 58 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

LU-1B Noise MCA Continue to Pursue Properties for ACUB 

Program and Seek Partnership 

Opportunities

Continue to pursue property in Priority 

Areas identified in the ACUB Program for 

fee simple acquisition and conservation 

easements to meet multipurpose goals 

including noise compatibility and 

environmental stewardship. 

Other Partners: Harford Land Trust, Cecil 

Land Trust, The Eastern Shore Land 

Conservancy, Maryland Agricultural Land 

Preservation Foundation

2016  

LU-1C MCAOD Incorporate Compatibility Planning 

Concepts into CIPs / Infrastructure 

Master Plans.

Incorporate compatibility planning concepts 

into CIPs / Infrastructure Master Plans for 

infrastructure extensions and improvements. 

Avoid extension of infrastructure service 

within APG area of influence for rezoning 

applications, except to serve approved 

community / area plans or commercial and 

industrial development which provides a 

compatible land use pattern.

2019      

LU-2 

Real Estate Disclosures Inconsistent Across Jurisdictions

Inconsistent application of real estate disclosures results in patchwork of new home buyer knowledge of 

installation impacts on properties.

For strategies that address this issue see 

Strategies NOI-1F and NOI-1G. 

LU-3 

Potential for New Mission Footprints Constrained by Environmental Conditions

Buffers for wetlands, wildlife, eagle nesting and other natural resources potentially reduce developable land 

for additional missions at Aberdeen Area.

LU-3A MCAOD Developable Areas Plan

Produce a Developable Areas Plan that 

provides an overview of all constraints - bird 

/ wildlife habitat areas, environmental, 

wetlands and shoreline buffers, an 

assessment of changes / trends in those 

areas, and mitigation measures to manage 

birds / wildlife including ongoing adaptive 

management. The Plan should identify 

remaining developable areas 

2021 

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 59
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

LU-3A

Cont’d

unencumbered by all constraints at APG 

and include facility demolitions to provide a 

comprehensive examination of areas to 

support additional future missions and

mission growth. Enhance the existing “Red, 

Yellow, Green” Map for areas suitable for 

development, suitable for development with 

mitigation (on- or off-site), and areas where 

development is inappropriate. Actively seek 

input from APG tenants in the Plan 

development to incorporate programmed 

facilities, future mission changes, and 

geographic areas where tenant synergies 

can be leveraged towards future facilities. 

LU-4 

Properties Present Possible Encroachments

Real estate easement instruments for properties with noise monitoring equipment on the Western and 

Eastern Shore do not contain legal descriptions resulting in access that may be outside the easements. 

LU-4A Noise MCA Review and Revise Easements for Noise 

Monitoring Equipment

Review and revise access easements for 

private properties with noise monitoring 

equipment where metes and bounds legal 

descriptions are not delineated on the real 

estate instruments. Consider conducting 

field surveys to identify locations of access 

easements to prevent potential 

encroachments.

2021 

LU-5 Identification of Encroachment Buffers

Encroachment buffers around APG are not identified on City and County planning documents

For a strategy that address this issue see 

Strategy LU-1A.

Page 60 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

LU-6 

Environmental Regulatory Impacts

Federal and state environmental regulations reduce the APG buildable footprint and ability to accommodate 

new missions.

LU-6A MCAOD Comprehensive Planning for 

Development 

Develop a comprehensive plan that 

assesses the impacts of federal and state 

environmental regulations on the operations 

at APG and considers mitigation alternatives 

to address ongoing mission needs. Identify 

potential on- and off-site mitigation 

strategies and techniques. 

Other Partners: Maryland Department of the 

Environment, US Environmental Protection 

Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers

2019    

For another strategy that address this issue 

see Strategy LU-3A.

Marine Environments / Climate Change

MAR / CA-1 

Dredging Requests to Aberdeen Proving Ground

The Port of Baltimore has engaged APG over the last couple of decades about receiving dredging spoils. 

Though APG is not currently a designated receiver site in the Army Corps of Engineers Dredged Material 

Management Plan, the placement of clean dredge spoils along the shoreline could be used to combat 

potential sea-level rise. 

MAR / 

CA-1A

Study Area Assess the Viability of Receiving 

Dredging Spoils 

Evaluate the viability of receiving clean 

dredging spoils at APG shoreline areas as 

part of a long-term strategy for mitigating 

sea-level rise. If determined favorable, 

coordinate with state and federal agencies 

to include APG as a receiver site for clean 

dredging spoils from the Port of Baltimore 

as part of the Dredged Material 

Management Plan, from areas along the 

Susquehanna River upstream of the 

Conowingo Dam, and from the Chesapeake 

and Delaware Canal. 

Other Partners: Maryland Department of the 

Environment, US EPA, USACE

2021  

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 61
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

MAR / CA-2 

Long-Term Plan for Environmental Impacts from Climate Change

Sea level rise studies indicate that portions of APG may be underwater as early as 2050 necessitating a 

long-term mitigation plan for APG. 

MAR / 

CA-2A

Study Area Develop Long-Range Plan for Sea-Level 

Rise 

Develop a long-range strategic plan for 

mitigating upland impacts of sea-level rise 

and shoreline erosion at APG. Incorporate 

updated analysis and quantifiable impacts of 

projected real property loss by APG area on 

mission capability and capacity, and identify 

strategies to mitigate impacts.

2021 

MAR / 

CA-2B

Study Area Quantify Regional Sea-Level Rise and 

Consider Adoption of Sea-Level Rise 

Ordinance

Conduct a study to quantify the regional 

impacts of development on sea-level rise 

and consider adoption of a sea-level rise 

ordinance to address any cumulative 

regional impacts including those 

experienced at APG. The ordinance may 

contain revisions to existing floodplain 

ordinances to allow tailored regulations for 

high-risk areas including more resilient 

development within high-risk areas and 

directing development away from vulnerable 

areas to preserve valuable coastal 

resources and strategic assets. 

Other Partners: Army Corps of Engineers, 

US Environmental Protection Agency, 

Maryland Department of the Environment, 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 

Clean Chesapeake Coalition

2021     

For another strategy that addresses this 

issue see Strategy MAR / CA-1A. 

Page 62 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

MAR / CA-3 Conowingo Dam Impacts Aberdeen Proving Ground

When Conowingo Dam floodgates are open, debris, sediment, and flooding occur along Spesutie Island.

MAR / 

CA-3A

Study Area Reduce Upstream Sediment Load 

Flowing Into the Susquehanna River

Consider land use regulations that reduce 

the sediment load from discharging into the 

Susquehanna River. 

Other Partners: Army Corps of Engineers, 

US Environmental Protection Agency, 

Maryland Department of the Environment, 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

2019   

MAR / 

CA-3B

General Work with the Army Corps of Engineers 

Educate the Army Corps of Engineers on 

the downstream impacts of opening the 

Conowingo Dam floodgates on APG 

operations to ensure that solutions being 

considered by the Army Corps of Engineers 

in their ongoing study of sedimentation 

control minimize impacts on APG operations 

and shoreline / basin areas near Havre de 

Grace. 

Other Partner: Army Corps of Engineers 

Baltimore District, Town of Perryville 

2016   

For another strategy that addresses this 

issue see Strategy MAR / CA-1A.

 

MAR / CA-4 

Disposal of Dredged Material Destined for Cecil County and Associated Risk from Unexploded 

Ordnance 

Concern that dredging spoil disposed of in Cecil County may carry risks of unexploded ordnance. 

Consideration that these spoils could be used for shoreline stabilization at APG to combat sea-level rise. 

For a strategy that addresses this issue see 

Strategy MAR / CA-1A. 

Noise

NOI-1 Noise from Installation Activity

Noise from activities at APG has the potential to affect sensitive noise receptors in surrounding communities.

NOI-1A Noise MCA Increase Public Understanding of Noise 

Sources

Increase community awareness of flight 

schedules and military operations 

throughout the entire APG area of influence 

through the use of local media sources, 

newsletters, brochures, and annual 

2021      

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 63
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

NOI-1A

Cont’d

outreach functions hosted by APG in 

cooperation with each Study Area 

jurisdiction. Include information that there 

are other noise generating uses such as 

quarries within the Study Area. 

NOI-1B Noise MCA Seek Assistance from APG to 

Incorporate Maps and Updates to 

Planning Documents to Minimize Noise 

Concerns Among Residents

Based on additional noise data and input 

from APG, consider revisions to 

communities’ comprehensive plans to define 

areas that may be suitable for future real 

estate disclosure, sound attenuation or 

other measures to mitigate impacts from 

military operations.

Other Partners: Town of Perryville

2019





NOI-1C Noise MCA Educational Materials on Sound 

Attenuation Methods

Use DOD or FAA sound attenuation 

educational materials as a supplemental 

educational document, describing 

techniques to reduce indoor vibration 

associated with impulse noise. Local 

jurisdictions should make use of already 

available technical support materials from 

the Federal Aviation Administration and 

Department of Defense.

2021

 



NOI-1D Noise MCA Require Noise Easements 

Require noise easements for properties 

within the Noise MCA that notify property 

owners of the nearby noise and vibration 

associated with APG operations. These 

easements allow for these impacts with no 

liability on the jurisdictions where the noise 

impacts occur or on the organization 

generating the noise impacts.

2021

 



Page 64 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

NOI-1E Noise MCA Adopt Real Estate Disclosure 

Amendment that Notifies Potential 

Buyers of Property is Located in a Host 

Community of APG and Subject to 

Operational Impacts including Impacts 

from Overflight and Range Activities 

Supplement the Military Compatibility Real 

Estate Disclosure in Maryland Annotated 

Code Section 14-117(k) to include impacts 

in addition to noise from military operations. 

The disclosure should be provided at the 

earliest possible point in the interaction 

between realtor / real estate agent and / or

owner and buyer or renter and required 

during title transfers. The disclosure should 

specify that a property is located near an 

active military installation that conducts flight 

operations, munitions testing, or military 

operations that may result in high noise 

levels, vibration, and other related impacts 

associated with military testing, training and 

readiness.  Work with Maryland Association of 

Realtors and local real estate 

representatives to develop and 

implement amended language for 

inclusion in disclosure notices

 Include language in the real estate 

disclosure that property located in 

Accident Potential Zone (APZ) I are not 

eligible for government-backed loans 

 Introduce amendments to the existing 

notification legislation. 

 Work with the Maryland Real Estate 

Commission, Maryland Association of 

Realtors, and local realtors to ensure 

compliance with notification 

requirements.

Other Partners: Town of Perryville, 

Maryland Real Estate Commission, 

Maryland Association of Realtors

2019





Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 65
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

NOI-1F Noise MCA Develop Information to Facilitate 

Accurate Disclosures

Provide current and adequate information to 

facilitate informed decisions by jurisdictions, 

developers and interested citizens relative 

to a property’s location proximate to the 

APG area of influence. Include an 

information packet that provides information 

on applicable regulations that govern 

development within the APG area of 

influence including amendments as 

proposed in Strategy NOI-1E.

Other Partners: Town of Perryville, 

Maryland Real Estate Commission, 

Maryland Association of Realtors

2019





NOI-1G Noise MCA Develop a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with School 

Districts

APG should develop a MOU with the 

surrounding school districts to coordinate on 

all future school master plans to prevent 

schools from being planned in noise 

sensitive areas.

Other Partners: School Districts 

2019

 





NOI-1H Study Area Incorporate Noise Modeling at the 

Churchville Test Area

Consider incorporating noise modeling for 

testing at the Churchville Test Area in future 

updates of the APG Operational Noise 

Management Plan. 

2019

 

 

NOI-1I Study Area Seek Assistance from APG to 

Incorporate Maps and Updates to 

Planning Documents to Minimize Noise 

Concerns Among Residents Surrounding 

the Churchville Test Area 

Based on the findings from noise modeling 

recommended at the Churchville Test Area 

in Strategy NOI-1H, seek assistance from 

APG to identify and incorporate a noise 

buffer in maps and updates to planning 

documents to increase awareness and 

minimize noise concerns among residents. 

Consider revisions to the Comprehensive 

Plan to define areas that may be suitable for 

2019

 



 

Page 66 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

NOI-1I

Cont’d

sound attenuation or other measures to 

mitigate impacts from military operations.

NOI-1J Noise MCA Locations of Noise Monitors

Review the locations of noise monitors at 

stations off-installation to ensure that results 

are not affected by topography and 

vegetation. Coordinate with property owners 

where stations are located to address any 

deficiencies and beneficial improvements for

noise monitor results. 

Other Partners: Private Property Owners

2019   

For other strategies that address this issue 

see Strategies LU-1A, LU-1B, LU-1C, and 

LU-6A.

 

NOI-2 Regional Noise Sources 

There are other sources of blasting than APG within the region which can be misattributed to APG testing. 

For a strategy that addresses this issue see 

Strategy NOI-1A. 

NOI-3 Overflight of the City of Havre de Grace

APG overflight of the City of Havre de Grace creates general noise nuisance.

NOI-3A Noise MCA Consider Developing an Airfield 

Awareness Program

Consider developing an Airfield Awareness 

Program targeted to the landowners and 

homeowners to educate and increase 

awareness of the effects of aircraft 

operations at Phillips Army Airfield and 

Weide Army Heliport. Distribute as part of 

public outreach efforts in Strategies COM5B and COM-5C, and post on the APG 

website. 

2017    

For other strategies that addresses this 

issue see Strategies NOI-1A, NOI-1B, NOI1C, and NOI-1D.

 

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 67
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

Roadway Capacity

RC-1 

Peak Hour Traffic (Traffic Loads at Gates)

Peak hour traffic including a mid-day peak causes congestion and traffic delays outside the installation 

which have a quality of life impact for those working at APG and those traveling the area. 

RC-1A General Monitor Capital Improvements for 

Roadway Capacity

Monitor capital improvement projects to 

ensure roadway capacity is sufficient and 

increases traffic flow and mobility without 

causing unintentional pressures on the 

military or communities to provide for more 

services. 

Other Partners: BRTB

2019      

RC-1B General Conduct a Traffic Study to Assess 

Community Impacts on APG and Vice 

Versa

Conduct a traffic study to quantify demand 

cycles and address alternatives such as 

repositioning or improvements to gate 

access to allow for alternative routes to 

APG.

Other Partners: BRTB

2019      

RC-1C Study Area Coordinate and Budget for Gate 

Improvements that Affect Off-Installation 

Roadway Capacity and Level of Service

Identify, coordinate and budget for, 

necessary improvements to achieve more 

efficient functionality of installation egress / 

ingress points and improve localized 

congestion outside entry gates. This 

strategy should be implemented in 

conjunction with Strategies RC-1D and 

RC-2C. 

2019   

Page 68 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

RC-1D Study Area Consider Implementing Transportation 

Demand Management

Assess, develop, and implement 

Transportation Demand Management 

strategies and policies to reduce travel 

demand (specifically single-occupancy 

private vehicles), or to redistribute the trip 

generation across space (additional entry 

gates) or time (staggered work hours / 

telecommuting).

Other Partner: BRTB

2019    

RC-2 

Public Transportation Connections

Amtrak and MARC commuter trains stop near the boundary of both APG and Edgewood, but there is no 

direct transit connection from the stations into the installation.

RC-2A General Conduct a Feasibility Study to Assess 

Viability of Public Transit on to APG

Conduct a transportation feasibility study to 

quantify the possibility of public transit to 

reduce overall trip generation to APG. The 

study should evaluate trip generation 

including origin and destination pairs; driver 

behavior and preference; peak trip periods; 

and cost, management, funding of a suitable 

public transit system, and access on to 

APG.

Other Partners: Baltimore Regional 

Transportation Board, Maryland Transit 

Administration 

2019      

RC-2B Study Area Bike Share Programs and BikeLids at 

MARC Train Stations

Coordinate with the Maryland Transit 

Administration and Maryland DOT to 

establish a bike share program at the 

Edgewood and Aberdeen MARC stations. 

This strategy should be implemented in 

conjunction with Strategy RC-2C. 

Other Partners: Maryland Transit 

Administration

2019    

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 69
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

RC-2C Study Area Bike Lanes along State Routes 22 and 24

Request that Maryland DOT plan, program, 

and install bike lanes along Routes 22 and 

24. Identify appropriate roadway segments 

but ensure lanes are provided to the APG 

entry gates. It should also address bicycle 

access at the interchange between 24, 924 

and I-95. This strategy should be 

coordinated and implemented in conjunction 

with Strategy RC-2B. 

Other Partners: Baltimore Regional 

Transportation Board 

2019     

RC-3 

Increased APG Commuter Traffic Affects Local Roads and Level of Service

APG commuter traffic affects local roads and contributes to level of service impacts:

 Westbound commuter traffic to APG cuts through local subdivisions via I-95 to reach the installation 

 Traffic switching between Route 40 and I-95 to avoid higher I-95 eastbound toll creates failing LOS at 

US Route 40 and State Hwy. 222 interchange

 Congestion on Harford County cross arteries such as MD 543 and 152

 Traffic congestion creates safety hazard at MD 543 at I-95 interchange

RC-3A Study Area Consider Traffic Calming Devices to 

Discourage Cut-Through Traffic in 

Subdivisions

Consider installing traffic calming devices in 

subdivisions to discourage cut-through 

traffic in residential subdivisions. Consider 

traffic calming devices such as roundabouts, 

medians, and speed humps to limit 

excessive through-traffic on local roads 

within neighborhoods. 

2019  

Page 70 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

RC-3B Study Area Transportation Projects to Reduce 

Congestion

Identify regional transportation projects that 

address overall roadway congestion and 

capacity, regional transportation goals, 

improvements to current and projected 

conflict points, and promote a multi-modal 

transportation system to promote an 

environment that supports APG mission 

growth and workforce needs. 

Other Partners: Baltimore Regional 

Transportation Board, Wilmington Area 

Planning Council, Town of Perryville 

2019      

RC-3C General Seek Alternative Funding Sources for 

Transportation Improvements

Seek additional and alternative sources of 

funding for transportation improvements at 

the federal and state level such as the 

federal Transportation Alternatives Program 

administered through Maryland MPOs 

(including the Baltimore Regional 

Transportation Board and Wilmington Area 

Planning Council) and (P3) Public-Private 

Partnerships enacted through House Bill 

560 to leverage expertise and efficiencies of 

the private sector. 

Other Partners: Baltimore Regional 

Transportation Board, Wilmington Area 

Planning Council 

2019       

Safety Zones

SA-1 

Awareness of Range Fires

During dry months of the year, certain missions can cause brush fires. These fires need to be maintained 

and proper communication needs to be provided outside of APG regarding their potential effects.

For strategies that address this issue see 

Strategies COM-6A and COM-9A. 

 

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 71
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

SA-2 

Unexploded Ordnance

Areas at APG could still contain unexploded ordnance buried underground which potentially pose a safety 

risk for adjacent development outside the fence line.

SA-2A Study Area Efforts to Identify and Clear Unexploded 

Ordnance from APG

Establish a program and plan to identify and 

clear unexploded ordnance at APG. 

Consider expanding the UXO Technology 

Demonstration Site Program to clear areas 

near the greatest concentrations of 

personnel inside the fenceline and within a 

quarter-mile of the installation perimeter at 

the Aberdeen Area to buffer outside the 

fenceline. 

2021 

SA-3 

Incompatible Uses in Accident Potential Zones

Incompatible uses in the Accident Potential Zones extend into Harford County and the City of Aberdeen 

creating a safety concern. Development is a concern in these areas because this is where statistically 

aircraft accidents are most likely to occur. 

SA-3A Safety MCA Incorporate Safety Military Compatibility 

Areas into Local Planning Documents

Incorporate the Safety Military Compatibility 

Area and associated compatible 

development guidelines from Department of 

Defense Instruction 4165.57 into local 

zoning codes and comprehensive plans for 

safety. Examples of regulations should 

include conditions associated with types of 

uses such as restricting new development 

that attracts large congregations of people 

and uses that attract concentrations of birds 

that create a hazard to aircraft.

2019  

SA-3B Safety MCA Amend Zoning Codes for Incompatible 

Uses within Accident Potential Zones

Consider amending zoning codes to 

preclude incompatible land uses and 

establish Floor Area Restrictions for 

property within Accident Potential Zones I 

and II consistent with recommendations in 

Department of Defense Instruction 4165.57.

2019  

Page 72 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

SA-3C Safety MCA Amend Zoning Codes to Address 

Accident Potential Zones

Amend zoning codes to require all allowable 

uses within Accident Potential Zones I and II 

to undergo a conditional use approval 

process that requires APG review. Uses that 

would require additional review include, but 

are not limited to residential uses and those 

that encourage the congregation of people 

such as places of worship, daycares, and 

group care facilities.

2019



SA-3D Safety MCA Provide Safety zone Maps to Local 

Realtors and Title Companies

Harford County and the City of Aberdeen 

should provide maps of the Safety Zones to 

local realtors and title companies. Maps 

should include a delineation of areas that 

are, and may be in the future, subject to 

safety risks associated with APG flight 

operations.

2019



SA-3E Safety MCA Voluntary Conservation Easements for 

Property in Accident Potential Zones 

Develop a conservation easement program 

to reduce development potential within the 

Accident Potential Zones.

Other Partners: Harford Land Trust, The 

Eastern Shore Land Conservancy

2019

 

SA-3F Safety MCA Pursue Properties for ACUB Program in 

Accident Potential Zones and Seek 

Partnership Opportunities

Pursue property in Priority Areas identified 

in the ACUB Program within Accident 

Potential Zones for fee simple acquisition 

and conservation easements to meet 

multipurpose goals including safety and 

environmental stewardship. 

Other Partners: Harford Land Trust

2016



Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 73
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

SA-3G BASH MCA Amend Zoning Ordinances to Include 

Bird / Wildlife Air Strike Hazard 

Regulations 

Amend zoning ordinances to regulate land 

uses and guide building standards that will 

not attract birds and other wildlife in the 

BASH MCA, specifically within the Approach 

/ Departure Clearance Surface. Such 

controls should prohibit certain trees and 

foliage that attract birds in this area.

2019   

Scarce Natural Resources

SNR-1 Water Quantity / Quality at Edgewood

Harford County water supply to Edgewood is temporary because of Harford County’s own service demand.

For strategies that address this issue see 

Strategies IE-1A and IE-1B. 

Sensitive Biological Resources

SBR-1 

Eagle Nesting Sites

Eagle nesting site buffers impact ability to carry out mission-critical activity and contribute to reduced 

development areas.

SBR-1A Study Area Continue Monitoring Bald Eagle Nests

Continue to coordinate with US Fish and 

Wildlife Service to maintain records of Bald 

Eagle nesting sites and monitor any change 

in nesting sites to maintain coordinated 

management strategies that allow 

continuation of operational activities while 

providing necessary habitat and species 

protections.

Other Partner: US Fish and Wildlife Service

2017  

SBR-1B General Coordination Among Management 

Agencies

Work with all management agencies to 

develop approaches to protect the Bald 

Eagle and its associated ecosystem and 

avoid disruption of nesting sites and habitat 

by providing management strategies that 

provide adequate habitat protection.

Other partners: US Fish and Wildlife, 

Maryland Department of Game and Inland 

2017  

Page 74 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

SBR-1B

Cont’d

Fisheries, Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, The Nature Conservancy, The 

Trust for Public Land 

For another strategy that addresses this 

issue see Strategy LU-1B.

 

Vertical Obstructions

VO-1 

Vertical Obstructions Understanding

Lack of awareness of vertical obstruction requirements within jurisdictions surrounding APG can lead to 

incompatible development. 

VO-1A Vertical 

Obstruction 

MCA 

Identify and Map Specific Areas of 

Concern Related to Tall Structures

Develop a “Red, Yellow, Green” (RYG) 

Map, in consultation with APG, that 

identifies locations throughout the Vertical 

Obstruction MCA where tall structures (with 

defined heights) are permissible, 

permissible with height restrictions, and 

prohibited to protect public safety and 

ensure compatibility.

Other Partner: Town of Perryville

2017      

VO-1B Vertical 

Obstruction 

MCA

Incorporate Vertical Obstruction MCA 

into Local Planning Documents

Adopt height regulations, incorporating 

mapping from Strategy VO-1A, for all

proposed structures within the Vertical 

Obstruction MCA to ensure they do not 

pose a safety hazard to air operations in the 

region.

Other Partner: Town of Perryville

2017      

VO-1C Vertical 

Obstruction 

MCA

Optimize Use of Communication Towers

In order to reduce the number of 

communication towers needed in the future, 

providers should be encouraged to design 

new towers, structurally and electrically, to 

accommodate the applicant / licensee's 

antennas and comparable antennas for at 

least two additional users (minimum of three 

users for each tower structure), unless this 

design would require the addition of lights or 

guy wires to an otherwise unlighted and / or 

unmanned tower.

2017     

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 75
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

VO-1D Vertical 

Obstruction 

MCA

Ensure Part 77 Compliance 

For all new, redeveloped, or rehabilitated 

structures (including electrical transmission 

towers/lines, cellular and radio transmission 

towers, etc.), ensure compliance with the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 

77 height limit requirements to minimize 

vertical obstructions.

Other Partner: Town of Perryville

2017



VO-1E Vertical 

Obstruction 

MCA

Develop a 3-Dimensional Imaginary 

Surfaces Model

The cities of Havre de Grace and Aberdeen 

and Harford County should collaborate, with 

the assistance of APG and the FAA, to 

develop a digital and printed 3D model of 

existing height regulations compared to 

allowable heights for the imaginary 

surfaces. This tool will assist the 

jurisdictions in considering amendments to 

their zoning regulations to further enhance 

military compatibility and for determining 

whether heights of proposed structures 

obstruct the navigable airspace during the 

review of development applications.

Other Partner: FAA

2017







VO-1F Vertical 

Obstruction 

MCA

APG Review of Proposed Structures 

Establish partnerships between each 

jurisdiction and APG to allow for APG 

review and comment on any proposed new, 

redeveloped, or rehabilitated structures 

(including electrical transmission 

towers/lines, cellular and radio transmission 

towers, etc.) within the imaginary surfaces. 

2017





VO-1G Vertical 

Obstruction 

MCA

Pursue Properties for ACUB Program in 

Vertical Obstruction Military 

Compatibility Area and Seek Partnership 

Opportunities

Pursue property in ACUB Program Priority 

Areas within the “Red Zone” on Map in 

Strategy VO-1A for fee simple acquisition 

and conservation easements to meet 

multipurpose goals including vertical 

obstruction safety and environmental 

stewardship. 

2016



Page 76 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

VO-1G

Cont’d

Other Partners: Harford Land Trust, The 

Eastern Shore Land Conservancy

Vibration

V-1 

Vibration Damage in Study Area Communities

Vibration from APG ordnance testing has the ability to cause physical property damage in areas throughout 

the Study Area on both sides of the Chesapeake Bay.

For strategies that address this issue see 

Strategies COM-10A and LU-1B. 

Water Quality

WQQ-1 

Havre de Grace Marina Siltation

The Spesutie Island Causeway is a potential source of sediment buildup near the Havre de Grace Marina 

which is reported to affect local boating and the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

For strategies that address this issue see 

Strategies MEC-3A and MEC-3B. 

WQQ-2 

Edgewood Area Lacks an Uninterruptable Water Supply

The Edgewood Area water source is subject to periodic production shortages. Supplemental water to the 

Edgewood Area from Harford County is temporary. A reliable source of water to serve the Edgewood Area is 

needed to meet current and future needs.

For strategies that address this issue see 

Strategies IE-1A, IE-1B, and IE-1C. 

WQQ-3 

Aberdeen Area Lacks an Uninterruptable Water Supply

The source of water for the Aberdeen Area suffers from periodic production shortages due to flows that 

cannot be maintained during moderate drought periods. Back-up water supplies are provided from Harford 

County by way of the City of Aberdeen through a collective MOU which expires in 2017. 

WQQ-3A Study Area Continue to Plan for Onsite Potable 

Water

Continue to plan for onsite potable water to 

reduce reliance on Deer Creek and the 

Chapel Hill Treatment Plant and to provide a 

secure and reliable source of water. 

Develop a Master Plan including quantified 

supply and future demand based on 

anticipated need, determination of onsite 

well capacity at APG, modernization plan for 

onsite facilities, identification of additional / 

new infrastructure, funding sources, and 

commitment from the Maryland Department 

of the Environment of a water permit to draw 

the necessary quantity to support long-term 

APG demand. 

2016   

Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study Page 77
Issue / Strategy ID

Geographical Area

Strategy

TimelineAPGCity of AberdeenCity of Havre de GraceHarford CountyKent CountyCecil CountyMaryland DOTOther

WQQ-3A

Cont’d

Other Partner: Maryland Department of the 

Environment 

WQQ-3B Study Area Plan and Coordinate for the 

Implementation of Infrastructure 

Improvements to Achieve a Secure and 

Reliable Potable Water Supply to the 

Aberdeen Area 

Develop a coordinated Implementation Plan 

to execute the Water Provision Master Plan 

in Strategy WQQ-3A. Include measurable 

milestones, Capital Improvement Plan 

projects, dedicated funding sources, and 

multijurisdictional / multiagency 

coordination.

Other Partners: Maryland Department of the 

Environment

2017   

WQQ-4 

EUL Site On Top of Aquifer Recharge Infiltration Field

The EUL site is located within the Source Water Protection Area that encompasses the water wells for 

Harford County and the City of Aberdeen. There is a concern that future EUL development can impact the 

aquifer recharge associated with the wells. 

WQQ-4A Study Area Plan for Cumulative Impacts

Develop a plan to ensure that cumulative 

development impacts of The G.A.T.E. 

development do not have a detrimental 

impact on the aquifer recharge for the 

Source Water Protection Area that would 

affect the viability of water wells at APG. 

Other Partner: St. John Properties 

2019    

WQQ-5 

Stewardship of Chesapeake Bay Waters

Perception that counties are providing a disproportionate amount of funding versus APG to clean the 

Chesapeake Bay.

WQQ-5A Study Area Quantify APG Funding and Include in 

APG Education Efforts

To demonstrate good stewardship of the 

Chesapeake Bay, quantify the value of, and 

document ongoing conservation efforts of 

the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem by APG. 

Incorporate as part of the public outreach in 

conjunction with Strategies COM-5B, COM5C, and COM-6B. 

2019 

Page 78 Aberdeen Proving Ground Joint Land Use Study
Aberdeen 

Proving Ground 

Joint Land Use 

Study
For Additional 

Information 

Contact:

Chesapeake Science and Security Corridor 

(part of the Harford County Office of 

Economic Development)

APG-CSSC Regional BRAC Office

2021 Pulaski Highway

Havre de Grace, MD 21078

(410) 273-5708

Or visit the website at: 

http://www.apg-cssc.com/