Issues Importance Questionnaire 

The Hill Air Force Base (AFB) Compatible Use Plan (CUP) is a collaborative planning effort conducted with Layton City, Clearfield City, Clinton City, Ogden City, Riverdale City, Roy City, South Ogden City, South Weber City, Sunset City, Uintah City, Washington Terrace City, Davis County, Weber County, Hill AFB, and its facilities and other affected stakeholders.

The purpose of the CUP is to promote compatible land use near Hill AFB and its facilities, support regional growth and economic development compatible with the military mission, protect public safety and quality of life, and protect mission capability at Hill AFB facilities now and into the future.

The Hill AFB CUP utilizes 25 compatibility factors to assess compatibility within the Project Study Area. Of the 25 compatibility factors assessed, 19 compatibility factors were found to have issues with a total of 43 compatibility issues identified. This questionnaire seeks your input on the importance of each issue relative to when they should be addressed.

For each compatibility issue below, please provide your input on the timeframe to address each issue by selecting one of the following: 

Near-term (1-3 years): The issue is an immediate concern and should be addressed as soon as possible

Long-term (3 years +): This issue is a long-term concern and may require additional resources to address

On-going: This issue will require on-going measures to address

No Opinion: You do not have enough information to determine the timeframe

Question Title

* 1. COM-1: Inconsistent formalized development review process between Hill AFB and surrounding communities

Question Title

* 2. COM-2: Need for mutual communication between City staff and Hill AFB

Question Title

* 3. COM-3: Ongoing desire for mutual communication between elected officials in the community and Hill AFB leadership

Question Title

* 4. COM-4: Need for greater Hill AFB outreach with the public

Question Title

* 5. COM-5: Need for enhanced coordination between Team Hill and local academic institutions to align educational curriculums to train a workforce that meet the skillsets needed at Hill AFB

Question Title

* 6. COM-6: Need for improved information sharing between the 75th Medical Group at Hill AFB and State and County officials during times of medical emergencies

Question Title

* 7. HA-1: Need for affordable and available housing to accommodate future growth of civilian contractors and military personnel at Hill AFB

Question Title

* 8. PS-1: No formal agreement between Layton City and Hill AFB for maintenance of shared storm drainage

Question Title

* 9. PS-2: Lack of internal transit on Hill AFB impacts the Team Hill use of public transit programs in the community

Question Title

* 10. PS-3: Need for formalized coordination between some surrounding communities and Hill AFB for emergency services and law enforcement

Question Title

* 11. PT-1: Security concerns related to the public parking their vehicle at the end of the Hill AFB south runway to view and photograph aircraft at Hill AFB

Question Title

* 12. AQ-1: Concern that the designation of Ozone and Particulate Matter 2.5 nonattainment in Davis and Weber Counties could have impacts on the military mission and operations

Question Title

* 13. BIO-1: Sensitive species are located in and around Hill AFB and the UTTR. There is potential for military operations to be impacted if these species are upgraded to threatened or endangered status

Question Title

* 14. LAS-1: Concern for airspace congestion and competition between Hill AFB and surrounding airports

Question Title

* 15. LAS-2: Potential for future air space competition between Tooele Valley Airport and the UTTR

Question Title

* 16. RE-1: Need for infrastructure resiliency at Hill AFB facilities

Question Title

* 17. WQQ-1: Community concern for impacts of Trichloroethylene contamination plume from Hill AFB

Question Title

* 18. WQQ-2: Concern for potential PFAS contamination from Hill AFB to impact community water quality

Question Title

* 19. WQQ-3: Concern for Hill AFB stormwater drainage impacts on surrounding community

Question Title

* 20. WQQ-4: Concern for potential groundwater depletion to impact culinary water availability and water quality for Hill AFB

Question Title

* 21. AT-1: Security and safety concerns from civilian drone activity

Question Title

* 22. DSS-1: Potential for dust related to arid conditions to impact operations at the UTTR

Question Title

* 23. ED-1: Alternative energy coordination between Hill AFB and surrounding communities is limited

Question Title

* 24. ED-2: Potential for solar energy facilities to create light and glare impacts on Hill AFB flying operations

Question Title

* 25. ED-3: Potential for wind energy development to create frequency interference challenges and vertical obstructions for Hill AFB and the UTTR

Question Title

* 26. FSI-1: Need to protect frequency spectrum at UTTR from interference of external sources

Question Title

* 27. LU-1: Need for Hill AFB safety zones to be illustrated on maps within community planning documents

Question Title

* 28. LU-2: Need for Hill AFB noise contours to be illustrated on maps within community planning documents

Question Title

* 29. LU-3: Need for sharing land use documentation related to Hill AFB

Question Title

* 30. LU-4: Need to meet operational space requirements for the Ogden Air Logistics Complex

Question Title

* 31. NOI-1: Incompatible development in Hill AFB Noise Contours

Question Title

* 32. NOI-2: Noise impacts from Hill AFB operations extend beyond noise contours

Question Title

* 33. RC-1: Traffic congestion related to Hill AFB during peak hours

Question Title

* 34. RC-2: Need for higher prioritization of roadway improvement programming around Hill AFB

Question Title

* 35. RC-3: Traffic congestion at the Hill AFB Roy Gate and South Gate cause stacking and safety concerns outside Hill AFB

Question Title

* 36. RC-4: Traffic congestion resulting from temporary gate closures at Hill AFB

Question Title

* 37. RC-5: Limited access to the Hill AFB East Gate impacts industrial park development potential

Question Title

* 38. RC-6: Concern for increased congestion from construction traffic associated with growth and development near Little Mountain Testing Facility

Question Title

* 39. SA-1: Need for compatible land uses within Bird / Wildlife Strike Hazard area surrounding Hill AFB

Question Title

* 40. SA-2: Incompatible development in Hill AFB Safety Zones

Question Title

* 41. VO-1: Lack of information regarding vertical obstruction requirements for airspace surrounding Hill AFB

Question Title

* 42. VO-2: Potential for incompatible development within Hill AFB imaginary surfaces

Question Title

* 43. V-1: Concerns regarding vibration impacts from Hill AFB aircraft operations

T