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
unacceptable levels, <strong>and</strong> nighttime operations would be impaired due to poor lighting conditions. Aircraft
<strong>and</strong> personnel safety would be jeopardized <strong>and</strong> critical <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> missions would be delayed or aborted,
which would adversely affect USAF missions at Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB <strong>and</strong> globally.
2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis
Due to logistics <strong>and</strong> safety <strong>and</strong> security issues associated with operation <strong>and</strong> maintenance of a <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong>
<strong>pad</strong>, several criteria were evaluated when developing potential alternative locations <strong>for</strong> the proposed <strong>hot</strong>
<strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong>. These criteria include the following:
Location adjacent to existing runway, taxiway, <strong>and</strong> roads
Sufficient QD separation distance of 1,250 feet
Minimal impact on QD separation distances <strong>and</strong> other critical facilities.
In addition to the Proposed Action, the 377 ABW considered four alternative locations on Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB
near existing Pad 5 due to the proximity to existing Runway 8-26, <strong>and</strong> the associated taxiways <strong>and</strong> road
network (see Figure 2-2). L<strong>and</strong> uses are restricted within QD separation distances. In order to minimize
the size of restricted l<strong>and</strong> use areas, the QD separation distances <strong>for</strong> Pad 5 <strong>and</strong> the proposed <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong>
would be combined as much as possible, <strong>and</strong> the alternative locations would all surround Pad 5 to take
advantage of its existing QD separation distance.
Alternative Site 1. Alternative Site 1 is north-northeast of Pad 5, <strong>and</strong> adjacent to the east of the existing
taxiway. The Explosive Holding Area (also called Safe Haven or Safe Refuge) is immediately adjacent to
the northeast of this alternative. The Explosive Holding Area is a portion of an infrequently traveled
paved road that is used to park vehicles transporting <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> while they are cleared to enter or exit the
installation. The Explosive Holding Area is at its current location because it is close to Pad 5 <strong>and</strong> the
Truman Gate, <strong>and</strong> away from inhabited crowded areas of the installation. This alternative would require
the discontinuation of use of the Explosive Holding Area due to the required intraline (IL) separation
distance. IL distance provides the minimum amount of protection to activities associated with explosives.
Alternative Site 1 is also within the Clear Zone <strong>and</strong> Accident Potential Zone (APZ) I <strong>for</strong> Runway 26 of
Albuquerque International Sunport. Explosive facilities are prohibited from Clear Zones <strong>and</strong> APZs I <strong>and</strong>
II. Alternative Site 1 is not feasible because it would require the removal of the Explosive Holding Area,
an integral security component that can not be sited elsewhere on the installation, <strong>and</strong> explosive facilities
are prohibited from the proposed location of Alternative Site 1. There<strong>for</strong>e, this alternative has been
eliminated from further detailed analysis.
Alternative Site 2. Alternative Site 2 is east of Pad 5, adjacent to the east of the location of the Proposed
Action. Pennsylvania Avenue, which is categorized as a high-density PTR, is approximately 850 feet
west of this alternative. A high-density PTR would require IBD protection of 1,250 feet of separation
from the <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong>. In addition, a majority of this alternative would be within an ERP site (WP-26),
which could present additional construction costs due to infrastructure removal <strong>and</strong> remediation activities.
Alternative Site 2 is not feasible because it would not comply with the required separation distance <strong>for</strong>
high-density PTRs; there<strong>for</strong>e, it has been eliminated from further detailed analysis.
Alternative Site 3. Alternative Site 3 is southeast of Pad 5, <strong>and</strong> would abut an approximately 90-foot cliff
(into Tijeras Arroyo) to the south. This alternative’s location next to a cliff presents dangerous conditions
<strong>for</strong> operation of the proposed <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong>, including movement of personnel; maneuvering of aircraft
within the <strong>pad</strong>; <strong>and</strong> placement of access roads, lighting, drainage, AT/FP measures, <strong>and</strong> associated
equipment on the perimeter of the <strong>pad</strong>. The presence of the cliff presents additional security issues <strong>for</strong>
personnel guarding the aircraft <strong>and</strong> <strong>pad</strong> due to potentially obstructed sightlines to locations below the
Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB, NM January 2011
2-5