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 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
<strong>Final</strong> <strong>EA</strong> Addressing Construction, Operation, <strong>and</strong> Maintenance of a Hot Cargo Pad 4.2 Noise 4.2.1 Evaluation Criteria Noise impact analyses typically evaluate potential changes to the existing noise environment that would result from implementation of a proposed action. Potential changes in the acoustical environment can be beneficial (i.e., if they reduce the number of sensitive receptors exposed to unacceptable noise levels or reduce the ambient sound level), negligible (i.e., if the total number of sensitive receptors to unacceptable noise levels is essentially unchanged), or adverse (i.e., if they result in increased sound exposure to unacceptable noise levels or ultimately increase the ambient sound level). Projected noise effects were evaluated qualitatively <strong>for</strong> the alternatives considered. 4.2.2 Environmental Consequences 4.2.2.1 Proposed Action The Proposed Action includes the construction of a new <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong>, including the associated taxiway, <strong>and</strong> demolition <strong>and</strong> repair of the taxiway to the existing <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong> (Pad 5) as discussed in Section 2.1.1. Noise from demolition <strong>and</strong> construction activities would vary depending on the type of equipment being used, the area the activity would occur in, <strong>and</strong> the distance of the activity from the noise source. To predict how construction activities would impact adjacent populations, noise from the probable construction was estimated. For example, as shown in Table 3-2, construction usually involves several pieces of equipment (e.g., dump truck <strong>and</strong> paver) that can be used simultaneously. Under the Proposed Action, the cumulative noise from the construction equipment, during the busiest day, was estimated to determine the total impact of noise from construction activities at a given distance. Examples of expected cumulative demolition noise during daytime hours at specified distances are shown in Table 4-1. These sound levels were predicted at 100, 200, 400, 800, <strong>and</strong> 1,200 feet from the source of the noise. Table 4-1. Predicted Noise Levels from Demolition <strong>and</strong> Construction Activities Distance from Noise Source Predicted Noise Level 100 feet 86 dBA 200 feet 80 dBA 400 feet 74 dBA 800 feet 68 dBA 1,200 feet 64 dBA The proposed <strong>hot</strong> <strong>cargo</strong> <strong>pad</strong> would fall within the DNL 65 to 69 dBA noise contours, <strong>and</strong> the proposed taxiway would fall within the DNL 70 to 74 dBA noise contours from aircraft operations at Albuquerque International Sunport. Since multiple single noise events create the cumulative DNL value, the actual sound levels that a person hears within the area of the DNL noise contours fluctuates throughout a 24- hour period. Consequently, populations within <strong>and</strong> adjacent to the Proposed Action are accustomed to fluctuations of noise levels in the 70 to 90 dBA range. Noise generation would last only <strong>for</strong> the duration of construction activities <strong>and</strong> would be isolated to normal working hours (i.e., between 7:00 a.m. <strong>and</strong> 5:00 p.m.). Consequently, demolition <strong>and</strong> construction activities from the Proposed Action would result in impacts on the noise environment; however, these impacts would be expected to be less than significant. Kirtl<strong>and</strong> AFB, NM January 2011 4-3
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 81: 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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?