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
Proposed Action would not violate local zoning ordinances because municipal zoning regulations do not
apply to Federal property. There<strong>for</strong>e, the Proposed Action would not result in any impacts on municipal
l<strong>and</strong> use plans or policies.
The Proposed Action would not preclude the viability of existing l<strong>and</strong> uses, or the continued use <strong>and</strong>
occupation of surrounding areas. The proposed <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong> would be compatible with the surrounding
Aircraft Operations/Maintenance <strong>and</strong> Open Space l<strong>and</strong> uses. There<strong>for</strong>e, the Proposed Action would result
in no impacts on existing l<strong>and</strong> use viability or continued l<strong>and</strong> occupation.
Demolition <strong>and</strong> construction activities would produce temporary, elevated noise levels that could be heard
by persons immediately surrounding the proposed <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong> site (see Section 4.2.2 <strong>for</strong> environmental
consequences related to noise). Operation of the Proposed Action would not produce increase noise
above ambient noise levels because the type <strong>and</strong> quantity of <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> operations at the <strong>pad</strong>s would not
change from existing conditions, <strong>and</strong> there would be no increase in the quantity of aircraft utilizing the
<strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong>s. The Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts on l<strong>and</strong> use compatibility
from noise production.
As discussed in Section 3.1.2, several l<strong>and</strong> uses <strong>and</strong> actions, including use of explosives <strong>and</strong> the
development of people-intensive facilities not associated with flightline operations or other essential
functions that must be sited within the Clear Zone, are prohibited within the Runway 26 Clear Zone <strong>and</strong>
APZ I (USAF 1999). Major Comm<strong>and</strong>/Civil Engineering must approve alterations, minor additions, or
improvements to existing facilities, <strong>and</strong> the construction of new facilities in the Clear Zone. The
Proposed Action would be consistent with these regulations as it is a facility associated with flightline
operations that must be within the Clear Zone in order to provide service to <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> aircraft missions.
There<strong>for</strong>e, with approval from Major Comm<strong>and</strong>/Civil Engineering, the Proposed Action would comply
with these regulations. The Proposed Action would not conflict with planning criteria established to
ensure the safety <strong>and</strong> protection of human life <strong>and</strong> property due to close proximity to an airport. Lessthan-significant
impacts on l<strong>and</strong> use compatibility from safety issues related to proximity to an airport.
The Proposed Action would require the establishment of a 1,250-foot QD arc, <strong>and</strong> would also be within
the existing 1,250-foot QD arc <strong>for</strong> Pad 5. Operation of both <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong>s would be considered
compatible l<strong>and</strong> uses because operation of the <strong>pad</strong>s would not occur simultaneously, rather each <strong>pad</strong>
would act as contingency if the other <strong>pad</strong> is unavailable. Prior to commencement of any work within the
existing QD arc, all <strong>pad</strong> <strong>and</strong> roadway construction, utilities, <strong>and</strong> electromagnetic radiation sources must
be coordinated with 377 ABW Weapons Safety to determine if an explosives site plan (ESP) is required;
<strong>and</strong> if an ESP is required, work cannot start until approval is granted by DDESB or Major Comm<strong>and</strong>.
Operation of the proposed <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong> would be consistent with AFMAN 91-201. Compliance with
these policies would ensure that the Proposed Action would result in less than significant impacts on l<strong>and</strong>
use compatibility from safety issues related to QD arcs.
4.1.2.2 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented <strong>and</strong> existing l<strong>and</strong> use
conditions would remain the same as discussed in Section 3.1.2. No impacts on l<strong>and</strong> use would be
expected.
Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB, NM January 2011
4-2