Other Users of FMR Facilities and Land
The amenities and land that make up FMR are also available for use to select other
entities when they are not being used by the AZARNG. Military groups that use FMR for
various types of training include the Navy Reserves, Marine Corps Reserves, and
U.S. Army units. Non‐military users include the Department of Homeland Security,
U.S. Border Patrol, Boy Scouts of America, Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), Junior
ROTC, Boeing, Raytheon, and local law enforcement agencies. The Royal Danish Air Force
is an international user of the site, as well.
The AZARNG does not lease all of the land that makes up FMR for the entire year.
Consequently, some of the Arizona State Trust land north of the impact area that is
managed by the ASLD is used for other activities, such as off‐road vehicle use, camping,
wildlife watching, hunting, and cattle grazing. Much of the land surrounding FMR is also
used for these purposes. These types of activities on ASLD‐managed land are regulated
by the ASLD.
FMR Mission Footprints
Mission and training activities at FMR generate several impacts that can affect the health,
safety, and quality of life of the general public in surrounding communities. Examples of
mission impacts include noise and vibration from demolition activities and airborne
operations.
Conversely, the military mission is susceptible to impacts created by nearby civilian
activities, land use development, and environmental constraints. Understanding the
overlapping spatial patterns of these impacts on and around the installation is essential
for achieving fully coordinated and compatible land use decisions.
The mission footprints are made up of these areas where operational impacts extend
beyond the boundaries of FMR. They can be used as compatibility tool for surrounding
communities in making informed land use decisions by providing geographic reference
points for incompatible development. These operational footprints are generally
intangible in that they are not physically bounded spaces on the landscape, but areas
corresponding to the physical localities of impacts and conceptual planning tools.
Background Report
3-15