Final FONSI and EA for hot cargo pad on Kirtland AFB - Kirtland Air ...

<strong>Final</strong> <strong>EA</strong> Addressing Construction, Operation, <strong>and</strong> Maintenance of a Hot Cargo Pad
design <strong>and</strong> safety st<strong>and</strong>ards as described in Section 3.12.1 would also be expected to lessen the
probability of an aircraft mishap.
As discussed in Section 3.12.1, an IB separation distance of 1,250 feet (approximately 0.24 miles) is
required <strong>for</strong> Hazard Classification 1.1 explosives, <strong>and</strong> would be applied to the Proposed Action. As
discussed in Section 2.1.2, there are several potential ESs in the general vicinity of the proposed <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong>
<strong>pad</strong>. However, none of the ESs would be within the IB distance <strong>for</strong> the proposed <strong>pad</strong>. Since there are no
ESs within the IB distance, the severity of a mishap is expected to be negligible to moderate as described
in Table 4-4. As discussed previously, at the IB distance some damage could still be expected
(i.e., st<strong>and</strong>ard glass windows will shatter <strong>and</strong> unstrenthened buildings will receive 5 percent damage). In
addition, in the event that a mishap was to occur, personnel in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft could
be injured. However, the lowest probability level of a mishap, Level E: Unlikely, would be expected.
As shown on Figure 4-1, the combination of a probability level of Unlikely <strong>and</strong> a severity level of
negligible to moderate would have a risk assessment level of “low.” There<strong>for</strong>e, operation of the proposed
<strong>pad</strong> would be expected to have a less-than-significant, adverse impact on aircraft safety.
Construction of the proposed <strong>pad</strong> per USAF explosives safety st<strong>and</strong>ards would be expected to lessen the
aircraft safety concerns associated with the current <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> mission to negligible levels. The current
aircraft safety concerns include FOD, aircraft tire-cut potential, <strong>and</strong> insufficient lighting due to the current
state of the existing <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong>. In addition to construction of the <strong>pad</strong> itself, the addition of paved
shoulders would also provide <strong>for</strong> the control of FOD. There<strong>for</strong>e, operation of the proposed <strong>pad</strong> would be
expected to have a less-than-significant, beneficial impact on aircraft safety. The improvements to the
existing <strong>pad</strong> included under the Proposed Action would also be expected to have a beneficial impact on
aircraft safety since they would address the aircraft safety concerns associated with the current <strong>pad</strong>. The
proposed <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong> would be used in conjunction with Pad 5 to ensure the critical <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> missions
continue unimpeded, thereby improving the ability of the 377 ABW to schedule <strong>and</strong> complete <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong>
missions, which would be expected to have a less-than-significant, beneficial impact on aircraft safety.
4.12.2.2 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the 377 ABW would not construct a <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong>, taxiway, anti-ram
cabling, DFPs, lighting, <strong>and</strong> personnel shelters. The Pad 5 pavement condition would continue to
deteriorate, causing FOD <strong>and</strong> aircraft tire-cut potential to increase to unacceptable levels. Aircraft safety
would be jeopardized, <strong>and</strong> critical <strong>cargo</strong> missions would be delayed or aborted, adversely impacting
critical missions at Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB <strong>and</strong> throughout the world. Without lighting improvements, nighttime
flying operations would be impaired <strong>and</strong> aircraft <strong>and</strong> personnel safety would be jeopardized.
4.13 Socioeconomics <strong>and</strong> Environmental Justice
4.13.1 Evaluation Criteria
Socioeconomics. This section addresses the potential <strong>for</strong> direct <strong>and</strong> indirect impacts that the Proposed
Action could have on local or regional socioeconomics. Impacts on local or regional socioeconomics are
evaluated according to their potential to stimulate the economy through the purchase of goods or services
<strong>and</strong> increases in employment. Similarly, impacts are evaluated to determine if overstimulation of the
economy (e.g., the construction industry’s ability to sufficiently meet the dem<strong>and</strong>s of a project) could
occur as a result of the Proposed Action.
Environmental Justice <strong>and</strong> Protection of Children. Ethnicity <strong>and</strong> poverty data are examined <strong>for</strong> the
Albuquerque metropolitan area (50-mile radius around Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB) <strong>and</strong> compared to the State of New
Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB, NM January 2011
4-23