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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>Final</strong> <strong>EA</strong> Addressing Construction, Operation, <strong>and</strong> Maintenance of a Hot Cargo Pad Mexico <strong>and</strong> the United States to determine if a low-income or minority population could be disproportionately affected by the Proposed Action. 4.13.2 Environmental Consequences 4.13.2.1 Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, the 377 ABW would construct, operate, <strong>and</strong> maintain a <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong> at Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB adjacent to the existing <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong>. The total cost of construction to build the proposed <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong> is estimated at $14,600,000 (KAFB undated). Demographics. The number of workers who would be hired to construct a <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong> at Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB would most likely come from within the greater Albuquerque area. Relocation of construction workers to meet dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>for</strong> the Proposed Action would not be expected as the scope of construction activities should not necessitate out-of-town workers to permanently relocate. No new staff is anticipated to be hired or transferred to Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB <strong>for</strong> operation <strong>and</strong> maintenance of the proposed <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong>. The number of new residents who would move to the Albuquerque area as result of the Proposed Action would be negligible; there<strong>for</strong>e, less-than-significant impacts on demographics would be expected as a result of the Proposed Action. Employment Characteristics. The construction industry within the Albuquerque MSA should adequately provide the workers that would be required to construct the <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong>. The number of construction workers necessary <strong>for</strong> the Proposed Action, estimated to be less than 1 percent of all construction workers in the Albuquerque area, is not large enough to outstrip the supply of the industry. Indirect beneficial impacts would result from the increase in payroll, tax revenues, purchase of materials, <strong>and</strong> purchase of goods <strong>and</strong> services in the area resulting in less-than-significant impacts on the socioeconomic climate of Albuquerque. Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB. The temporary increase of construction employees at Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB would represent a small increase in the total number of persons working on Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB <strong>and</strong> no additional facilities (e.g., housing <strong>and</strong> transportation) would be necessary to accommodate the work<strong>for</strong>ce. Changes to employment <strong>and</strong> expenditures resulting from the Proposed Action would be negligible; there<strong>for</strong>e, lessthan-significant impacts would be expected. Environmental Justice <strong>and</strong> Protection of Children. The Albuquerque metropolitan area contains an elevated minority <strong>and</strong> low-income population in comparison to the United States, but similar to the State of New Mexico (see Section 3.13.2). Construction activities would be concentrated adjacent to the existing <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong> (Pad 5); there<strong>for</strong>e, no minority population would be disproportionately impacted by the Proposed Action. Operation of the proposed <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong> would not result in an increased number of <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> missions, but would rather provide an additional <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong> so that operations could continue unimpeded. There<strong>for</strong>e, minority populations would not be disproportionately impacted in the long term. Indirect disproportionate negative impacts on minority, low income, <strong>and</strong> youth populations would not be expected as result of the Proposed Action. 4.13.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the construction, operation, <strong>and</strong> maintenance of the proposed <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong> at Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB would not occur. No impacts on socioeconomics would be expected as no additional jobs would be created, expenditures <strong>for</strong> goods <strong>and</strong> services to maintain the existing facilities would be minimal, <strong>and</strong> there would be no increase in tax revenue as a result of employee wages <strong>and</strong> sales receipts. Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB, NM January 2011 4-24
<strong>Final</strong> <strong>EA</strong> Addressing Construction, Operation, <strong>and</strong> Maintenance of a Hot Cargo Pad Also, impacts on environmental justice would not occur as part of the No Action Alternative as the existing <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong> (Pad 5) would continue operating under current conditions. 4.14 Cumulative Impacts CEQ defines cumulative impacts as the “impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, <strong>and</strong> reasonably <strong>for</strong>eseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time by various agencies (Federal, state, <strong>and</strong> local) or individuals. In<strong>for</strong>med decisionmaking is served by consideration of cumulative impacts resulting from projects that are proposed, under construction, recently completed, or anticipated to be implemented in the reasonably <strong>for</strong>eseeable future. Reasonably <strong>for</strong>eseeable future actions consist of activities that have been approved <strong>and</strong> can be evaluated with respect to their effects. This section briefly summarizes past, current, <strong>and</strong> reasonably <strong>for</strong>eseeable future projects within the same general geographic <strong>and</strong> time scope as the Proposed Action. The geographic scope of the analysis varies by resource area. For example, the geographic scope of cumulative impacts on noise, geology <strong>and</strong> soils, <strong>and</strong> safety is very narrow <strong>and</strong> focused on the location of the resource. The geographic scope of l<strong>and</strong> use, air quality, infrastructure, transportation, <strong>and</strong> socioeconomics is much broader <strong>and</strong> considers more county- or regionwide activities. The past, current, <strong>and</strong> reasonably <strong>for</strong>eseeable projects, identified below, make up the cumulative impact scenario <strong>for</strong> the Proposed Action. The cumulative impact scenario is then added to the Proposed Action’s impacts on the individual resource areas analyzed in Section 4 to determine the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action. In accordance with CEQ guidance, the current effects of past actions are considered in aggregate as appropriate <strong>for</strong> each resource area without delving into the historical details of individual past actions. 4.14.1 Impact Analysis 4.14.1.1 Past Actions Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB has been used <strong>for</strong> military missions since the 1930s <strong>and</strong> has continuously been developed as DOD missions, organizations, needs, <strong>and</strong> strategies have evolved. Development <strong>and</strong> operation of training ranges have impacted thous<strong>and</strong>s of acres with synergistic <strong>and</strong> cumulative impacts on soil, wildlife habitats, water quality, <strong>and</strong> noise. Beneficial effects, too, have resulted from the operation <strong>and</strong> management of Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB including, but not limited to, increased employment <strong>and</strong> income <strong>for</strong> Bernalillo County, the City of Albuquerque, <strong>and</strong> its surrounding communities; restoration <strong>and</strong> enhancement of sensitive resources such as the Coyote Springs wetl<strong>and</strong> area; consumptive <strong>and</strong> nonconsumptive recreation opportunities; <strong>and</strong> increased knowledge of the history <strong>and</strong> pre-history of the region through numerous cultural resources surveys <strong>and</strong> studies. 4.14.1.2 Present <strong>and</strong> Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB is a large military installation that is continually evolving. Projects that were examined <strong>for</strong> potential cumulative impacts are included in Table 4-5. Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB, NM January 2011 4-25
Page 1:
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FO
Page 10 and 11:
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS µg/L mi
Page 13:
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADDR
Page 17 and 18:
Final EA</
Page 19 and 20:
Final EA</
Page 21 and 22:
Final EA</
Page 23 and 24:
Final EA</
Page 25 and 26:
Final EA</
Page 27 and 28:
Final EA</
Page 29 and 30:
Final EA</
Page 31 and 32:
Final EA</
Page 33 and 34:
Final EA</
Page 35 and 36:
Final EA</
Page 37 and 38:
Final EA</
Page 39 and 40:
Final EA</
Page 41 and 42:
Final EA</
Page 43 and 44:
Final EA</
Page 45 and 46:
Final EA</
Page 47 and 48:
Final EA</
Page 49 and 50:
Final EA</
Page 51 and 52:
Final EA</
Page 53 and 54: Final EA</
Page 103: Final EA</
Page 121: APPENDIX A APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULAT
Page 124 and 125: Land Use L
Page 126 and 127: typically calls for</strong
Page 128 and 129: species. All Federal agencies must
Page 130 and 131: comment on the alteration, demoliti
Page 132 and 133: monitoring, detection, and<
Page 135 and 136: Appendix B Interagency and<
Page 137 and 138: Native American Tribes Isleta Puebl
Page 139 and 140: Example IICEP Letter to Native Amer
Page 141 and 142: B-7
Page 143 and 144: Comments Received on the Draft Envi
Page 145 and 146: B-11
Page 147 and 148: Table B-1. Responses to Comments Re
Page 149: APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY SUPPORTING D
Page 152 and 153: Air Quality Emissions from Proposed
Page 154 and 155:
Combustion Emissions Combustion Emi
Page 156 and 157:
Architectural Coatings No. Reqd. a
Page 158 and 159:
Construction Fugitive Dust Emission
Page 160 and 161:
Grading Schedule Estimate of time r
Page 162 and 163:
Construction Commuter Emissions Emi
Page 164:
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?