September 2007 - Kirtland Air Force Base

Final 

Environmental Assessment 

Realignment of Battlespace Environment Laboratory 

Air Force Research Laboratory 

Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico 

BRAC 2005 

September 

2007

AFRL 

Battlespace Environment Laboratory 

DRAFT 

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 

REALIGNMENT OF THE 

BATTLESPACE ENVIRONMENT LABORATORY 

KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE 

ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 

AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY, SPACE VEHICLES DIRECTORATE 

BATTLESPACE ENVIRONMENT DIVISION 

The Air Force Research Laboratory, Space Vehicles Directorate, Battlespace Environment 

Division plans to relocate the Battlespace Environment Laboratory (BEL) operations from 

Hanscom Air Force Base (Hanscom) near Lexington, Massachusetts (MA) to Kirtland Air 

Force Base (Kirtland) in Albuquerque, New Mexico (NM) in accordance with the findings 

of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission. The attached 

Environmental Assessment, prepared for the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and 

incorporated by reference, evaluates the proposed relocation of the mission and functions, 

including the impacts of construction, of the BEL. 

The BEL relocation would involve approximately 44 military,153 civilian, and 75 

contractor positions. The relocation includes the construction of a new facility costing 

approximately $42.7 million and containing 145,000 square feet of laboratory and 

administrative space. Two sites were examined: northwest of the intersection of Aberdeen 

Avenue and Maxwell Street (preferred) and northeast of Aberdeen Avenue and Maxwell 

Street (alternative). The preferred site for the BEL would displace the AFRL Component 

Development Lab (CDL). Therefore, this document also evaluates the potential impacts of 

locating the CDL at the alternative site for the BEL. (Impacts of the CDL itself were 

evaluated in another Environmental Assessment.) Relocation and consolidation of the CDL 

activities from other sites on Kirtland would require the construction of a 40,000 square 

foot multilevel building. 

SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The potential consequences associated with this action are all insignificant in nature and 

some are beneficial. Potential consequences to air space, climate, geology and soils, and 

cultural resources were not evaluated in detail because there would be no impact. The table 

below summarizes the potential consequences evaluated: 

September 2007 Page 1

Kirtland AFB 

Draft Finding of No Significant Impact 

Land Use 

Visual Resources 

Air Quality 

Noise 

Water Resources 

Biological Resources 

Transportation 

Utilities 

The BEL and CDL sites are in a developed area that is slated for further 

development, and the Proposed Action is compatible with the 

designated land use of the site (administrative/offices). The Proposed 

Action has no consequences for land use. 

Visual resources would be affected beneficially by the construction of 

the BEL and CDL since the sites are currently vacant areas full of 

weeds. Construction would have short-term, negative, and insignificant 

consequences on visual resources. The proposed facilities would have 

permanent, positive, and insignificant consequences on the visual 

character of the area. 

Construction would cause insignificant impacts to air quality from 

construction vehicle emissions and particulates from soil disturbance. 

Operations would cause insignificant impacts to air quality from heating 

and laboratory emissions. 

Construction would have insignificant consequences from construction 

vehicles. Building operations have vacuum pumps that would be 

shielded, causing insignificant impacts. 

The sites are level and runoff would not affect any surface water 

feature; construction would be covered by appropriate permits. BEL 

operations would place a slight additional water demand on the regional 

aquifer; this would be more than offset by overall reductions in water 

usage from an aggressive approach to water conservation on Kirtland. 

Construction and operations would cause insignificant impacts. 

No federally or state listed threatened or endangered species inhabit the 

area (project site) and no potential habitat is located nearby. Burrowing 

owl nests have been located 1/5 mile from the sites; if nests were 

encountered during construction, procedures are in place for relocating 

nests, and thus impacts would be insignificant. The proposed sites for 

the BEL and CDL are in developed areas, which are not suitable for 

quality wildlife habitat, and consequences for biological resources from 

operations would be insignificant. 

Contractor personnel would use the Kirtland Gate, and construction 

would have insignificant consequences. Operations would cause 

insignificant impacts from a seven percent increase in traffic at the 

Carlisle Gate, and a five percent increase in traffic at the Truman Gate 

from 250 additional people accessing the base. 

Utilities are available and sufficient at both sites to meet the needs of 

the BEL and CDL. An electrical substation would be built east of the 

BEL site. Consequences to utilities from construction and operations 

would be insignificant. 

Page 2 September 2007

AFRL 


Hazardous and Toxic 

Substances/Health 

and Safety 

Socioeconomics 

Environmental 

Justice & Protection 

of Children 

Cumulative Effects 

Operations could cause insignificant impacts from inert and 

combustible gases stored and used at the site. Proper storing and 

handling in accordance with the Hazardous Material Management 

procedures and the Spill Plan would mitigate potential consequences. 

Building design and safety operating instructions and procedures would 

mitigate risks. 

Socioeconomic consequences overall would be beneficial. Construction 

would cause short-term, insignificant, positive benefits from the local 

economy benefiting from the purchase of construction materials and 

salaries paid to construction workers. Operations would cause 

permanent, insignificant, positive impacts from the salaries paid to 

military and civilian workers, and the resulting indirect benefit to the 

economy. 

The BEL relocation would not have any significant adverse 

environmental impacts and, therefore, would not disproportionately 

affect children, minorities, or low-income populations. Although 

Kirtland Elementary School is across Carlisle Boulevard from the site, 

the children there and in residences north of Gibson Boulevard would 

not be affected by the action. 

The consequences of this Proposed Action were evaluated with the 

incremental impacts of other actions, and no significant cumulative 

effects were found. 

CONCLUSION 

After careful review of the attached Environmental Assessment for this Proposed Action, I 

have concluded that the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on the quality 

of the human or natural environment, either by itself or in consideration with the 

cumulative impacts of other actions. Therefore, issuance of a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) is warranted, and an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. This 

analysis fulfills the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the 

implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality, and the 

USAF Environmental Impact Analysis Process rules. 

Accepted By: __________________________ Date:______________________________ 

D. BRENT WILSON 

Base Civil Engineer 

Kirtland Air Force Base 



Draft Finding of No Significant Impact 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 


AFRL 


FINAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

OF THE REALIGNMENT OF THE 

BATTLESPACE ENVIRONMENT LABORATORY 

KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE 

ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 

AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY, SPACE VEHICLES DIRECTORATE 

BATTLESPACE ENVIRONMENT DIVISION 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section 

Page 

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1 

1.1 WHY THIS ACTION IS OCCURRING ......................................................................1 

1.2 BACKGROUND OF KIRTLAND AND AFRL ............................................................2 

SECTION 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND 

ALTERNATIVES..........................................................................................................3 

2.1 PREFERRED BEL SITE AND FACILITY INFORMATION ..........................................3 

2.1.1 Main Facility ..........................................................................................6 

2.1.2 Laboratory Trailers ................................................................................6 

2.1.3 Construction of Facility .........................................................................7 

2.1.4 Antenna Farm.........................................................................................8 

2.2 MISSION AND ACTIVITIES OF THE PROPOSED BEL ..............................................9 

2.2.1 The Battlespace Surveillance Innovation Center ...................................9 

2.2.2 The Space Weather Center of Excellence ............................................11 

2.3 PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR BEL RELOCATION ..................................................14 

2.4 CONNECTED ACTION: NEW PROPOSED SITE FOR CDL ......................................15 

2.4.1 Why the CDL is Assessed in this EA ..................................................15 

2.4.2 CDL Facility and Operations Summary ..............................................15 

2.5 ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................16 

2.5.1 Alternative Siting for BEL ...................................................................16 

2.5.2 Alternatives Considered but not Carried Forward ...............................16 

2.5.3 No Action Alternative ..........................................................................17 

September 2007 

Page i


Final Environmental Assessment 

SECTION 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................................18 

3.1 RESOURCES NOT EVALUATED ..........................................................................19 

3.2 LAND USE .........................................................................................................20 

3.2.1 Existing Conditions of Land Use .........................................................20 

3.2.2 Impacts to Land Use ............................................................................21 

3.3 VISUAL RESOURCES ..........................................................................................22 

3.3.1 Existing Conditions of Visual Resources ............................................22 

3.3.2 Impacts to Visual Resources ................................................................23 

3.4 AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................24 

3.4.1 Existing Conditions of Air Quality ......................................................24 

3.4.2 Impacts to Air Quality .........................................................................25 

3.5 NOISE ................................................................................................................28 

3.5.1 Existing Conditions for Noise ..............................................................28 

3.5.2 Impacts from Noise ..............................................................................29 

3.6 WATER RESOURCES ..........................................................................................30 

3.6.1 Existing Conditions of Water Resources .............................................30 

3.6.2 Impacts on Water Resources ................................................................30 

3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................31 

3.7.1 Existing Conditions of Biological Resources ......................................31 

3.7.2 Impacts on Biological Resources .........................................................32 

3.8 TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................33 

3.8.1 Existing Conditions of Transportation .................................................33 

3.8.2 Impacts on Transportation ...................................................................36 

3.9 UTILITIES ..........................................................................................................37 

3.9.1 Existing Conditions of Utilities ...........................................................37 

3.9.2 Impacts on Utilities ..............................................................................37 

3.10 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES/HEALTH AND SAFETY ..........................39 

3.10.1 Existing Conditions for Hazardous and Toxic Substances ..................39 

3.10.2 Impact of Hazardous and Toxic Substances ........................................41 

3.11 SOCIOECONOMICS .............................................................................................43 

3.11.1 Existing Conditions of Socioeconomics ..............................................44 

3.11.2 Impacts to Socioeconomics ..................................................................45 

3.12 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ..............................47 

3.12.1 Existing Conditions ..............................................................................47 

3.12.2 Impacts on Children, Minorities, and Low-income 

Populations ...........................................................................................47 

Page ii September 2007

AFRL 


SECTION 4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .............................................................................49 

4.1 APPROACH ........................................................................................................49 

4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .....................................................................................52 

SECTION 5 LIST OF PEOPLE CONSULTED, REVIEWERS, AND 

PREPARERS ...............................................................................................................58 

SECTION 6 REFERENCES ................................................................................................61 

SECTION 7 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................65 

APPENDIX A LETTER TO STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 

September 2007 

Page iii




Page iv September 2007

AFRL 


Section 1 Introduction 

The 2005 amendments to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) 

Act of 1990 recommended realignment actions at Kirtland Air Force Base (Kirtland), 

signed into law November 9, 2005. The recommended actions include the relocation of the 

Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Space Vehicles (VS) Battlespace Environment 

Laboratory (BEL) from Hanscom Air Force Base (Hanscom) to consolidate all major 

AFRL VS activities at Kirtland no later than September 2011. The Air Force does not have 

authority to alter these arrangements. 

This document is an Environmental Assessment (EA) that evaluates the potential impacts of 

the proposed relocation of the mission and functions, including the impacts of construction, 

of the BEL to Kirtland in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This document also evaluates the 

potential impacts of locating the AFRL Component Development Lab (CDL) at the 

alternative site for the BEL. Although the construction and operation of the CDL has 

already been assessed in a previous EA (Kirtland Technology Park, Phase I, Kirtland Air 

Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico, June 2005), it only evaluated the CDL for the site 

that would now house the BEL. Other BRAC actions at Kirtland are assessed in separate 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, and are considered in this EA in 

Section 4, Cumulative Effects. 

This document is part of the Environmental Impact Analysis Process set forth in Title 32, 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 989; NEPA; and the regulations implementing 

NEPA promulgated by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in Title 40 

CFR Parts 1500-1508. NEPA does not apply to BRAC deliberations and decisions, but it 

does apply to realigning missions and operations. In other words, this document does not 

address whether the BEL will be moved to Kirtland, but rather the specifics of where and 

how the mission will move. 

1.1 WHY THIS ACTION IS OCCURRING 

As the United States (U.S.) Air Force reduces its force structure to meet traditional military 

mission needs and in response to changing global security requirements, there is a resulting 

decrease in the number of installations needed for this smaller force. In addition to 

reducing the Armed Forces' total size, it is also necessary to realign activities to other 

locations to accomplish the mission more economically. This smaller and realigned force 

would be stationed and consolidated at the most mission-efficient installations. The goal of 

this action is to consolidate all major AFRL VS activities to one location—Kirtland Air 

Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico (NM). 




The relocation of the BEL to Kirtland would: 

• Provide greater synergy and increased security across technical capabilities and 

functions by consolidating geographically separate units of the AFRL; 

• Improve jointness, reduce footprint, and update facilities; and 

• Create cost savings through greater efficiency. 

1.2 BACKGROUND OF KIRTLAND AND AFRL 

Kirtland is home to the Air Force Materiel 

Command’s Nuclear Weapons Center and the 

377 th Air Base Wing, Kirtland’s host 

organization, which provides base operating 

support to approximately 76 federal government 

and 384 private sector tenants and associate units 

including the AFRL. More information is 

available on the Kirtland web site at 

http://www.kirtland.af.mil/. 

The AFRL is comprised of ten technology 

directorates, including the VS directorate, which 

is headquartered at Kirtland. The AFRL is 

responsible for research and technology 

development in support of the Air Force’s future 

and existing aerospace and space systems. The 

VS directorate’s mission is to develop and 

transition innovative high payoff space technologies supporting the warfighter while 

leveraging commercial, civil and other government space capabilities to ensure America’s 

advantage. 


AFRL 


Section 2 Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives 

As a result of the approved BRAC recommendations, the present activities of the 

Battlespace Environment Division (VSB) must be relocated to Kirtland. The Proposed 

Action would result in the following: 

• Construction of a 145,000 square foot (sf) building, costing approximately $42.7 

million, and containing laboratory space, offices, and secure facilities. 

• Relocation of 44 military, 153 civilian, and 75 contractor jobs, and approximately 

220 tons of laboratory equipment when the building is complete. 

• Operation of laboratories and facilities. 

The BEL facility (including construction activities) and site required for the action is first 

discussed in Section 2.1. Because the proposed building for the BEL is different from the 

current building at Hanscom, the current building is not discussed. Section 2.2 contains a 

discussion of the activities that would occur in the facility. The current activities in the 

BEL at Hanscom are not expected to change, and form the basis of assessing project 

activities for the Proposed Action at Kirtland. A proposed schedule for construction and 

operation of the BEL is presented in Section 2.3. Information related to the new CDL site 

proposed is presented following BEL information in Section 2.4. Section 2.5 presents the 

alternatives considered in this EA, and those alternatives that were eliminated from detailed 

consideration. 

2.1 PREFERRED BEL SITE AND FACILITY INFORMATION 

The criteria for selecting the site for the BEL and any alternatives are as follows: 

1. A site large enough to accommodate 145,000 sf of laboratories and offices. 

2. A site that is physically close to other AFRL activities to allow for efficient and 

secure collaboration within the AFRL. 

The preferred BEL location is on the parcel northwest of the intersection of Maxwell Street 

and Aberdeen Avenue. The site was developed in the past with residential housing. It is 

now bare dirt, with weeds and trees. The alternative site, discussed below in Section 2.5, is 

the parcel northeast of the intersection of Maxwell Street and Aberdeen Avenue. Figure 2-1 

below shows an aerial view of the site, alternative site, and surrounding areas. Figure 2-2, 

directly following Figure 2-1, shows a drawing of the sites with proposed location of 

buildings. Note that the alternative site shows the CDL on it, as further discussed in Section 

2.4. The third building shown north of the BEL is a proposed New Mexico Institute of 

Mining and Technology (New Mexico Tech) education and research facility whose 

function would complement the BEL. 





AFRL 


Figure 2-2. Schematic showing preferred sites for the BEL and CDL. 

The BEL would be housed in one main building, with four research laboratory trailers, one 

storage area, and a parking lot adjacent to the building. A supporting electrical substation 

would be constructed east of Maxwell Street. An architectural rendering of the proposed 

building is shown below in Figure 2-3. Landscaping and sidewalks would be provided for 

the building. Details are provided in the following sections. 

Figure 2-3. Architectural rendering of proposed BEL building. 




2.1.1 MAIN FACILITY 

Facility Exterior 

Properties or components of the exterior of the proposed building would include the 

following: 

• 145,000 sf total floor space 

• Reinforced concrete foundation 

• Stucco-finished concrete masonry unit walls 

• Structural steel frame 

• Insulated flat metal roof 

• 350 KW back-up generator 

• Electrical substation, about 40’ x 40’, surrounded by an 8’ wall east of Maxwell Street 

• Vacuum pumps enclosed on the exterior of the building with insulation for noise 

attenuation 

• Existing parking lot would increase by approximately 150 new parking spaces 

• Xeriscaping, walkways, parking lot lighting, loading dock 

• Storage area (approximately 40’ x 125’) 

• Research trailers (see next page for additional description) 

• Two hemispheric domes on the roof. One is for a fixed Light Detection and Ranging 

(LIDAR). The second is for an optical telescope, which is a completely passive 

astronomical setup with no emitted pulses. It requires a clear line of sight (that is, no 

object in the way including trees, fences, or buildings) to at least 15 degrees elevation. 

Facility Interior 

Properties or components of the interior of the proposed building include the following: 

• Class 1,000 clean rooms 

• 700 sf Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility room 

• Two computer rooms 

• Labs with multiple air and gas supplies 

• Administrative office space 

• Passenger and freight elevators 

• Multi-zone heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems 

2.1.2 LABORATORY TRAILERS 

There would be four mobile research trailers that are extensions of the permanent labs in 

the building. They would be kept near the building and would at times go out to remote 

places, including a proposed antenna farm (see Section 2.1.4). The trailers include two 

LIDAR, one radar, and one satellite-tracking trailer. 


AFRL 


Multiple Wavelength LIDAR Trailer (MWLT) 

The MWLT tracks satellites and objects in space orbit using ground sensors including a 

telescope. The LIDAR is an instrument that transmits light along a path and measures the 

light that is scattered back to the instrument by particles along the path. Sensing the 

characteristics of the light scattered back to the instrument tells something of the 

characteristics of the particles that are doing the scattering. LIDAR functions similarly to 

radar, but uses light waves (shorter wavelength) instead of radio waves (longer 

wavelength). 

Mobile Atmospheric Pollutant Mapping (MAPM) System Trailer 

The MAPM trailer is a transportable long wavelength infrared LIDAR. It houses laser, 

optical, and electronic equipment. It emits a pulsed beam at a wavelength of 10.6 microns 

from a scanner on the roof of the trailer. 

• Potential interference problems are only for highly specialized long wavelength 

infrared receivers. 

• Use of this laser system, including the lasers used and the safety operating procedures, 

would be cleared by Kirtland authorities before operation. 

It is not anticipated that equipment on the MAPM trailer would encounter interference 

problems from other sources, except for line-of-sight blockage by power lines, poles, 

building, or topography. Generally, the equipment requires sky coverage unblocked down 

to approximately 5 to 10 degrees elevation, with more than 4 kilometer (km) unblocked 

near horizon line of sights along some azimuth(s). 

Other Trailers 

Other equipment that would be located in the two remaining trailers include the following: 

• Global Positioning System (GPS) reference stations 

• Radar millimeter system with a transmit and receive frequency of 35.5 gigahertz (GHz) 

for measuring cloud formations. It requires a clear line of sight for 1 km for its 

calibration. 

None of the antennae, trailers, telescope, GPS, radar or LIDAR have caused detrimental 

effects on nearby electrical supplies, communications, or aircraft at the present Hanscom 

BEL that is near an airfield. 

2.1.3 CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITY 

The facility would be constructed by a medium to large size construction firm with 

subcontracting firms. Construction activities would include the following: 




• Equipment used would include bulldozers, trenchers, front-end loaders, dump trucks, 

graders, cranes, pickup and concrete trucks, water tankers, flatbed trailers, and forklifts. 

• During construction, there would be anywhere from approximately 25 to 100 workers 

on the site. 

• The project would be covered by Fugitive Dust Control and 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permits. The contractor would submit a Fugitive Dust 

Control Plan application to the City of Albuquerque 

Environmental Health Department (AEHD) Air Quality 

Division, and a NPDES Storm Water Pollution Prevention 

Plan and a Notice of Intent to discharge in accordance with 

the Construction General Permit. The permitting of these 

construction activities would be coordinated through the 

Kirtland Environmental Management Branch, Compliance 

Section. 

2.1.4 ANTENNA FARM 

A closely related, but separate project (connected action) to the BEL is the construction and 

operation of an eight- to ten-acre antenna farm. The antennae would be used for the 

ionosphere research program and would include two types of antennae: 

• Two ionospheric sounders, called ionosondes. These ionosondes transmit relatively 

low power (

AFRL 


2.2 MISSION AND ACTIVITIES OF THE PROPOSED BEL 

The proposed BEL mission and activities would be a continuation of the current BEL 

mission and activities, so this discussion is based on current activities. The BEL would be a 

research and development facility which would house the U.S. Air Force’s (USAF) experts 

on the battlespace environment and its effects on weapon systems, especially space and 

command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C3ISR) 

systems. The BEL has environmental sensors around the world monitoring ionospheric 

conditions. BEL personnel collect worldwide space weather data to evaluate potential 

interference to communications capabilities. This information can then be used to alert 

warfighters about the communication interference. Specifically, the BEL has the following 

functions: 

• testing in high vacuum environments; 

• environmental calibration; 

• chemistry and spectrometry; 

• computer modeling; 

• data processing; 

• space operations; 

• remote sensing; and 

• quantum computing. 

The VSB focuses on the environment’s impact to space and C3ISR systems, with two main 

centers, described below. The VSB executes approximately $50 million/year in core Air 

Force Research and Development funding, and historically has executed an additional $25 

million/year in other Research and Development funding. 

There are approximately 153 USAF government civilians, 35 officers, and 9 enlisted 

personnel slated to come to Kirtland. In addition, there would be approximately 75 

contractor personnel who would be housed in the BEL building, bringing the total 

minimum to 250 to 265 people. Employees would normally work in staggered shifts 

anywhere from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. There 

would be times when work may occur around the clock and on weekends during 

experiments and critical research efforts. 




2.2.1 THE BATTLESPACE SURVEILLANCE INNOVATION CENTER 

The mission of the Battlespace Surveillance 

Innovation Center is to develop and 

demonstrate advanced surveillance 

technologies and to predict and mitigate the 

effects of the aerospace environment on 

surveillance systems. The Center has several 

laboratories as part of its mission, described 

below in Table 2-1. 

Airborne Laser Atmospheric Decision Aid 

Table 2-1. Battlespace Surveillance Innovation Center Lab Activities 

Optical Turbulence 

Laboratory 

Laboratory 

Name 

Description of Laboratory Activities 

Conducts fabrication and testing of balloon-borne instruments (called 

thermosondes) to measure optical turbulence for laser systems, laser 

imagers, and laser communications. 

Cold Chemical Infrared 

Simulation Chamber 

LABCEDE Laboratory 

(Laboratory Cryogenic 

Energy Deposition) 

COCHISE Laboratory 

(Cold Chemiexcitation 

Infrared Stimulation 

Experiment) 

Conducts experiments to characterize 

infrared/optical emissions from typical 

thruster constituents under two scenarios: 

(1) high-energy collisions with atomic 

oxygen, simulating the Low-Earth Orbit 

environment, and (2) direct, laser-based 

vacuum ultraviolet excitation, simulating 

solar irradiance. 

Studies the interaction of thruster effluents with upper atmospheric 

constituents. 


AFRL 


Laboratory 

Name 

Bose-Einstein condensate 

Laboratory 

Hypersonic Imaging 

Calibration Laboratory 

MWLT Laboratory 

(Multiple Wavelength 

LIDAR Trailer) 

Trailer Laboratories 


Investigates atom interferometry for use as an autonomous inertial 

navigation system. 

Calibrates hyperspectral instruments and 

investigates new calibration techniques. 

Hyperspectral imaging provides 

information on hard-to-see targets. 

Hyperspectral Imaging 

Tracks satellites and objects in space orbit using ground sensors 

including a telescope. 

These are four mobile laboratory extensions of the permanent labs in 

the building, which measure similar data as the permanent labs, 

outside of the facility and at various Department of Defense (DoD) 

testing facilities. 

2.2.2 THE SPACE WEATHER CENTER OF EXCELLENCE 

The mission of the Space 

Weather Center of Excellence 

is to develop technologies for 

specifying, forecasting, 

mitigating, and exploiting the 

effects of the space 

environment on DoD systems 

and operations. The Center has 

several laboratories, described 

in Table 2-2. 




Table 2-2. The Space Weather Center of Excellence Lab Activities 

Laboratory 

Name 

Space Chemistry 

Laboratory (SCL) 

Hyperthermal Ion Beam 

Facility for nanopropulsion 

experiments 


Conducts studies related to the chemical dynamics and reactions in 

the unique and extreme environment of Low Earth Orbit. Uses highvacuum 

apparatus to create ion beams, to measure the interactions of 

those beams with neutral gases or surfaces at variable energy, and to 

detect the products of the interactions with mass spectrometers. 

There are currently three primary thrusts within the laboratory: 

1) Hyperthermal chemistry. Chemical interactions between gases 

emitted from spacecraft and the background atmosphere in Low 

Earth Orbit occur at orbital velocity or greater and may leave 

reaction products in excited states that radiate detectable light. 

Researchers in the SCL seek to replicate in the laboratory the 

processes associated with Low-Earth orbiting spacecraft, electric 

propulsion thrusters, meteors, etc. 

2) Electrospray propulsion. Researchers in the SCL are also 

developing a novel approach to chemical-electrospray thrusters for 

the next generation of Air Force nanosatellites. They are measuring 

in detail the properties of ions and propellant droplets produced in 

such electrosprays and have transitioned the results to industry, 

leading to improved thruster systems. 

3) Self-assembled monolayers. Researchers in the SCL are 

developing methods to convert difficult-to-detect energetic neutral 

species such as atomic oxygen into easy-to-detect negative ions. The 

eventual application of this work will be sensing of neutral gas fluxes 

in the space environment to measure satellite drag and for analysis of 

high energy streams of neutral particles produced by charge 

exchange in the magnetosphere. 


AFRL 


Laboratory 

Name 

Plasma Chemistry 

Laboratory (PCL) 


Conducts research related to 

charged particle chemical reactions 

that occur in plasma environments 

under conditions of temperature, 

pressure, and gas composition that 

mimic the real space environment. 

Accurate and complete 

understanding of the plasma 

High Pressure Plasma Flow 

chemistry under real world 

Chemistry Flow Tube 

conditions is essential for modeling 

the behavior of the plasmas and for 

mitigating their impacts on AF systems. Typically, chemical 

reactions in the PCL are studied in one of four flow tube apparatuses 

where ions or electrons are injected into a fast flow of a carrier gas 

such as helium or nitrogen, and are allowed to react with tiny 

amounts of neutral gases of interest downstream in the flow tube. 

The products of the reaction are measured with a mass spectrometer 

at the downstream end of the flow tube. 

Space Instrumentation 

Laboratory (SIL) 

Also known as the Mass Spectrometer Laboratory, this lab develops 

and tests novel instrumentation for making measurements of the 

space environment and to fly these instruments on AF and other 

satellites. Preliminary designs for instruments are developed by staff 

physicists and engineers. Prototype instruments are then built and 

tested, and modifications to the design are made as necessary. Flight 

instruments are then constructed in clean rooms under carefully 

controlled environmental conditions. Testing of the flight 

instruments occurs both within the AFRL laboratories and at outside 

contract facilities. Activities in the Space Instrumentation 

Laboratory include light machining of metal and composite parts, 

soldering, electrical and mechanical fabrication, instrument 

performance testing, instrument calibration, and environmental 

testing such as thermal cycling and thermal vacuum. 




Laboratory 

Name 

Space Particles Lab (SPL) 

Ionospheric Effects 

Laboratory 


The SPL consists of two instrument-class vacuum chambers with ion 

sources and is used to perform pre-space flight instrument calibration 

and validation measurements as well as to study spacecraft charge 

control technologies in realistic space environments. 

Develops ground-based instrumentation for 

remotely sensing the properties of the 

ionosphere that affect radio communication 

and navigation. These facilities include 

ionosonde systems that radiate highfrequency 

radio waves into the ionosphere 

and monitor the reflected signals to 

determine the electron content. A number 

of receive-only monitors of the GPS are 

also used to passively monitor ionospheric 

conditions. 

2.3 PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR BEL RELOCATION 

All personnel and equipment must be in place by September 15, 2011. Personnel and 

equipment will arrive via transfer from Hanscom and via hiring through the Civilian 

Personnel system starting in the spring of 2011 and continuing through September 2011. 

Personnel will not arrive all at once; the exact surge dates will depend on the completion of 

construction. The tentative schedule for relocation of the mission and functions of the BEL 

is the following: 

Table 2-3. Proposed Schedule for Relocation of the BEL 

Action 

Tentative 

Start Date 

Construction February 2008 (award) 

Relocation of personnel and 

equipment to Kirtland AFB 

Tentative 

Completion Date 

January/February 2011 

February/March 2011 September 2011 


AFRL 


2.4 CONNECTED ACTION: NEW PROPOSED SITE FOR CDL 

2.4.1 WHY THE CDL IS ASSESSED IN THIS EA 

The AFRL Component Development Lab (CDL) and the National Defense Technology 

Center (NDTC; formerly known as the National Defense Technology Auditorium [NDTA]) 

were assessed in the EA for the Construction of Phase I of the Kirtland Technology Park 

(KTP) at Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 2005. In that EA, 

however, the site proposed for the CDL and the NDTC is the site preferred for the BEL. No 

alternative sites for the CDL and the NDTC were assessed. 

Under the preferred action, the original planned sites for the BEL and for the CDL, which 

are one block from each other, would be switched. Because the new proposed site for the 

CDL is the alternative site for the BEL in this EA (see Section 2.5), impacts associated with 

the use of this alternative site are also being assessed for the CDL. The AFRL has lowered 

the priority for construction of the NDTC, and construction of the NDTC is on hold for at 

least several years. Therefore, the impacts of the NDTC will not be considered here. 

The CDL was originally planned to be located northwest of the intersection of Maxwell 

Street and Aberdeen Avenue. The NDTC was originally planned to be located southeast of 

the intersection of Ranger Loop and Carlisle Boulevard, adjacent and to the north of the 

CDL. The BEL was originally planned to be located northeast of the intersection of 

Maxwell Street and Aberdeen Avenue. 

The CDL site would be switched with the BEL site for the following reasons: 

• The new BEL site is a better site for the BEL because it does not have the Kirtland 

Bioenvironmental Engineering facility (formerly known as the chapel) as a constraint 

(the BEL building is larger than the CDL building). 

• The NDTC is on hold indefinitely. 

• The BEL and CDL would be adjacent, and have similar scientific operations. 

2.4.2 CDL FACILITY AND OPERATIONS SUMMARY 

Construction for the CDL may begin as early as 2009 (the same year as construction of the 

BEL), if funded. This has a high-priority for funding. Because the CDL construction and 

operation were already assessed, only the new site will be assessed in this EA; all other 

information is incorporated from the KTP Environmental Assessment by reference. The 

activities/operations for the CDL are already on Kirtland; the CDL building would merely 

consolidate those activities. A brief summary of the CDL facility and operations is 

discussed below. 




Properties or components of the facility for the CDL include the following: 

• Space for ten separate laboratories 

• Administrative space used for analysis, engineering, engineering support, and 

management 

• 40,000 sf multilevel building 

• Reinforced concrete foundation 

• Concrete masonry unit walls 

• Structural steel framing 

• Standing-seam, metal-insulated, sloped roof system 

• Parking lot adjacent to the new building. 

The CDL would provide a state-of-the-art high-tech facility with laboratories and clean 

rooms to support space vehicle component development, as well as provide administrative 

space. This facility would be used to develop the following: 

• Solar arrays and photovoltaic cells 

• Space power storage 

• Space vehicle mechanisms 

• Mechanism controls 

• Space protection (including radiation-hardened electronics) 

• Environmental sensors (including focal plane arrays and cryo-coolers). 

2.5 ALTERNATIVES 

2.5.1 ALTERNATIVE SITING FOR BEL 

One other site for the BEL was considered and assessed based on the criteria described in 

Section 2.1. It is the parcel that is northeast of the intersection of Maxwell Street and 

Aberdeen Avenue, one block from the preferred alternative. As noted in Section 2.4, this 

site is being proposed as the site for the CDL, and as such is referred to in this EA as the 

CDL site, or the BEL alternative site. Under this alternative siting for the BEL, the CDL 

would remain northwest of Maxwell Street and Aberdeen Avenue. 

2.5.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD 

Other alternatives that were considered, but not carried forward, include the following: 

1. Housing the BEL in existing buildings already on Kirtland. 

2. Remodeling existing structures on Kirtland to accommodate the BEL. 

3. Building at other sites such as the old West Capehart Housing area. 


AFRL 


The reasons that these alternatives were not considered further are that there are currently 

no facilities on Kirtland where 145,000 sf could be released from present use and used or 

renovated for this mission. The proposed location and the alternative are the only remaining 

logical land parcels within the AFRL campus where this structure could be built. All other 

land is spoken for with other programmed MILCON projects, and West Capehart Housing 

areas will not be available as they are now part of an Enhanced Use Lease area of the KTP. 

2.5.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The CEQ regulations require an inclusion of a No Action Alternative. Under the No Action 

Alternative, the BEL would operate at its current location and there would be no relocation 

to Kirtland. However, since the relocation of the BEL has been mandated by Congress and 

the President, the No Action Alternative is not a viable alternative; the BEL must relocate 

to Kirtland. The NEPA process in this case does not apply to the decision of relocating the 

mission—it applies only to the specific siting of the mission, as well as the nature of the 

relocation. In other words, the question is not whether the mission relocates to Kirtland—it 

will, as required by law—but how, when, and where the mission relocates onto Kirtland. 

Nevertheless, the No Action Alternative serves as a baseline to existing conditions at 

Kirtland against which the impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives can be 

evaluated, and is therefore discussed in this EA. 




Section 3 Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences 

This section describes the natural and human environment that exists at the proposed site, 

and the potential impacts the Proposed Action could have on that environment. Impacts are 

described in three different ways in this EA: 

1. Whether the impact is: 

• Positive 

• Negative 

2. Length of the impact, which can be: 

• Short-term (less than 3 years) 

• Long-term (between 3 and 20 years) 

• Permanent (impact will not be reversed in the foreseeable future) 

3. Significance of the impact, which can be: 

• No impact 

• Insignificant 

• Significant 

In general, where no impact is expected, the resource is not described in detail nor 

evaluated. The resources are described and evaluated at a level of detail appropriate to the 

potential impacts—in other words, if the impact is expected to be insignificant or very 

straightforward, then a qualitative and simple approach is used. Significant impacts should 

receive the most attention in the decision-making process. 

For simplicity, unless otherwise noted, the description of existing conditions located 

throughout this section serves as the description of impacts for the No Action 

Alternative. 

The preferred site and the alternative site are in adjacent blocks, and have essentially 

the same baseline conditions except for visual resources and utilities. For simplicity, 

the preferred and alternative sites are assessed together, with reference only 

made to the BEL site, except where baseline conditions differ. Because the 

alternative site is the site being assessed for the CDL, the discussion of impacts for 

the BEL preferred site also refers to the proposed CDL site. 


AFRL 


3.1 RESOURCES NOT EVALUATED 

Only resources that could be affected by the Proposed Action are described. The following 

resources are not described: 

• Air space. The Proposed Action does not involve any flights or aircraft and the 

buildings would be constructed not to penetrate airspace, so there would be no impacts 

to this resource. 

• Climate. The Proposed Action would not affect the climate in any way. 

• Geology. The project would not affect any geologic resources. Soils have previously 

been disturbed at the sites and are not biologically productive. The sites are flat and 

soil erosion is not expected. 

• Cultural Resources. The closest potentially significant cultural resources (historic 

buildings) are approximately 1/4 mile away and would not be impacted by the 

Proposed Action. The preferred and alternative locations for the Proposed Action are in 

a previously disturbed area, with no cultural resources existing there to our knowledge, 

and cultural resources will not be impacted. The State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) was consulted, and they concur that there is no adverse effect to historic 

properties (see Appendix A for a copy of the approved letter). Further, Kirtland has a 

policy for the Inadvertent Discoveries of cultural resources, which would be followed 

if any cultural resources are discovered during construction: 

Inadvertent Discovery of Native American Human Remains and Objects 

1) If the human remains or objects were discovered during construction or similar 

activity, the activity shall be suspended and reasonable efforts to protect the 

remains or objects shall be made. The Commander, as the primary management 

authority, and the appropriate Native American organizations shall be notified of 

the discovery. All activity in the area of the discovery shall be suspended for 30 

days after certification that the appropriate Native American organizations have 

been notified. 

2) Disposition and control of the remains or objects shall follow the requirements 

of Section 3, Subsections (a) and (b), of National American Graves Protections 

and Repatriation Act. 

Discovery of Buried Cultural Resources 

If cultural resources are encountered inadvertently during an undertaking, work in the 

immediate vicinity shall be halted, the immediate vicinity of the resources shall be 

secured, and the Environmental Management Division shall be notified. The following 

procedures shall be adhered to: 




1) An in situ evaluation of the resources shall be made by a qualified archaeologist. 

Based on recommendations from the archaeologist, decisions regarding the 

treatment of the resources shall be made in consultation with the Cultural 

Resource Manager (CRM) and the SHPO. 

2) If the resources cannot be evaluated without further archeological or historic 

work, the CRM shall be notified and a data recovery program or historic 

research shall be prepared in consultation with the SHPO. 

3) Based on the results of the data recovery program or historic research, the 

resources shall be evaluated for eligibility to the National Register in 

consultation with the CRM and the New Mexico SHPO. 

3.2 LAND USE 

3.2.1 EXISTING 

CONDITIONS OF LAND USE 

Regional Setting and 

Installation Land Use 

Land to the north and west is urbanized 

(the City of Albuquerque). Land to the 

south, Isleta Pueblo, is used primarily for 

ranching. Land to the east is the Cibola 

National Forest. The Albuquerque 

International Sunport is adjacent to 

Kirtland’s western boundary and shares airspace and runways with Kirtland. 

Kirtland is home to the 377 th Air Base Wing (Kirtland’s host organization). It provides 

support to approximately 76 federal government and 384 private sector tenants and 

associate units, including Sandia National Laboratories. Kirtland contains training areas, 

helicopter landing zones, ordnance impact areas, logistics, recreation/open areas, 

maintenance facilities, classroom and administrative facilities, and housing. 

East and south of the BEL sites are various offices and research facilities, primarily AFRL, 

and the Albuquerque International Sunport. The Veterans Affairs Medical Center is further 

east. Land use north of Gibson Boulevard consists of private residential housing and 

businesses. 

Current and Planned Development 

As a result of BRAC 2005, Kirtland will receive three to six aircraft from the 27 th Fighter 

Wing from Cannon AFB, New Mexico, which will not involve new construction. Military 

confinement functions at Kirtland will be realigned to Miramar Marine Corps Air Station in 

California. The Jenkins Armed Forces Reserve Center, approximately one mile north of 


AFRL 


Kirtland, is also being relocated from Albuquerque to Kirtland due to BRAC. The action 

involves transfer of fewer than 50 permanent positions (and 800 weekend Reservists) and 

construction of 3 buildings (approximately 114,000 sf for classroom, administrative, 

library, maintenance and storage facilities). Training on Kirtland will not change as a result 

of the relocation. The construction and operations associated with this relocation were 

assessed in a May 2007 Environmental Assessment, Realignment of Jenkins Armed Forces 

Reserve Center (AFRC), Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, BRAC 2005. The notice to 

proceed for construction was given in September 2007, with construction to be complete by 

September 2009. 

Major construction projects are planned related to the development of the KTP. The entire 

development will take place in a four-phase development over the next 20 years. It will 

include the construction of approximately 3,938,000 sf of laboratory, educational, and 

administrative building space on approximately 300 acres along the Gibson Boulevard 

Corridor. The KTP is not a result of or associated with the BEL. 

Other near-term construction projects unrelated to the BEL or CDL planned or in progress 

at Kirtland include: 

• Corrosion control facilities 

• Flight simulators 

• Parajumper/Combat Rescue Officer (PJ-CRO) campus 

• AFRL Fixed Panel Array 

• Military Working Dog facility 

• Fuel Upload Facility replacement 

• Trestle Road extension 

The BEL and CDL sites are in a developed area that is available for further development. 

The Future Land use for the proposed locations was changed to administration/research by 

the 1998 Base General Plan. 

3.2.2 IMPACTS TO LAND USE 

The Proposed Action is compatible with the designated land use of the sites 

(administration/research) and would not change the land uses of the area. Therefore, there 

are no impacts to land use. 

Impacts to Land Use: 

From Construction: 

No Impact 

From Operations: 

No Impact 




3.3 VISUAL RESOURCES 

3.3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS OF VISUAL RESOURCES 

Both the preferred site and the alternative site are currently unimproved areas consisting of 

bare dirt, weeds, and trees. The BEL site and the northern section of the CDL site are 

located on an old housing area from which all structures have been removed. 

The sites are located within or adjacent to the KTP area, which consists of old demolished 

housing areas, offices, and fitness facilities. The area outside of the KTP includes existing 

AFRL and other buildings, off-base and on-base older residential housing areas, and small 

shops and apartment buildings. 

Photographs were taken on March 19, 2007 at the preferred BEL site, from the middle of 

the southern edge of the site. A panoramic view, looking first north, then east, then south, 

then west is presented below. There are no on-base residential areas remaining in the 

project area or within view. 

Looking north from southern edge of BEL preferred site. 

Looking east from southern edge of BEL preferred site, 

towards alternative (CDL) site. 

Looking south from southern edge of BEL preferred site. 

Looking west from southern edge of BEL preferred site. 


AFRL 


The visual resources for the CDL site (alternative site for the BEL) are similar to the 

preferred BEL site. There are no residential areas within view. The CDL site is closer to the 

Bioenvironmental Engineering building than the preferred BEL site. There are also office 

buildings to the west of the CDL site. The entire area is developed. 

3.3.2 IMPACTS TO VISUAL RESOURCES 

The BEL and CDL sites are in an area where the visual resources and aesthetic quality have 

already been degraded. The immediate area for the BEL and CDL sites has been previously 

developed, thus losing some of the original natural appearance. With the removal of earlier 

structures, the sites are now covered in weeds, further degrading the visual resources. 

Construction: Construction equipment and materials would be visible from nearby 

offices/facilities to the south, east, and west during construction for both sites. The 

construction equipment is separated from these southern facilities by a parking lot for the 

BEL site and a water tower for the CDL site. The Bioenvironmental Engineering building 

between the sites would be more visually impacted. However, the impacts are temporary 

and minimal as there are few windows facing the construction area. The main impact would 

be to persons approaching and leaving the Bioenvironmental Engineering building, but 

most activity is from people walking from parking lots to and from the building, which is 

short in duration. Construction is expected to take 28 months, which means that the impacts 

are considered short-term. 

Operations: Once construction is completed, visual resources would be permanently 

altered by the addition of the BEL and CDL. The current vacant lots would be occupied by 

modern administration/office and laboratory facilities surrounded by hardscaping and 

landscaping. The proposed BEL and CDL would have a minor beneficial impact on visual 

resources when compared to the current visual resources of the vacant lots. The BEL and 

CDL would be designed to blend in with existing adjacent facilities, and construction would 

follow the Kirtland AFB Architectural Compatibility Plan and landscaping guidelines. 

The optical telescope on the roof dome of the BEL would be enclosed in a clam shell dome 

that extends to a maximum height of 20 feet, and requires line of sight to 15 degrees 

elevation. The telescope, in its size and appearance, will blend with other buildings in the 

area and would not impact visual resources. 




Impacts to Visual Resources: 


Short-term 

Insignificant 

Negative 


Permanent 

Insignificant 

Positive 

3.4 AIR QUALITY 

3.4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS OF AIR QUALITY 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for six commonly generated air pollutants because they are considered 

harmful to public health and the environment when they reach specified concentrations. 

These pollutants, known as criteria pollutants, are carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), ozone, and sulfur oxides (SOx). 

In the Albuquerque/Bernalillo county area the pollutants that are routinely monitored are 

nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, particles under 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ), 

and particles under 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5 ). The pollutants of highest concern are 

those that come closest to exceeding the NAAQS, namely ground level ozone and 

particulate matter. It should also be noted carbon monoxide has been a pollutant of 

historical concern because the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County area could not initially meet 

the NAAQS as set forth in the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990. Prior to 1992, 

the area was in non-attainment for CO. In 1996 the EPA re-designated Bernalillo County to 

attainment for CO based on significant improvements in air quality. However, the county is 

still subject to an EPA-approved Limited Maintenance Plan. Under that plan all federal 

actions are considered to have met the general conformity provisions of the CAA. 

Therefore, a conformity determination is not needed. 

Activities at Kirtland contribute to the release of all of the criteria pollutants as well as 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The products of 

combustion (CO, VOCs, NOx, PM, SOx) and small amounts of HAPs are released through 

the running of motor vehicles, aircraft engines, and generators. Small amounts of VOCs 

and HAPs are also released through painting, vehicle refueling, and other general chemical 


AFRL 


use. Sources of particulate matter at Kirtland include explosive ordnance disposal, 

combustion activities, painting, mulching, driving on dirt roads, and natural wind blown 

dust. Actual and allowable emissions from stationary sources of these air pollutants at 

Kirtland during 2005 are displayed in Table 3-1. 

Table 3-1. Summary of 2005 Air Emissions from Permitted Sources at 

Kirtland 

Pollutant 

Stationary Source Emissions 

Actual 

(tons per year) 

Allowable 


Criteria Pollutants and Precursors 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 17.3 125.0 

Nitrogen Oxides (NO x ) 37.7 200.2 

Particulate Matter (PM) 17.0 42.8 

Particulate Matter ≤ 10 μm (PM 10 ) a 16.8 40.4 

Particulate Matter ≤ 2.5 μm (PM 2.5 ) a 16.8 40.4 

Sulfur Oxides (SO x ) 1.8 20.2 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 57.5 206.0 

Total Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) 3.9 13.5 

Source: Kirtland AFB 2007. Final Kirtland Air Force Base 2005 Emissions Inventory. Kirtland Air Force 

Base Environmental Management Branch, Albuquerque, New Mexico 

Note: a Particulate Matter ≤ 10 μm and Particulate Matter ≤ 2.5 μm are subsets of Particulate Matter. 

Kirtland is currently permitted as a major source under the Title V program. A major source 

is one with the potential to emit 100 tons per year of any of the following: CO, VOCs, 

NOx, SOx, PM, or Lead; 10 tons per year or more of any single HAP; or 25 tons per year or 

more of all HAPs combined. Actual stationary source emissions from activities at Kirtland 

are much lower than current permitted values as shown in Table 3-1, but Title V major 

status threshold is determined based on potential, that is, all sources running all 8,760 hours 

in a year. 




3.4.2 IMPACTS TO AIR QUALITY 

Air emissions resulting from the BEL facility relocating to Kirtland would be minimal in 

comparison to the base as a whole, and to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County area. The 

BEL facility emissions can be categorized into three types: 

1. Emissions resulting from general construction activities including, but not limited 

to, heavy equipment operation, dust, and parking lot construction. These emissions 

are non-recurring because they would only take place for a short period while the 

BEL Facility is being constructed. Best management practices would be utilized and 

the contractor in charge of the construction would obtain any necessary fugitive dust 

control permits. 

U.S. Air Force Air Conformity Applicability Model 4.3.3 was used to calculate air 

emissions anticipated to result from construction of the 145,000 sf BEL facility. 

Estimated maximum emissions temporarily generated by these construction 

activities are presented in Table 3-2. Because construction would be intermittent, 

actual emissions would be expected to be even lower than those presented. 

2. Emissions resulting from the general building operations such as heating through 

natural gas, and the use of a standby generator during any power outages. These 

emissions are considered recurring and minimal. A natural gas boiler used to heat a 

building the size of the BEL is expected to have a design rate of less than five 

million Btu per hour and is classified as an insignificant air emissions source by the 

Albuquerque Environmental Health Department Air Pollution Control Division 

(List of Insignificant Activities, 1996). 

The standby generator located at the BEL facility would provide emergency 

electrical power in the event of a power outage. Typically, standby generators run 

on diesel fuel and operate between 10 and 20 hours annually with the majority of 

those operating hours used for generator maintenance and testing. Total combined 

air emissions from a 350 KW generator operating for 20 hours would be less than 

0.2 tons per year. 

3. Emissions resulting from ongoing laboratory operations including a carpentry shop, 

a metalworking shop, and some chemical use. Laboratory chemicals purchased are 

primarily inert gases and acids. Because these chemicals are consumed in process 

very few actual air emissions result. Total emissions of criteria and hazardous air 

pollutants associated with laboratory operations are expected to be on the order of 


AFRL 


0.05 tons per year based on 2005 air emissions data collected for the BEL laboratory 

operations at Hanscom. 

Table 3-2. Estimated Maximum Construction Emissions from Proposed 

Action 

Pollutant 

Emissions 


Carbon Monoxide (CO) 34 

Nitrogen Oxides (NO x ) 11 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 2 

Sulfur Oxides (SO x ) 1 

Particulate Matter ≤ 10 μm (PM 10 ) 1 

Particulate Matter ≤ 2.5 μm (PM 2.5 ) 0 

Source: USAF 2007. USAF Air Conformity Applicability Model 4.3.3. Air Force Center for Environmental 

Excellence. Brooks AFB, Texas. 

Prior to the startup of these facilities, all activities would be carefully evaluated to 

determine whether any air permits are needed for operations. Air pollutants produced by 

heavy equipment during construction activities would be short-term and those emissions 

would not exceed any allowable limits. Finally, because long-term air emissions resulting 

from general building and laboratory operations would be minimal, addition of the BEL is 

not anticipated to adversely affect the surrounding environment. 

Impacts to Air Quality: 


Short-term 

Insignificant 

Negative 


Permanent 

Insignificant 

Negative 




3.5 NOISE 

3.5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR NOISE 

The main noise source at Kirtland is 

from military and commercial aircraft at 

Albuquerque International Sunport. The 

airport has implemented noise abatement 

strategies, including restrictions in 

runway use and timing. The BEL and 

CDL sites are outside of the 65 Day- 

Night Average Sound Level noise 

contour from aircraft. Noise contours are 

shown in Figure 3-1 below. 

A secondary source of noise in the 

immediate area is traffic, which peaks at 

before 8:00 am and between 4:00 pm and 

5:30 pm. 

Noise Terms: 

Decibel (dB): A unit to measure noise, on a 

logarithmic scale. dBA is a unit that adjusts for the 

loudness as perceived by the human ear. 

Day-Night Average: Sound levels are calculated 

over a 24-hour period, with adjustments for 

nighttime noises to produce a day-night sound 

level. It has been adopted by most federal agencies 

for measuring community noise. 

65 dBA Day-Night Average: The most commonly 

used number for noise planning; it represents a 

compromise between activity needs and comfort. 

65 dBA is about as loud as a gas powered 

generator. 


AFRL 


Figure 3-1. Aircraft noise contours for 65 dB (light blue contour), 70 dB (dark blue contour), 

and 75 dB (pink contour); the proposed site and alternative site are outside the 65 dB noise 

contour. 

3.5.2 IMPACTS FROM NOISE 

Construction of the BEL would result in a temporary increase in noise in the area. Noise 

levels for construction equipment, including bulldozers, backhoes, and front loaders range 

from 70 dBA to 90 dBA at 15 meters distance. The closest people are to the east for the 

preferred BEL site, and to the west for the CDL/alternative BEL site in the 

Bioenvironmental Engineering building, which is located on the parcel between the two 

sites. This building is used by Bioenvironmental Engineering as office space. This 

organization is the occupational health organization. The next closest buildings are office 

buildings, located to the south. Although the Bioenvironmental Engineering building is 

close to the sites, personnel working in the Bioenvironmental Engineering and other office 

buildings work inside the buildings, which would provide buffering from noise. Personnel 

walking to and from the Bioenvironmental Engineering building would have only 

occasional exposure to these noise levels, which would not be significant. 




Long-term operations include the use of vacuum pumps for the laboratories in the building. 

The vacuum pumps would be outside the building, and would be enclosed by walls to 

provide noise attenuation for both inside and outside the building. Impacts from traffic 

would be attenuated by set-back from the street and landscaping. Because the sites would 

be located beyond the 65 Day-Night Average Sound Level contour for aircraft, noise 

impacts to and from aircraft and the BEL and CDL are not considered significant. 

Impacts from Noise: 


Short-term 

Insignificant 

Negative 


Permanent 

Insignificant 

Negative 

3.6 WATER RESOURCES 

3.6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS OF WATER RESOURCES 

The Rio Grande is located approximately 5 miles west of Kirtland and is the major surface 

water body in the area. The Tijeras Arroyo and Arroyo del Coyote are surface drainages on 

Kirtland and are ephemeral streams. Tijeras Arroyo is the closest surface water feature, and 

is almost two miles away from the BEL and CDL sites. 

Kirtland has five potable water wells installed in the regional aquifer at depths from 450 

feet to 1,000 feet. This aquifer is the regional drinking water source. Kirtland currently 

uses approximately 80% of its water allocation and has been reducing water usage on the 

installation through xeriscaping, use of non-potable water for irrigation, and other water 

conservation measures. 

Neither the preferred BEL site nor the CDL site are within a 100-year floodplain or located 

on or near wetlands. 

3.6.2 IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES 

Construction: The project construction would be covered by an NPDES Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Notice of Intent to discharge in accordance with 

the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP would identify best management practices to 


AFRL 


reduce runoff from the site due to construction. The sites are level and runoff from the sites 

would not affect any surface water feature. The permitting of these construction activities 

would be coordinated through the Kirtland Environmental Management Branch, 

Compliance Section. 

Operations: The BEL and CDL sites are located on already disturbed land. There would be 

approximately 6.5 to 7 acres of permanent impervious surfaces proposed for the project 

site. This would have an insignificant effect on groundwater recharge rates of aquifers 

underlying the 52,000-acre base. 

There would be some additional water demand on the regional aquifer from the BEL 

operations, primarily for drinking and bathrooms for personnel in the building. This would 

be more than offset by overall reductions in water usage on Kirtland from an aggressive 

approach to water conservation. Kirtland signed a ten-year agreement in 1994 with local 

agencies to reduce water use by 30%, and by the end of the decade had reduced its use by 

31.8% (annual savings of 51,036,400 gallons over the established base year; DOE, 2007). 

Further, in 2006, leak detection and repair work reduced water use another 15.9% 

(174,762,000 gallons/year reduction). Thus, the impacts to the regional aquifer would be 

insignificant. 

Impacts to Water Resources: 


Short-term 

Insignificant 

Negative 


Permanent 

Insignificant 

Negative 

3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

3.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The BEL and CDL sites would be in an area that has been heavily disturbed by grading and 

demolition activities in the past, and very little vegetation or wildlife is in the area. The 

general area contains a variety of human activities including office buildings. The 

vegetation at the sites is primarily packed dirt with minimal grass and weeds, and trees. 

Section 3.3, Visual Resources, displays pictures of the current site that also show 

vegetation. 




Likewise, because of the heavily disturbed nature of the sites, there is little wildlife 

currently inhabiting the sites. No federally or state-listed threatened or endangered species 

inhabit the sites or developed area surround them, and no potential habitat is located nearby. 

The gray vireo (Vireo vicinior), the only state-listed species that has been observed on 

Kirtland, has been observed in the juniper woodlands along the eastern installation 

boundary, more than ten miles from the proposed sites. No similar habitat occurs in or near 

the proposed sites. 

The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is the only species of concern listed by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the vicinity. The nearest burrowing owl nesting 

location is off of Doris Rd., approximately 1/5 of a mile northeast of the BEL site. Figure 3- 

2 below shows locations of burrowing owls on Kirtland in 2007, as provided by Carol 

Finley, Natural Resource Manager for Kirtland. 

Figure 3-2. Burrowing owl locations identified on Kirtland, 2007. 

3.7.2 IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Construction: Although there are no burrowing owl nests currently located on the sites, the 

owls do vary their nesting sites from year to year. During construction, there is the 


AFRL 


possibility that a nest could be disturbed. The category of species of concern, which applies 

to the burrowing owl, carries no legal requirement, but identifies those species that deserve 

special consideration in management and planning. Kirtland has standard mitigation 

procedures in conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, should it be necessary to 

relocate an owl during any construction project. Thus any impacts to burrowing owls, or 

other wildlife or vegetation would be insignificant during construction. 

Operations: The proposed sites for the BEL and CDL are in developed areas, which are 

not suitable for quality wildlife habitat. In addition, the current state of the sites is not 

conducive to either vegetation or wildlife. Although construction of the BEL and CDL will 

permanently replace the dirt with hard structures and pavement, the area will also be 

landscaped, which will be an improvement over the present sites. Overall, due to the current 

status of the site and its location in a developed area, impacts to the biological resources of 

the area would be insignificant. 

Impacts to Biological Resources: 


Short-term 

Insignificant 

Negative 


Permanent 

Insignificant 

Negative 

3.8 TRANSPORTATION 

3.8.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS OF TRANSPORTATION 

Albuquerque is served by air, rail, and federal, state and local roads. Since all 

transportation to and from the project area would occur by vehicle, the resource examined 

in this document is limited to the roadway system. 

Kirtland is located in the southeastern portion of the city of Albuquerque, adjacent to the 

Albuquerque International Sunport. Major transportation arteries in the vicinity of the base 

are Interstate 40, which is approximately 1.5 miles to the north, and Interstate 25, located 

approximately four miles to the west. Gibson Boulevard lies along the northern border of 

the western portion of the base, where the proposed project would be located, and many 

other local roads are used to access the base entrances. 

Seven gates provide entrance to the base, though the Carlisle and Truman gates would 

likely be the most used to access the proposed project area (Figure 3-3 below). 





AFRL 


The Carlisle Gate is located at the intersection of Carlisle Boulevard and Gibson Boulevard, 

while the Truman Gate is located on Truman Street near Aberdeen Avenue. Construction 

vehicle access is allowed only through the Kirtland Gate, located on Gibson Boulevard, 

west of the Carlisle Gate. 

Circulation in Project Area 

On the western side of the base, traffic flows relatively smoothly due to light traffic 

volumes and favorable intersection operations. At some entrance gates however, 

congestion occurs on the local (off-base) roads during peak traffic periods (6:30 to 8:00 

a.m.) as lines of vehicles wait for clearance to enter the secure area of the base. Delays are 

usually worse at the gates on the eastern side of the base than on the western side, where the 

Truman and Carlisle Gates are located. The Truman Gate has recently been enlarged and 

relocated closer to Aberdeen Avenue. 

Traffic Volumes 

Table 3-3 below shows the most recent (1999) traffic data for the roads and intersections 

within the project area. Because the base is the largest employer in the Albuquerque area, it 

is the principal commuting destination on the southeastern side of the city. 

Table 3-3. 1999 Kirtland Base Traffic Analysis Data 

Street/Arterial and 

Location 

Carlisle Boulevard (south 

of Carlisle Gate) 

Maxwell Street (north of 

Aberdeen) 

Truman Street (south of 

Truman Gate) 

Lanes 

Speed 

A.M. Peak 

Hour 

Volume 

P.M. Peak 

Hour 

Volume 

4 25 699 579 

2 15 38 55 

2 25 980 859 

Intersection ADT a Peak Hour Peak 

Car/hour 

Carlisle Boulevard and 

Aberdeen Avenue 

Truman and Aberdeen 

Avenue 

Average 

Car/hour 

4,512 6:45 a.m. 903 188 

8,904 6:45 a.m. 1,083 371 

Source: Kirtland AFB 1999. 

a 

Notes: ADT is Average Daily Traffic or the number of vehicles in a 24-hour period. 




3.8.2 IMPACTS ON TRANSPORTATION 

Impacts to transportation and circulation are assessed by determining an action’s potential 

to change current transportation patterns, systems, service, and safety. Impacts may arise 

from physical changes to circulation (e.g. closing, rerouting, or creating roads), construction 

activity temporarily disrupting existing local-area traffic patterns, or changes in daily or 

peak-hour traffic volumes created by workforce and population changes related to 

installation activities. 

Potential impacts to transportation and circulation from the Proposed Action were analyzed 

by: (1) identifying and describing transportation and circulation that could affect or be 

affected by the project; and (2) examining the effects the action may have on the resource. 

Roadways, intersections, and gates are in the area are shown in Figure 3-3. 

Construction: Construction of the proposed BEL would have a minor short-term impact on 

transportation as a result of increased traffic from construction vehicles and heavy-duty 

equipment. All construction traffic would enter the base via the Kirtland Gate, where 

complete inspections of trucks and commercial vehicles occur. Heavy construction 

equipment would likely be left on base for the duration of construction. Once on the base, 

construction vehicles and contractor’s vehicles would access the site via Aberdeen Avenue. 

There would be a minor increase in both off-base and on-base traffic during the 

construction period, particularly during the morning peak hours. The overall impact would 

be insignificant. 

Operations: Operation of the BEL would require approximately 250 to 265 additional 

personnel at the base; most of these workers would live off-base and travel via local roads 

to the Carlisle or Truman Gates to the base to either the preferred site or the alternative site. 

The work schedule at the BEL would be staggered by two and one-half hours, so that 

workers would not arrive or leave all at once. Therefore, approximately 100 cars per hour 

would be added to the morning and evening peak numbers at the Carlisle and Truman 

Gates. An additional 50 cars at each gate would result in a minor traffic increase of seven 

percent at the Carlisle Gate and five percent at the Truman Gate, based on the peak 

numbers of 699 and 980 cars as shown in Table 3-3, which is not considered to be 

significant. 


AFRL 


Impacts to Transportation: 


Short-term 

Insignificant 

Negative 


Permanent 

Insignificant 

Negative 

3.9 UTILITIES 

3.9.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS OF UTILITIES 

The following is a summary of basic utility information for Kirtland, which applies to the 

BEL and CDL sites: 

• Water is obtained from five wells at depths of 450 to 1,000 feet in the Albuquerque 

Regional Water Basin. The supply and quality of water is considered adequate for 

present and future needs on the installation. 

• Wastewater is discharged into the City of Albuquerque wastewater treatment system 

via the base sanitary sewer system. Solid municipal waste is removed offsite to the 

Waste Management New Mexico’s Rio Rancho landfill facility. Construction debris is 

disposed of at a landfill on Kirtland. 

• Electric power is supplied by Public Service of New Mexico (PNM). 

• Kirtland operates its own telephone switching system. 

Water and sewer lines, fire hydrants, and communications lines are available adjacent to 

both sites, within 300 meters. Some abandoned sewer lines are on the site from previous 

housing, which would be removed during construction. Electric power is available nearby, 

but would require construction of a substation. 

3.9.2 IMPACTS ON UTILITIES 

Construction: Construction of the BEL and CDL would result in a short-term increase in 

construction solid waste, which would be disposed of by the contractor at a Class D landfill. 

Water and portable latrines would be supplied by the contractor. 




Substation 25 on Kirtland Drive; the substation for the 

BEL will be similar in appearance, although it may be 

somewhat smaller. 

Operations: There would be a 12/15/20 

MVA electrical substation for the BEL 

building that would be sited east of the 

BEL, on the east side of Maxwell St., 

northwest of the Bioenvironmental 

Engineering building (this is the former 

chapel, now used by Bioenvironmental 

Engineering, the 377 ABW occupational 

health and safety organization). The 

substation would be about 40’ x 40’, 

surrounded by an 8’ wall, and 46 KV 

overhead lines would come into the 

substation from the power line on 

Aberdeen, along Maxwell St. All other 

utilities for the BEL are sufficient and do 

not require additional capacity to meet the 

needs of the Proposed Action. 

Utilities are available and sufficient for the CDL at the alternative site. The CDL would use 

the BEL substation. The utility capabilities are somewhat greater at the BEL site, but the 

difference is insignificant, and both sites have adequate utility capabilities. 

Operations at the BEL are not expected to have a detrimental effect on nearby electrical 

supplies, communications, or aircraft. No interference problems have occurred at Hanscom. 

The impact to utilities by the BEL and CDL would be insignificant. 

Impacts to Utilities: 


Short-term 

Insignificant 

Negative 


Permanent 

Insignificant 

Negative 


AFRL 


3.10 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES/HEALTH AND 

SAFETY 

3.10.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC 

SUBSTANCES 

Hazardous materials (HAZMAT) and chemicals are used across Kirtland as part of vehicle 

and aircraft maintenance, research laboratories, and other industrial uses. The purchase, 

storage, and tracking of HAZMAT, and the disposal of hazardous waste (HW) are 

specifically addressed by separate management plans. 

Hazardous Material Management, AFI 32-7086 and KAFBI 32-7001, establish procedures 

and standards that govern management of HAZMAT throughout the Air Force. The 

Hazardous Materials Management Process (HMMP) portion of this document specifies the 

activities and infrastructure required to identify, manage, track, and minimize HAZMAT on 

Air Force installations. According to this process, HAZMAT for the BEL cannot be 

purchased until approved by three Kirtland authorizing offices, which include Civil 

Engineering, Safety, and Bioenvironmental Engineering. Any HAZMAT procured for the 

BEL would be tracked from cradle to grave by the standardized Air Force HAZMAT 

tracking system. 

Kirtland’s Hazardous Materials Spill Plan is designed to prevent spills and minimize 

hazards to human health and the environment in the event that an unplanned release of 

HAZMAT does take place. This plan includes a description of actions to be taken, and a list 

of emergency coordinators that must be contacted should a spill occur. 

In addition to these Kirtland-wide requirements, plans, and processes, a Safety Permit, 

Safety Operating Instructions, and Test Hazardous Analysis will be developed specifically 

for hazards associated with the BEL once personnel arrive on site and before the materials 

are ordered and received. 

Chemical Purchases 

Purchases of chemicals for the BEL at Hanscom from the past several years were reviewed. 

The great majority of chemical purchases are less than 1 kilogram (kg). A summary of 

chemicals that were purchased in quantities greater than 10 kg over the past several years is 

presented below in Table 3-4. Although this list is from past purchases at Hanscom, it is 

expected that purchase and use of chemicals would be similar in the future, unless 

otherwise noted. However, these quantities represent purchases over several years, and the 

amounts on hand at any given time would generally be much smaller than the totals 

purchased. 




Table 3-4. Major Chemical Purchases at the Current BEL 

Amounts 

of 

Chemical 

Purchased 

Chemical 

Labs Purchasing 

Chemical 

Chemical’s 

Use 

10 to 100 kg Freon 13 refrigerant Space Particles Experiments 

Carbon monoxide 

Space Chemistry, Plasma 

Chemistry, IV Surveillance 

Experiments 

Neon 

Space Chemistry, IV 

Surveillance 

Experiments 

Diffoil-20 


Instrument 

maintenance 

Pump oil 


Instrument 

maintenance 

Hydrogen cyanide Plasma Chemistry Experiments 

Hydrogen gas Plasma Chemistry Experiments 

Hydrochloric acid Plasma Chemistry Experiments 

Krypton Plasma Chemistry Experiments 

Methanol Plasma Chemistry Experiments 

100 to 1,000 

kg 

1,000 to 

10,000 kg 

Nitrous oxide LABCEDE Experiments 

d-limonene dipentenes 

(citrus extract) 

Argon 

Helium gas 

Space Particles 


Chemistry, IV Surveillance 

Mass Spec 

Experiments 

Experiments 

Fill balloons for 

flights 

Liquid nitrogen Space Particles Experiments 

Xenon gas 


Chemistry 

Experiments 

Nitrogen gas 


Chemistry 

Experiments 

Carbon dioxide gas Mass Spec. Experiments 

>10,000 kg Liquid carbon dioxide Space Particles Experiments 

Helium gas Plasma Chemistry, Mass Spec. Experiments 

Oxygen gas Mass Spec. Experiments 


AFRL 


3.10.2 IMPACT OF HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES 

Construction: Construction would temporarily cause a very small increase in hazardous 

materials used and wastes generated, mainly petroleum, oils, and lubricants used by 

construction equipment and disposed of as hazardous waste by the contractor. Fueling of 

construction vehicles would occur off-site. Most of the wastes would be non-hazardous 

construction debris, disposed of in a Class D landfill, as discussed in Section 3.9, or 

recycled. 

Operations: Most of the chemicals used by the BEL at Hanscom AFB have been 

purchased and used in quantities less than 1 kg. Inert and combustible gases have been 

purchased and used in quantities of up to 10,000 kg. A list of chemicals purchased in 

amounts greater than 10 kg is presented in Table 3-4 of Section 3.10.1. Additional 

information about the potential hazards for any of these chemicals can be found on Material 

Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs). Sources of more information about MSDSs and databases of 

MSDSs may be found at: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/chem/internet.html or 

https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/MSDS/msds.html. The chemicals 

purchased in amounts larger than 100 kg, or otherwise of concern, are the following: 

• Hydrogen cyanide (HCN). There was one purchase of HCN just over 22 kg. This is 

listed as an extremely hazardous substance under EPCRA, with a threshold planning 

quantity of 100 lbs (45.4 kg) and a reportable quantity of 10 lbs (4.5 kg). It is highly 

toxic; breathing in a small amount of the gas or swallowing a very small amount can be 

fatal. At high concentrations it is readily absorbed through the skin. The HCN 

purchased was a dilute mixture of gaseous, anhydrous HCN in an inert buffer gas. The 

chemical is not currently being used at the BEL, and any unused amounts will be 

disposed of as hazardous waste before relocation to Kirtland. It is not anticipated that it 

will be used in the future. However, even if it were required in the future, it would not 

be a BEL off-site threat because it is used in small quantities and appropriate 

HAZMAT and safety procedures will be developed and approved before purchasing 

the chemical. These procedures will ensure proper handling and storage of hydrogen 

cyanide to avoid threats to occupants and workers. 

• Inert gases, including argon, xenon, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and helium. Although 

these gases are not directly toxic, they can be an asphyxiant by replacing oxygen. They 

are not a BEL off-site threat because natural dispersion would reduce concentrations to 

below asphyxiant concentrations; inert gases are generally only a concern in confined 

spaces. Appropriate HAZMAT and safety procedures will be developed and approved 

before purchasing the chemical. These procedures will ensure proper handling and 

storage of inert gases to avoid threats to occupants and workers. Helium gas could be 

subject to reporting under EPCRA if it were stored in quantities greater than 10,000 lbs 




(4,536 kg), although the quantities shown in 

Table 3-4 represent purchases over several 

years. These gases have been stored in small 

cylinders in locked laboratory rooms. 

• D-limonene. This chemical is a citrus extract 

and is non-toxic, but is combustible with a flash 

point of approximately 123˚F. However, d- 

limonene is no longer used at the BEL, and it is 

not anticipated that it will be purchased or used 

in the future. 

• Liquid carbon dioxide. When exposed to the 

atmosphere, liquid carbon dioxide becomes a 

solid and can cause frostbite from direct 

exposure to skin. It is also an asphyxiant. Liquid 

carbon dioxide would be stored securely in the 

laboratories, and would not be an off-site threat. 

Appropriate HAZMAT and safety procedures 

will be developed and approved before 

purchasing the chemical. These procedures will 

ensure proper handling and storage of liquid 

carbon dioxide to avoid threats to occupants and 

workers. It could be subject to reporting under 

EPCRA if it were stored in quantities greater 

than 10,000 lbs (4,536 kg), although the 

quantities shown in Table 3-4 represent 

purchases over several years. 

• Oxygen. Oxygen vigorously supports the 

combustion of other materials. It would be 

stored securely in the laboratories. It could be 

subject to reporting under EPCRA reporting if it 

were stored in quantities greater than 10,000 lbs 

EPCRA 

The Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act 

(EPCRA) was passed by 

Congress in 1986. EPCRA was 

included as Title III of the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA) and 

is sometimes referred to as SARA 

Title III. EPCRA provides for the 

collection of information 

regarding the use, storage, 

production, and release of 

hazardous chemicals, thereby 

helping to increase emergency 

planners /responders and the 

public’s knowledge and access to 

this information. States and 

communities, working with 

facilities, can use the information 

to improve emergency planning, 

chemical safety and protect public 

health and the environment. 

EPCRA requires facilities that 

have chemicals that require 

Material Safety Data Sheets 

(MSDSs), and that store more 

than the EPCRA threshold 

quantity for any of these 

chemicals, to submit a list of these 

chemicals, or copies of their 

(4,536 kg), although quantities shown in Table 3-4 represent purchases over several 

years. Appropriate HAZMAT and safety procedures will be developed and approved 

before purchasing the chemical. These procedures will ensure proper handling and 

storage of oxygen to avoid threats to occupants and workers. 

• Liquid nitrogen. Liquid nitrogen could be subject to reporting under EPCRA reporting 

if it were stored in quantities greater than 10,000 lbs (4,536 kg), although quantities 


AFRL 


listed in Table 3-4 represent purchases over several years. It is an extremely cold 

(-321°F) liquefied gas, commonly used as a coolant. It can cause frostbite. Liquid 

nitrogen requires proper storage containers; currently it is stored in 1200 gallon dewars 

outside the building at Hanscom, and would have a similar storage arrangement at 

Kirtland. It is not a BEL off-site threat because of limited access to the site, and the 

nature of the hazard. Appropriate HAZMAT and safety procedures will be developed 

and approved before purchasing the chemical. These procedures will ensure proper 

handling and storage of liquid nitrogen to avoid threats to occupants and workers. 

Hazardous wastes generated at the BEL would be similar to others at the AFRL and Initial 

Accumulation Points (IAPs) would be established at the points of generation to collect and 

temporarily store hazardous wastes. Because most of the hazardous materials identified in 

Table 3-4 would be consumed in experiments, only small quantities of hazardous wastes 

would result. All hazardous waste generated would be managed in accordance with 

Kirtland’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan. 

All of the chemicals are expected to have a minimal impact. All hazardous materials would 

be managed in accordance with Kirtland’s Hazardous Material Management directives 

including purchase, storage and handling procedures and policies. Because the BEL is in 

operation at Hanscom, any AFRL specific safety procedures have been identified and are 

currently in place to ensure that all chemicals used in the laboratory are stored and handled 

properly. 

Impacts from Hazardous and Toxic Substances: 


Short-term 

Insignificant 

Negative 


Permanent 

Insignificant 

Negative 




3.11 SOCIOECONOMICS 

3.11.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS OF SOCIOECONOMICS 

A socioeconomic analysis includes 

an assessment of impacts that an 

action has on such things as 

demographics (population, ethnicity), 

economy and employment, income 

levels, housing, health and social 

services, educational resources, and 

other related features. Basic facts 

related to the Region of Influence 

(ROI) and Kirtland are presented 

below in Table 3-5. 

Region of Influence (ROI) 

The area affected by the relocation, sometimes 

called the Region of Influence or Economic 

Impact Region, is considered for this EA to be 

Bernalillo County. This area includes the City of 

Albuquerque. Figures from the Kirtland website’s 

Economic Impact Statement are for a slightly 

larger area including Sandoval, Bernalillo, and 

Valencia Counties. 

Table 3-5. Socioeconomic Facts about the Region of Influence 

(Bernalillo County) and Kirtland 

Size 1200 square miles in area (Bernalillo County, 2007) 

Economic Center of ROI 

Main Economic Sectors 

Population of ROI 

Ethnicity and Age of 

Population 

Income 

City of Albuquerque 

Service industry, retail trade, and government. (Mid Region 

Council of Governments, 2007). 

603,652 in 2006, an increase of 10.6 percent from April 2000 

when the last census was taken. The population in the City of 

Albuquerque was estimated to be 471,856 in 2003, an increase 

of 5.1 percent from April 2000. (US Census Bureau, 2007). 

Although 87.6% of the population claims to be white, about 

44% claim to have Hispanic or Latino origin. About 4.9% claim 

American Indian origin, and about 3.3% claim to be black. 

24% of population is under 18 years of age. 

7% of population is under 5 years of age. 

Personal per capita income in Bernalillo County in 2005 was 

$32,556 (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2007). Median 

household income in 2003 was $41,062 (US Census Bureau, 

2007). Annual average unemployment rates in 2000 and 2001 

within the ROI were at 3 and 3.4 percent, respectively. 


AFRL 


The Albuquerque Public Schools operate a total of 131 schools: 

84 elementary schools, 26 middle schools, 11 high schools and 

Schools 

10 alternative schools. The closest school to the BEL location is 

Kirtland Elementary School, located within one mile of the 

Carlisle Gate. There are also numerous schools in the ROI. 

In 2005, there were 266,266 single family housing units in 

Housing 

Bernalillo County, with an average value of $128,300 (US 

Census, 2007). 

Both the county and the city operate extensive parks 

departments, with parks, open space, community centers, 

Parks and Recreation fitness centers, golf courses, tennis courts, and organized sports 

programs (City of Albuquerque, 2007, Bernalillo County, 

2007). 

Kirtland Employment Kirtland AFB had 21,789 employees in FY 2005 (USAF 2005). 

Kirtland AFB expenditures in FY 2005, including payroll, 

Kirtland Expenditures 

totaled nearly $3.5 billion. 

Kirtland’s Economic 

Importance 

The goods and services purchased by base employees in the 

local area create secondary jobs and wages, further adding to 

the base’s total economic importance to the local area. The 

economic contribution (dollar impact) of Kirtland AFB to the 

local economy in FY 2002 was estimated at nearly $4.4 billion 

(USAF 2005). 

3.11.2 IMPACTS TO SOCIOECONOMICS 

Construction: Construction of the BEL would result in minor, beneficial short-term 

socioeconomic impacts. The estimated cost of the project is $42,700,000, including labor 

and supplies for all buildings and supporting facilities. The local economy would benefit 

from purchase of construction materials and payment of salaries to construction workers. 

Contracts for construction equipment leasing or purchase would also have a temporary, 

beneficial economic impact. 

Operations: Long-term socioeconomic impacts would result from the relocation of 

personnel for the BEL which would add approximately the following numbers of personnel 

and their families to the ROI: 

• 153 USAF government civilians (average government pay scale of GS-13 to GS-15, 

with annual salary ranges from $66,951 to $120,981 (US Office of Personnel 

Management, 2007) 

• 35 military (26 officers, mid-level captains; mid-range of $58,500) 

• 9 enlisted (mid-level staff sergeants; E-5 mid-range of $28,824) 

• 75 contractors (similar to government pay scale for GS-13 to GS-15) 




With the exception of enlisted pay, which does not include allowances over $10,000, these 

pay scales are significantly higher than the median household income in Bernalillo County. 

The relocated families will in turn spend this money on taxes, housing, food, entertainment, 

which will all benefit the local economy. When jobs are created at the base, there is an 

indirect creation of jobs off the base to service the new residents. Using a multiplier of 1.4 

for civilian and contractor personnel, and a multiplier of 0.41 for active duty military 

(USAF 2005), the local economy would likely see the need for an additional 337 jobs. This 

translates to an additional $10,970,000 dollars in wages per year, as determined by 

multiplying jobs created times the average per capita income of $32,556 for Bernalillo 

County. Operation of the BEL would result in beneficial impacts to the local economy. 

Most employees of the BEL will be housed off-base, which will result in economic benefits 

due to purchasing of houses or renting of living quarters. Some employees may choose to 

live in privatized on-base housing. The employees and their families living off-base will 

find housing throughout the ROI, therefore additional residents will be spread throughout 

the area and will not constitute a significant new population that would place stress on 

public services or amenities in any one location. Although the public school system in 

Albuquerque is extensive, the region is growing rapidly, some schools are overcrowded and 

portable classrooms are used in some locations (Albuquerque Public Schools, 2004). 

Bernalillo County is also designated as a medically underserved area (US Department 

Health and Human Services, 2007). Addition of new families associated with the BEL 

project will place some additional demands on these sectors, although since the families 

will likely settle throughout the ROI, demand for new services in any area will be minor. 

Near Kirtland, existing housing is available for sale or rent, and the area is fairly well 

developed. Although new housing is limited by the Sandia Indian Reservation to the north 

of Albuquerque, Isleta Indian Reservation to the south, and the Sandia Mountains/Cibola 

National Forest to the east, there are several areas, including the West Mesa area across the 

Rio Grande and the area east of the Sandia Mountains, where new housing developments 

are planned. Municipal services are available in all areas. There will therefore be some 

minor long-term socioeconomic impacts. 


AFRL 


Impacts to Socioeconomics: 


Short-term 

Insignificant 

Positive 


Permanent 

Insignificant 

Positive 

3.12 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND PROTECTION OF 

CHILDREN 

3.12.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 

Environmental Justice: All federal agencies must identify and address disproportionately 

high and adverse effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and lowincome 

populations. As shown in Table 3-5 in Section 3.11.1, although over 87% of the 

population claims to be white, 44% of the population claims Hispanic origin. Over 14% of 

the population is living below the poverty level. Although the site is completely within the 

Kirtland boundaries with limited access, there are residential areas and businesses off-base 

along Gibson Boulevard near the preferred or alternative site. 

Protection of Children: All federal agencies must also identify and address environmental 

health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. As shown in Table 

3-5 in Section 3.11.1, 24% of the population is under 18 years of age, and 7% of the 

population is under 5 years old. The nearest school is Kirtland Elementary School located 

southwest of Carlisle and Gibson, across Carlisle from the site. Residential areas are offbase, 

approximately 1/4 mile north of the site. Access to the base is limited. 

3.12.2 IMPACTS ON CHILDREN, MINORITIES, AND LOW-INCOME 

POPULATIONS 

Although the Albuquerque ROI has relatively high percentages of children, minority, and 

low-income populations, the BEL relocation would not have any significant adverse 

environmental impacts and, therefore, would not disproportionately affect these 

communities. The site of the new construction is 1/4 mile from the nearest residential area; 

therefore noise and air emissions are not expected to impact any residents or workers, and 

any effects would be short-term and temporary. There would be no displacement of 




commercial enterprises, housing, parks, schools, churches, or other recreational or cultural 

activities. 

Potential hazards from chemicals and materials are limited to safety hazards for workers 

from inert and combustible materials. Any increased noise is minor and would be 

attenuated by distance. Air emissions from construction and operations would be negligible. 

Therefore there are no disproportionate impacts to populations identified in Executive 

Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations and an Environmental Justice analysis is not required. 

Although Kirtland Elementary School is across Carlisle from the site, the children there and 

in residences north of Gibson Boulevard would not be affected by the action. The proposed 

construction sites are on a controlled-entry installation and children are not likely to come 

in contact with or ingest any substances associated with the construction or operation of the 

BEL or CDL. There are no substances associated with this action which are expected to 

create an environmental health risk or safety risk believed to disproportionately affect 

children as identified in Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children. 

Disproportionate Impacts to Children, Minorities, and Low-income 

Populations: 


No disproportionate Impacts 


No Disproportionate Impacts 


AFRL 


Section 4 Cumulative Effects 

4.1 APPROACH 

CEQ regulations stipulate that the cumulative effects analysis in an EA should consider the 

potential environmental impacts resulting from “the incremental impacts of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Recent CEQ guidance 

in considering cumulative effects affirms this requirement, stating that the first steps in 

assessing cumulative effects involves defining the scope of the other actions and their 

interrelationship with a Proposed Action. The scope must consider other projects that 

coincide with the location and timetable of a Proposed Action and other actions. 

Cumulative effects analyses must also evaluate the nature of interactions among these 

actions (CEQ 1997). 

The following factors were used to determine which resources might have cumulative 

effects from this Proposed Action and other projects: 

• Projects that have occurred or will occur in a similar geographic location – in general, 

this includes projects that will occur on the developed west side of the base. 

• Projects that would be likely to have a similar effect on a resource. 

• A resource that is particularly vulnerable in the past, present, or in the future. 

• Assessments that have identified a cumulative effects concern in the area. 

A cumulative effects assessment looks at a combination of the resources affected and other 

projects that have occurred, are occurring, or will occur, to determine if there are problems 

with the combination of incremental effects from multiple projects. 

Resources that have no impact from the BEL project are not considered. Resources that 

have an insignificant, temporary, or positive impact from the BEL are considered, but not 

given as much weight as those with significant, long-term or permanent, and negative 

impacts. 

Kirtland is a large, active military installation that undergoes changes in mission and in 

training requirements. This process of change is consistent with the DoD policy that 

military installations must be ready to respond to constantly changing threats to American 

interests throughout the world. Projects that were examined for potential cumulative 

impacts include the following: 




Table 4-1. List of Past, Present, and Future Projects with Potential 

Cumulative Effects 

Project 

Name/Status 

Starbase 

Completed in 2003 

Demolition and 

replacement of aging 

housing 

In areas near sites 

(Maxwell housing), 

demolition should be 

finished by 2019. 

58 th Special 

Operations Wing 

(SOW) beddown of 

the CV-22 and 

CSAR-X 

Four helicopters 

have arrived in 2006 

CSAR-X arrive in 

FY10 

Construction of the 

Corrosion Control 

Facility and HC- 

130P Flight 

Simulator Facility 

Currently being 

built; to be finished 

in 2008 

Description 

2,940 square-foot facility built at the 

southern intersection of Argus Loop and 

Project Drive for skill development of atrisk 

youth. 

Vacant old military housing that is 

currently being demolished on an 

occasional basis as new housing is made 

available on and off base. Demolition and 

construction have occurred in areas that 

have been previously disturbed, including 

the preferred BEL site and parts of the 

CDL (alternative BEL) site. The area 

closest to the sites are the Maxwell 

housing, across Gibson to the north. 

Project replaces 11 aging MH-53 

helicopters with seven CV-22 tilt-rotor 

aircraft. Four other helicopters and three 

HC-130P fixed wing aircraft are also 

planned, with renovation of existing 

facilities. CSAR-X helicopters will replace 

Pave Hawks (HH-60G). 

Corrosion Control Facility and Flight 

Simulator Facility in 58 SOW campus on 

west side. The Corrosion Control Facility 

on Doris Avenue is an aircraft spot 

painting facility and will employ 

approximately 10 personnel. 

Potential to Coincide in 

Time and Space 

(Projects with potential 

cumulative effects are bold) 

Construction already completed; 

operations impacts, such as 

traffic, were already considered 

as part of existing conditions in 

determining BEL impacts. 

Demolition and construction of 

Maxwell housing does not 

coincide in timing with BEL. 

New housing replaces old 

housing and does not add 

cumulative effects. 

Potential for cumulative 

impacts with BEL from 

operations in noise and 

emissions. 

Construction to be completed 

before BEL construction. 

Operations will be concurrent 

with BEL, and is on the west 

side; potential for cumulative 

effects in air emissions. 


AFRL 


Project 

Name/Status 

Development of the 

PJ/CRO campus 

Will occur one 

building at a time; if 

Congressional insert 

fails this year, it will 

be several years 

away. 

Development of 

Kirtland Technology 

Park 

Area 2; no schedule 

at this time 

Bulk fuels storage 

tanks construction 

and off-loading 

facility 

New offload facility 

to be completed 

FY09; new tanks to 

be completed 2010 

Component 

Development Lab, 

part of Phase 1 of 

the KTP 

Construction to 

begin as early as 

2009 

Description 

Construction of a pararescue and 

parajumper (PJ/CRO) training facility in a 

previously disturbed area in the central part 

of the installation. 

Construction and operation of Area 2 of 

the KTP, consisting of 92 acres under an 

Enhanced Use Lease (from Maxwell east 

to the VA property, north of Aberdeen). 

Although the KTP may include 

development of the present Maxwell 

housing Area in the future, this would not 

occur for ten to fifteen years. For that 

reason only the potential for cumulative 

impacts with Area 2 is addressed in this 

analysis. The exact nature of the 

development is not yet determined, 

because the company that gets the lease 

will determine development. The 

development will be compatible with 

surrounding uses. The development could 

have its own direct entrance onto Kirtland. 

Aging bulk fuels storage facility adjacent 

to the Air National Guard property north of 

runway 08-26 (east-west runway) to be 

renovated or replaced. This project 

replaces tanks already in place, and cleans 

up past contamination. 

The CDL would provide a state-of-the-art 

high-tech industrial facility with 

laboratories and clean rooms to support 

space vehicles component development, as 

well as provide administrative space. CDL 

has not been funded for 2008, but it 

remains a potential Congressional insert. 





Construction will likely be much 

later than BEL construction. 

Operations could have 

cumulative effects with BEL. 

Construction is not yet scheduled, 

so this project is not yet ripe for 

consideration of cumulative 

effects. The exact nature of the 

development is also 

undetermined, and thus the 

operations are not yet ripe for 

analysis of cumulative effects. 

Construction would have some 

overlap with the BEL, and 

could have cumulative effects 

for air emissions and noise. 

Because the project is replacing 

older tanks, there will be no 

additional cumulative effects 

from operations. 

Construction could be 

concurrent with the BEL if 

funding is approved in the next 

year. Operations would be 

concurrent and nearby and 

have potential cumulative 

effects. 




Project 

Name/Status 

Jenkins Armed 

Forces Reserve 

Center (BRAC) 

Construction to be 

completed in 2009. 

National Defense 

Technology Center 

(NDTC) 

On hold. 

Description 

The closure of the Jenkins Armed Forces 

Reserve Center in Albuquerque, and the 

transfer of between 24 and 36 permanent 

positions to Kirtland and a 114,000 square 

foot construction project on east side 

approximately 10 miles from BEL and 

CDL sites, near Pennsylvania & Wyoming. 

Majority of personnel movements are on 

weekends. 

The AFRL has lowered the priority for 

construction of the NDTC, and will not 

begin construction for the foreseeable 

future. 





Construction may have a brief 

overlap with the BEL. Although 

this project is on the east side of 

the base, it is a sizeable 

construction project and could 

have cumulative effects with the 

BEL on socioeconomics and air 

quality. 

Since this project is on indefinite 

hold, cumulative impacts cannot 

be assessed. Construction would 

be after completion of the BEL. 

Antenna Farm 

After construction of 

the BEL 

Relocation of 

correctional 

functions to Marine 

Corps Air Station 

(MCAS) Miramar 

(BRAC) 

Scheduled for FY10 

Aircraft from 

Cannon AFB 

(BRAC) 

To be completed by 

2011 

Antenna farm to support activities of the 

BEL, expected to be located in the 

southern part of Kirtland, several miles 

from the BEL. 

This BRAC action will relocate the 

correctional functions from Kirtland to 

MCAS-Miramar, consolidating various 

functions. Approximately 13 positions will 

relocate. There is no construction or 

demolition associated with this relocation. 

The 150 th Fighter Wing will gain three to 

six Block 30 F-16 aircraft from Cannon 

AFB, NM. No new facilities or personnel. 

There will probably be no new sorties 

flown, though there could be a small 

increase. 

Construction would be after BEL 

construction. Operations are too 

distant from BEL to have 

cumulative impacts. 

No construction or demolition is 

part of this project. Operations 

could have cumulative effects 

with BEL on socioeconomics. 

No construction is part of this 

project. Operations of aircraft 

could have potential cumulative 

effects with BEL on noise and 

emissions. 

4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

In general, actions that are occurring on the west side are more likely to have cumulative 

impacts with the BEL. The minor impacts found from the construction and operations of 

the BEL are ones that are not affected by, and do not affect, projects at a distance. The 

Jenkins Armed Forces Reserve Center (east side project) was considered because it is a 


AFRL 


larger project. Projects that do not occur at the same time as the BEL would not have 

cumulative impacts where the impacts are from construction. 

A summary of the potential cumulative impacts associated with the construction and 

operation of the BEL and other projects is presented below. 

4.2.1 LAND USE 

The BEL would have no impacts on land use, so there are no potential cumulative effects 

with other actions. 

4.2.2 VISUAL RESOURCES 

The construction of the BEL would cause short-term, minor, negative impacts. There could 

be a time overlap with the construction of the CDL if funding is approved in the next year. 

Any other construction projects are not close enough to be visible at the same time as the 

BEL, and would not affect visual resources. The cumulative effects with the CDL from 

construction are nevertheless expected to be insignificant. As noted in Section 3.3.2, the 

construction equipment is separated from facilities to the south by a parking lot for the BEL 

site and a water tower for the CDL site. The Bioenvironmental Engineering building 

between the sites would be more visually impacted. However, the impacts are temporary 

and minimal as there are few windows facing the construction area. Persons walking in the 

area are primarily walking to and from the Bioenvironmental Engineering building, and 

impacts to visual resources would be for only sort periods of time. 

These effects would also be offset by the permanent, positive benefits to the visual 

resources of the area. The area is currently bare earth, weeds, and trees that have reached 

the end of their lives, which would be improved by the BEL and CDL buildings and 

landscaping. 

4.2.3 AIR QUALITY 

Construction is expected to generate short-term, insignificant, negative impacts from 

equipment operation. Other projects that will coincide in time and space for construction 

include the bulk fuel storage tanks, the construction of the CDL, and the construction of the 

Jenkins AFRC. The offload facility for the bulk fuel storage tanks will be completed before 

construction for the BEL. Tank construction work is ongoing, but intermittent. Construction 

of the CDL would probably occur after BEL construction, but there could be some overlap. 

Construction of the Jenkins AFRC could have an overlap with the BEL of several months, 

but the Jenkins AFRC will be finished before CDL construction begins, and is 

approximately 10 miles from the BEL. The potential emissions and fugitive dust from 

construction equipment are minimal when compared to permitted levels for Kirtland, and 




even when considered with emissions from the CDL, Jenkins AFRC, and bulk fuel tank 

project, are still considered insignificant. 

Operations would cause permanent, negative impacts from heating and laboratory 

operations, expected to be about 100 pounds per year in emissions, plus possibly 400 

pounds per year in emissions from the standby generator, if needed. Other actions with 

potential ongoing air emissions include beddown of the CV-22 and CSAR-X aircraft, the 

CDL, Corrosion Control Facility, and aircraft from Cannon AFB. Emissions from CV-22, 

CSAR-X, and Cannon AFB aircraft are expected to be negligible because there are no new 

sorties expected from these actions. Even if sorties do increase, BEL emissions will occur at 

ground level and emissions from sorties will occur at higher altitudes, so the emissions will 

occur at different locations and have different air dispersal patterns. Emissions from the 

CDL are expected to be minimal. The Corrosion Control Facility will have a good emission 

control system on the facility, and emissions were dispersion modeled to sensitive and 

offsite receptors as part of the permit application to make sure ambient air quality standards 

would not be exceeded. 

Moreover, actual emissions from activities at Kirtland are much lower than current 

permitted values, and the air quality has improved in Bernalillo County in recent years. The 

emissions from the Proposed Action are negligible, so that when considered with these 

other projects, are not expected to have significant cumulative impacts on air quality. 

4.2.4 NOISE 

The construction and operation of the BEL is in a developed area, outside of the 65 dBA 

day-night level. The closest residences are separated from the site by streets with associated 

traffic and noise. 

Construction is expected to generate short-term, insignificant, negative noise impacts from 

equipment operation. Other projects that could coincide in time and space for construction 

include the bulk fuel storage tanks and the construction of the CDL. The construction 

related to the bulk fuels project is too far away to have cumulative effects with the BEL. 

Construction of the CDL would probably occur after BEL construction, but there could be 

some overlap. Although the Bioenvironmental Engineering building is between the BEL 

and CDL sites, personnel working in the Bioenvironmental Engineering and other office 

buildings work inside the buildings, which would provide buffering from noise. Personnel 

walking to and from the Bioenvironmental Engineering building would have only 

occasional exposure to these noise levels, which would not be significant. 

Other actions with potential ongoing noise impacts include beddown of the CV-22 and 

CSAR-X aircraft, the CDL, and aircraft from Cannon AFB. No new sorties are expected 


AFRL 


from the CV-22, CSAR-X, and Cannon AFB actions, although the Cannon AFB aircraft (F- 

16s) have a loud noise signature. There are no noise-sensitive activities, such as schools, 

daycare, or hospitals that are close enough to the site to be affected by BEL operations in 

combination with aircraft. 

Noise impacts from the construction and operation of the CDL are expected to be minimal. 

The vacuum pumps at the BEL would be outside the building, and would be enclosed by 

walls to provide noise attenuation for both inside and outside the building. Thus, the 

cumulative impacts of the BEL and other actions are not considered significant. 

4.2.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The BEL and CDL sites are in an area that is developed and has been heavily disturbed by 

grading and demolition activities, and very little vegetation or wildlife is in the area. 

Other projects that could coincide in time and space for construction include the 

construction of the CDL. Construction of the CDL would probably occur after BEL 

construction, but there could be some overlap. Although there are no burrowing owl nests 

currently located on either the BEL or the CDL sites, the owls do vary their nesting sites 

from year to year. During construction, there is the possibility that a nest could be 

disturbed. Kirtland has standard mitigation procedures in conformance with the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act, should it be necessary to relocate an owl during any construction project. 

Because of the lack of owl presence, and mitigation procedures in place, the Proposed 

Action would not result in cumulative impacts when combined with other projects. 

Other projects that could coincide in time and space for potential impacts on biological 

resources from operations include the operation of the CDL. The proposed sites for the 

BEL and CDL are in developed areas, which are not suitable for quality wildlife habitat. In 

addition, the current state of the sites is not conducive to either vegetation or wildlife. 

Although construction of the BEL and CDL will permanently replace the dirt with hard 

structures and pavement, the area will also be landscaped, which will be an improvement 

over both of the present sites. Overall, due to the current status of both sites and their 

locations in a developed area, cumulative impacts to the biological resources of the area 

would be insignificant. 

4.2.6 WATER RESOURCES 

The impacts from both construction and operations on water resources are insignificant. 

The site is level, and in a previously disturbed, and developed area. Any erosion during 

construction would be mitigated by SWPPP measures, so that runoff would not impact 

other sites, projects, or waterways. Therefore, there are no cumulative impacts expected on 

water resources from construction. 




Overall water use on Kirtland has been decreasing in recent years. Any minimal increases 

in water usage from the BEL and other actions would be more than offset by the aggressive 

water conservation efforts in place, which has resulted in reductions of over 30% in the last 

ten years (see Section 3.62 above). As a result, there would be no significant cumulative 

impacts on water resources. 

There is the potential for cumulative effects from diminished groundwater recharged from 

multiple construction projects throughout Kirtland. In some cases, such as the Jenkins 

AFRC (occupying approximately 14 acres), retention basins are required to allow water to 

be retained on site and percolate back to the groundwater. The BEL site would be evaluated 

to see if a water retention basin would be appropriate, although it occupies a relatively 

small site (six acres). 

4.2.7 TRANSPORTATION 

The construction and operations of the BEL would cause minor, permanent, negative 

effects to the traffic flow in the area. Other actions with potential construction impacts to 

transportation include construction of the CDL. Construction vehicles for both of these 

projects would use a separate gate, Kirtland Gate. Further, the contractor for both projects 

would likely leave most equipment onsite during the project duration. 

The CDL operations are already on the west side; the operations are merely being 

consolidated into one building, so the CDL action would not affect the current traffic influx 

at the gates. Therefore, the increases in traffic from the BEL are not expected to have 

significant cumulative effects when combined with other actions. 

4.2.8 UTILITIES 

Current water resource systems including water supply and sanitary sewer are currently 

sufficient to accommodate growth and new facilities on base. Kirtland periodically 

upgrades utilities, including water storage and sanitary sewer systems. 

Other actions with potential ongoing impacts to utilities for both construction and 

operations include the CDL and Jenkins AFRC. The BEL project would include installation 

of a substation, which would meet the electrical needs of both the BEL and CDL projects. 

All other utilities are sufficient for all projects, so cumulative effects would not be 

significant. 


AFRL 


4.2.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OR TOXIC SUBSTANCES/HEALTH 

AND SAFETY 

The BEL could cause permanent, negative impacts from the hazardous and toxic substances 

used in the laboratories. Nearly all of the chemicals used are purchased and used in 

quantities less than 1 kg. Inert and combustible gases have been purchased and used in 

quantities of 10,000 kg spread out over several years. All of the chemicals are expected to 

have a minimal impact. 

Other actions with potential ongoing impacts to health and safety for both construction and 

operations include the CDL. For both actions, all hazardous materials would be managed in 

accordance with Kirtland’s Hazardous Materials Management directives for both 

construction and operations, including purchase, storage, and handling procedures and 

policies. Moreover, any potential health and safety hazards from the BEL are limited to the 

site itself. Therefore, the activities of the Proposed Action, when combined with other 

projects, would not create a public hazard or pose health risks or otherwise create 

significant cumulative impacts. 

4.2.10 SOCIOECONOMICS 

The construction and operations of the BEL would have minor, short-term and permanent, 

positive impacts on the economy of the region of interest, Bernalillo County. 

Other actions with potential ongoing impacts to socioeconomics for both construction and 

operations include the CDL, Jenkins AFRC, and the relocation of correctional personnel to 

MCAS Miramar. The relocation of personnel to MCAS Miramar is expected to only affect 

13 positions, and would have the opposite effect of the Proposed Action. The Jenkins 

AFRC action would also have a positive impact on the economy from construction. 

Because the action involves relocation of the activity within greater Albuquerque, it does 

not affect the socioeconomics on an ongoing basis. Therefore, any cumulative impacts from 

the Proposed Action and other actions would either offset negative impacts from other 

projects, or create more positive impacts. 




Section 5 List of People Consulted, 

Reviewers, and Preparers 

This Environmental Assessment was prepared for and under the direction of the AFRL at 

Kirtland AFB by Clover Leaf Environmental Solutions, Inc. The people consulted and 

technical reviewers are listed below in Table 5-1, followed by the list of people primarily 

responsible for preparing this report in Table 5-2. 

Table 5-1. List of People Consulted and Reviewers 

Evelyn Watkins, Ph.D. 

NEPA Program Manager 

377 MSG/CEVQ 


Valerie Renner 

Cultural Resources Management 

377 MSG/CEVQ 


Kent M. Friedrichsen 

Safety, Environmental, and Facilities Engineer 

Civ AFRL/VSOI 


Peter A. Broussard 

Real Property Business Developer 

Contr AFRL/VSOI 


Jennifer L. Dann 

Chief, Compliance Section 

Civ 377 MSG/CEVC 


Joel B. Mozer 

Civ. AFRL/VSBX 

Hanscom AFB 

Edward J. Lee 

BRAC Coordinator 

Civ, AFRL/VSOSF 

Hanscom AFB 

Donna K. Dunn 

Base Community Planner 

Contr 377 MSG/CECE 


Michael D. Gallegos, R.A. 

Chief, Infrastructure Management Branch 

AFRL/VSOI 


Brian D. Griffith, Maj. USAF 

AFRL/VSBY 

Hanscom AFB 

Michael W. Howell 

Senior Facility Engineer 

AFRL/VSOI 


William V. Sayner 

377 MSG/CECE 



AFRL 


Carol A. Finley 

Civ 377 MSG/CEVQ 

Natural Resources Program Manager 


John S. Pike 

Civ 377 MSG/CEVC 

Chief, Environmental Compliance Section 


Charles D. Crutchfield 

377 ABW/SEW 

Safety Officer 


Ron Lamb 

Conservation and Planning 

engineering-environmental Management, Inc. 

(e 2 M) 

Cassie D. Ringham-Chavez 

Civ AFRL/VSOI 


Deana DiGesu 

Contr 377 MSG/CECE 

Program Specialist 


Victoria Martinez 

Industrial Hygienist 

377 AMDS/SGPB 


Michael Moran 

Conservation and Planning 

engineering-environmental Management, Inc. 

(e 2 M) 

Table 5-2. List of Preparers 

Name Education/Experience Role in Preparing Document 

Mattie Allen 

Cynthia Brown 

Elaine Cappucci 

M.S. Environment Sciences 

B.S. Biology 

10 years Natural and Cultural 

Resources 

Clover Leaf Environmental 

Solutions, Inc. 

M.S. Earth and Planetary Science 

B.A. Geology 

18 years Regulatory Compliance 

and Pollution Prevention 



M.S. Environmental Management 

B.A. Biology 

11 years NEPA EIS and EA 

development 



Project Manager, Cultural 

Resources, Technical Review 

EA Preparation 

Socioeconomics and 

Transportation; Technical 

Review 




Name Education/Experience Role in Preparing Document 

Susan Gregory 

Angela Kirkman 

Robert Frei 

Dennis Peek 

Gina von Damm 

B.S. Environmental Engineering 

10 years Environmental consulting, 

air analysis, NEPA 


Consulting, Inc. 

B.S. Chemical Engineering 

12 years air analysis 

Present Energies, LLC 

B.S. Biology 

9 years biological surveys, plans 



M.A. Political Science 

B.S. Mechanical Engineering 

18 years environmental consulting, 

GIS 



M.S Geology 

B.S. Geology 

8 years environmental consulting, 

GIS 



Air Analysis and Hazardous and 

Toxic Substances 

Air Analysis 

Biological Assessment 

Site surveys, photo development 

Map development 


AFRL 


Section 6 References 

Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence 2004. ProAct FactSheet – Title V 

Operating Permit Program. August 2000-TI#21902. 

Albuquerque Public Schools, Fall, 2004. Public Presentation, Albuquerque Public Schools 

Capital Master Plan. 2006-2011 Capital Strategy. Available online: 

. 

AEHD 2000. Albuquerque 2000 Progress Report, Air Quality. Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County, New Mexico. 

Bernalillo County, 2007. Bernalillo County New Mexico website. Available online: 

. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce, 2007. Available online: 

. 

Canter, L.W. 1996. Environmental Impact Assessment 2d ed. McGraw-Hill Inc. 

CEQ 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the NEPA. CEQ. January 1997. 

City of Albuquerqe, Official City Website, 2007. Parks Department. Available online: 

. 

CFRs. National Archives and Records Administration Electronic CFR 2003. Retrieved 

September 24, 2006. Available online: . 

DOE, 2007. Presidential Awards for Leadership in Federal Energy Management for Water 

Conservation for a Small Group. [Note: water conservation data was taken from the 

award package; presentation of the award will be by DOE November 1, 2007.] 

EPA 1996. Federal Register Environmental Documents: Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; 

State of New Mexico; Approval of the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Program, Emissions Inventory, and Maintenance Plan; Redesignation to 

Attainment; Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New Mexico; CO. Accessed 5/2004. 




Available online: . 

EPA 2006. AirData. 2001 Tier Emissions Report for Criteria Air Pollutants, Bernalillo 

County. NM Emission Inventory. Accessed June 2006. Available online: 

. 

EPA 2003. EPA Publications. “Good Up High Bad Nearby” Office of Air and Radiation. 

EPA-451/K-03-001 June 2003. . 

EPA 2004. Air and Radiation. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Accessed 7/04. 

. 

Executive Orders. US National Archives and Records Administration Federal Register 

2003. Executive Orders Disposition Tables. Available online: 

. 

Federal Register 2003. EPA. Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities. Vol. 68, 

No. 126, p. 39087-39091. 

Finley, C. 2007. Kirtland AFB Natural Resources Manager. Personal communication with 

Rob Frei of Clover Leaf about the current locations of burrowing owls at Kirtland 

AFB. June. 

Kirtland AFB 2007. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for Kirtland Air Force 

Base, Albuquerque, NM, April 2007. 

Kirtland AFB 2006. Base Information. Kirtland AFB Base Information. Available online: 

. Last accessed 9/29/2005. 

Kirtland AFB 2002. Kirtland AFB Comprehensive General Plan. Kirtland AFB, New 

Mexico. 

Kirtland AFB 1999. CAA Transportation Intermodel Study. Phase I Traffic Analysis 

Report. April 30, 1999. 

Mid-Region Council of Governments, New Mexico. 2007. Available online: 

. 


AFRL 


Mid-Region Council of Governments 2003. 2025 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the 

Albuquerque Metropolitan Planning Area. 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 2004. Biota Information system of New 

Mexico (BISON-M) database. http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/states/nm.htm. 

New Mexico Department of Labor 2005. New Mexico Employment Statistics. Quarterly 

Census of Employment and Wages. Bernalillo County. First Quarter and Second 

Quarter 2004. Available online: . 

New Mexico Natural Heritage Program (NMNHP) 2003. NMNHP Species Information for 

Bernalillo County. Updated 7 November 2003. Available online: 

. 

Accessed 26 April 2004 

The official site of the NMAC, The Commission of Public Records Administrative Law 

Division. Available online: . 

Transportation Research Board 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. National Research 

Council, Washington, D.C. 

US Department of Health and Human Services, 2007. Health Resources and Services 

Information. Available online: . 

USAF 2007. USAF Air Conformity Applicability Model 4.3.3. Air Force Center for 

Environmental Excellence Brooks AFB, Texas. 

USAF 2007. Final 2005 Kirtland AFB Emissions Inventory. Kirtland AFB Environmental 

Management Division, 377 ABW, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

USAF 2006. USAF Air Conformity Applicability Model 4.3.0. Air Force Center for 

Environmental Excellence. Brooks AFB, Texas. 

USAF, 2005b. Kirtland Air Force Base Economic Impact Statement FY 2005. Available 

online: . 

US Census Bureau, State and County Quick Facts, City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo 

County. 2007. Available online: . 




US Office of Personnel Management. 2007. Salary and Wage Tables 2007. Available 

online: . 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2006. Species Information Threatened and 

Endangered Animals and Plants. Available online: 

. 


AFRL 


Section 7 Acronyms and 

Abbreviations 

ADT 

AEHD 

AFB 

AFRL 

BEL 

BRAC 

Btu 

C3ISR 

CAA 

CDL 

CEQ 

CFR 

CO 

COCHISE 

CRM 

dB 

dBA 

DNL 

DoD 

DOE 

DRMO 

EA 

EPA 

EPCRA 

FY 

GHz 

GPS 

Average Daily Traffic 

Albuquerque Environmental Health Department 

Air Force Base 

Air Force Research Laboratory 


Base Realignment and Closure 

British thermal unit 

Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence, 

Surveillance and Reconnaissance 

Clean Air Act 

Component Development Laboratory 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Code of Federal Regulations 

carbon monoxide 

Cold Chemiexcitation Infrared Stimulation Experiment 

Cultural Resource Manager 

decibel 

A-weighted decibel 

Day-night level 

Department of Defense 

Department of Energy 

Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office 

Environmental Assessment 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Emergency Planning & Community Right to Know Act 

Fiscal Year 

gigahertz 

Global Positioning System 




HAPs 

HAZMAT 

HMMP 

HW 

IAP 

kg 

km 

KTP 

kv 

kW 

LABCEDE 

LIDAR 

MAPM 

MCAS 

MHz 

MSA 

MSDS 

MVA 

MWLT 

NAAQS 

NDTA 

NDTC 

NEPA 

NM 

NMAC 

NO X 

O 3 

NPDES 

PCL 

PJ/CRO 

PM 

PM 2.5 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

hazardous materials 

Hazardous Materials Management Plan 

hazardous waste 

Initial Accumulation Point 

kilogram 

kilometer 

Kirtland Technology Park 

kilovolt 

kilowatt 

Laboratory Cryogenic Energy Division 

Light Detection and Ranging 

Mobile Atmospheric Pollutant Mapping 

Marine Corps Air Station 

megahertz 

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Material Safety Data Sheet 

Megavolt-ampere 

Multiple Wavelength LIDAR Trailer 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

National Defense Technology Auditorium 

National Defense Technology Center 

National Environmental Policy Act 

New Mexico 

New Mexico Administrative Code 

oxides of nitrogen 

ozone 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

Plasma Chemistry Laboratory 

Parajumper/Combat Rescue Office 

Particulate Matter 

Particulate matter ≤2.5 microns in diameter 


AFRL 


PM 10 

PNM 

ROI 

SARA 

sf 

SCIF 

SCL 

SHPO 

SOW 

SOx 

SPL 

SWPPP 

tpy 

U.S. 

VOC 

VS 

VSB 

USAF 

USFWS 

USGS 

Particulate matter ≤10 microns in diameter 

Public Service Company of New Mexico 

Region of Influence 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

square feet 

Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility 

Space Chemistry Laboratory 

State Historic Preservation Office 

Special Operations Wing 

oxides of sulfur 

Space Particles Lab 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

tons per year 

United States 

volatile organic compound 

Space Vehicles Directorate 

Battlespace Environment Division 

U.S. Air Force 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 






AFRL 


Appendix A 

Letter to State Historic Preservation Office

September 2007 - Kirtland Air Force Base

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?