[Federal Register: December 9, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 68603-68605]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09de03-61]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Supplemental Record of Decision to Conduct Target Launches From
Kodiak Launch Complex in Support of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense
Extended Test Range
AGENCIES: Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency (MDA); Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Associate Administrator
for Commercial Space Transportation.
ACTION: Notice; Record of Decision (ROD).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The MDA is issuing this Supplemental ROD to conduct target
launches from the Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC) to support the Ground-
Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) Extended Test Range (ETR).
FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the GMD ETR
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or this ROD contact Ms. Julia
Hudson-Elliot, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, Attn: SMDC-
EN-V, P.O. Box 1500, Huntsville, Alabama 35807-3801.
Public reading copies of the GMD ETR Final EIS, the ROD, and the
supplemental ROD are available for review at the public libraries
within the communities near proposed activities listed below, and on
the MDA Internet site: http://www.acq.osd.mil./bmdo/.
[sbull] Anchorage Municipal Library, 3600 Denali St., Anchorage, AK
99503
[sbull] Kodiak City Library, 319 Lower Mill Bay Rd., Kodiak, AK
99615
[sbull] Mountain View Branch Library, 150 S. Bragaw St., Anchorage,
AK 99508
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
MDA Decision
This ROD selects the remaining portions of the activities proposed
in Alternative 2 of the EIS regarding KLC. Those activities include the
capability to conduct dual target launches from KLC.
Background
The MDA prepared the GMD ETR EIS to analyze potential impacts on
the environment posed by proposed operationally realistic testing in
the ETR.
On August 13, 2003, the MDA issued a ROD based on analysis
contained in the GMD ETR EIS, Federal Register, August 26, 2003 (Volume
68, Number 165), Page 51251-56. The MDA Director considered the
information contained within the GMD ETR EIS as well as cost, mission
requirements, and other factors in deciding to establish a GMD extended
test range capability, to provide for the construction and operation of
a Sea-Based-Band Radar (SBX), and to select the location of the SBX
Primary Support Base (PSB). That ROD selected portions of Alternative
2, as examined in the EIS, that included the capability to conduct
single and dual launches of interceptor and target missiles from the
Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site (RTS) and Vandenberg
Air Force Base (AFB).
At the time when the ROD was signed, the FAA was contemplating re-
licensing activities at KLC. Accordingly, MDA deferred the KLC portion
of Alternative 2 to ensure FAA re-licensing posed no additional issues.
On September 12, 2003, the FAA issued a new license for KLC activities.
MDA is now issuing this supplemental ROD regarding the deferred KLC
portion of Alternative 2.
NEPA Process
The GMD ETR EIS was prepared pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulation implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), DoD
Instruction 4715.9, and applicable service environmental regulations
that implement these laws and regulations.
The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the GMD ETR was
published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2003, initiating the
public scoping process. Public scoping meetings were held from April to
December 2002 in eight communities perceived to be affected by the
proposed GMD ETR. The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the GMD ETR Draft
EIS was published in the Federal Register on February 7, 2003. This
initiated a public review and comment period for the Draft EIS. Seven
public hearings were held in February and March 2003. Comments on the
Draft EIS were considered in the preparation of the Final EIS. The NOA
for the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on July 15,
2003, initiating an additional 30-day review period. A ROD was signed
on August 13, 2003, selecting Alternative 2 described in the EIS, while
deferring a decision on the KLC portion of Alternative 2. The ROD is
the culmination of the NEPA process.
Alternatives Considered
During the EIS process, alternatives to the proposed action were
considered including the No-Action Alternative. Alternatives were
organized around potential additional interceptor launch sites to
complement the current test scenarios with interceptor launches from
RTS. Interceptor missiles would be launched from KLC under Alternative
1, from Vandenberg AFB under Alternative 2, and from both locations
under Alternative 3. For details of the alternatives considered, refer
to Federal Register, August 26, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 165), pages
51251-51256.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
The GMD ETR EIS analyzed the environment in terms of 14 resource
areas: Air quality, airspace, biological resources, cultural resources,
geology and soils, hazardous materials and hazardous waste, health and
safety, land use, noise, socioeconomic, transportation, utilities,
visual and aesthetic resources, and water resources. Subsistence
resources were also considered for potential sites in Alaska.
Environmental Justice was addressed separately. Each resource area was
discussed at each location as applicable. The potential for cumulative
impacts was also evaluated in the EIS.
The impacts of the various alternatives are summarized in depth in
Tables ES-1 A, ES1B, and Tables ES 2 through ES II in the Fianl ETR EIS
(available on the MDA Internet site: http://www.acq.osd.mi./bmdo/). The
following is a short summary of the potential impacts of the
alternatives at KLC, including the NO-Action Alternative:
Kodiak Launch Complex
a. Air Quality. Under the No-Action Alternative, single target and
commercial launches would continue.
[[Page 68604]]
Under Alternative 2 (the Selected Alternative), a minimal increase in
air emissions from dual target launches, support facilities
construction, and operation of mobile telemetry will not affect the
region's current attainment status. The results of modeling a dual
Peacekeeper target launch to determine exhaust emissions of aluminum
oxide, hydrogen chloride, and carbon monoxide show that the level of
hydrogen chloride will be below the 1-hour Air Force standard, but will
exceed the peak hydrogen chloride standard for a short duration. Other
emissions were determined to be within National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) and Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). A
single Peacekeeper target launch would be within NAAQS, Alaska AAQS,
and U.S. Air Force standards. Significant air quality impacts due to
target launches are not anticipated. Under Alternative 1, the impacts
would be the same as Alternative 2 with the addition of GBI silo
construction and GBI launches. The results of modeling to determine
exhaust emissions of aluminum oxide, hydrogen chloride, and carbon
monoxide show that concentrations produced by dual launches of a
Ground-Based Interceptor would remain within NAAQS, Alaska AAQS, and
U.S. Air Force standards Significant air quality impacts due to Ground-
Based Interceptor (GBI) launches are not anticipated. Alternative 3
would have the same impacts as Alternative 1.
b. Biological Resources. Under the No-Action Alternative, temporary
effects to vegetation from emissions, discoloration, and foliage loss
and temporary, short-term startle effects from noise to wildlife and
birds would be possible during testing. Although a remote possibility,
individual animals close to the water's surface could be hit by debris.
Under Alternative 2 (the Selected Alternative), loss of small amounts
of mainly upland vegetation will occur due to construction. Fence lines
will be altered to avoid impacts to wetlands. Testing impacts will be
similar to those noted in the No Action Alternative. Mobile sensors
necessary to support GMD ETR activities will be located on existing
disturbed areas with minimal effect to biological resources. Under
Alternative 1, the impacts would be the same as Alternative 2, plus
additional acreage would be disturbed from GBI silo construction and
the addition of dual GBI launches. Alternative 3 would have the same
impacts as Alternative 1.
c. Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste. Under the No-Action
Alternative, continued handling and use of limited quantities of
hazardous and toxic materials related to pre-launch, launch, and post-
launch activities would generate small quantities of hazardous waste.
Under Alternative 2 (Selected Alternative), the single and dual target
launch activities and support facilities construction will use small
quantities of hazardous materials, which will result in the generation
of some hazardous and non-hazardous waste that will be similar to
current operations. All hazardous materials and waste will be handled
in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. No impact
from short-term operation of mobile sensors at existing gravel pad
areas are expected. Under Alternative 1, the impacts would be the same
as Alternative 2, plus additional construction for IGBI silos and the
addition of dual GBI launches. Hazardous materials and hazardous waste
handling and potential impacts from the addition of GBI construction
and launches would be similar to Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would
have the similar impacts as Alternative 1.
d. Health and Safety. Under the No-Action Alternative, planning and
execution of target and commercial launches would continue. Ground and
Launch Hazard Areas, Notices to Airmen, Notices to Mariners, and
program Safety plans would protect workers and the general public.
Under Alternative 2 (Selected Alternative) planning and execution of
single and dual target launches will include establishing Ground and
Launch Hazard Areas, issuing Notices to Airmen and Notices to Mariners,
and adherences to program Safety plans. These actions will be in
compliance with federal, state, and local health and safety
requirements and regulations, as well as Department of Defense and KLC
Safety Policy and will result in no significant impacts to health and
safety. Due to the same precautions taken above, Alternative 1 and 3
would also result in no significant impacts to health and safety.
e. Land Use. Under the No-Action Alternative, publication of
availability of KLC's beaches and coastline would continue. Under
Alternative 2 (Selected Alternative), minimal impacts will occur as a
result of site preparation and new construction. This activity will
limit the use of a small portion of the overall land available for
livestock grazing. Only temporary closures during the transportation of
missile components to the launch facilities and up to a full day
closure on launch days will occur for the Pasagshak Point Road at the
KLC site boundary. Under Alternative 1, the proposed activities would
result in impacts similar to Alternative 2, and would not significantly
impact the availability of recreational opportunities. Impacts under
Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 1.
f. Water Resources. Under the No-Action Alternative, missile
launches would continue to disperse exhaust emission products over a
large area. These emissions would not cause a significant water quality
impact, and water quality monitoring would continue on an as-needed
basis. Under Alternative 2 (Selected Alternative), there is a minor
potential for short-term increase in erosion and turbidity of surface
waters during construction. Missile launches will disperse exhaust
emission products over a large area. These emissions will not cause a
significant water quality impact. Water quality monitoring will
continue on an as-needed basis. Under Alternative 1, the impacts would
be similar as Alternative 2, plus additional construction for GBI silos
and the addition of dual GBI launches. Potential impacts from the
addition of GBI construction and launches would be similar to
Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would have the similar impacts as
Alternative 1.
F. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring
The applicable mitigation measures specified for each of the sites
selected will be implemented as part of the GMD ETR action. A
Mitigation Monitoring Plan has been developed to assist in tracking and
implementing these mitigation measures. With the implementation of the
mitigation measures, all practicable means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm from establishing the GMD ETR considered in this ROD
have adopted.
G. Environmentally Preferred Alternative
The environmentally preferred alternative in the EIS is the No-
Action Alternative (not proceeding with the GMD ETR), since there would
be no new construction or operation of GMD elements at any of the
potential sites. Continuation of current site operations at these
locations would result in few additional environmental impacts.
Among the three alternatives in the EIS, Alternative 2 is the
environmentally preferred action to establish and operate the GMD ETR.
The activities proposed in Alternative 2 for KLC will require less
construction and ground disturbance than the other alternatives.
[[Page 68605]]
Conclusion
In accordance with NEPA, Lieutenant General Kadish considered the
information contained within the GMD ETR EIS as well as cost, mission
requirements and other factors in deciding to establish and extended
GMD test range capability at KLC.
He previously chose Alternative 2, and deferred the portion of
Alternative 2 regarding activities at KLC until the FAA re-licensing
activity occurred. After his review of this action, he is satisfied
that all concerns have been addressed, and is accordingly issuing this
supplemental ROD regarding KLC.
Dated: December 3, 2003.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 03-30395 Filed 12-8-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M