![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Record of Decision To Establish a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Extended Test Range
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 26, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 165)]
[Notices]
[Page 51251-51256]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26au03-61]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Record of Decision To Establish a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense
Extended Test Range
AGENCIES: Missile Defense Agency, Department of Defense; Federal
Aviation Administration; Office of the Associate Administrator for
Commercial Space Transportation.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is issuing this Record of
Decision (ROD) to establish a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
extended test range capability, to provide for the construction and
operation of a Sea-Based Test X-Band Radar (SBX), and to determine the
location of the SBX Primary Support Base (PSB). The extended test range
and the SBX are capabilities of the GMD element within the broader
conceptual Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). This action will
enhance the current test capabilities that include missile launch
sites, sensors, and other test equipment associated with the Ronald
Reagan Ballistic Missile Test Site (RTS) at Kwajalein Atoll, the
Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) in Hawaii, the Kodiak Launch
Complex (KLC) in Alaska, Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB) in California,
and other Pacific locations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the GMD
Extended Test Range (ETR) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or this
ROD contact Ms. Julia Elliot, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense
Command, Attn: SMDC-EN-V, P.O. Box 1500, Huntsville, Alabama 35807-
3801.
[[Page 51252]]
Public reading copies of the Final EIS and the ROD are available
for review at the public libraries within the communities near proposed
activities and at the MDA Internet site: http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/ 
.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. MDA Decision
The MDA is issuing this ROD, selecting portions of Alternative 2 as
described in the GMD ETR EIS, to establish a GMD extended test range
capability, to provide for the construction and operation of an SBX,
and to select the location of the SBX PSB. This decision includes the
capability to conduct single and dual launches of interceptor and
target missiles at RTS and Vandenberg AFB. Development of these
capabilities will include target launch facility modifications/
construction at RTS; modification of launch and support facilities at
Vandenberg AFB; construction of an In-Flight Interceptor Communication
System Data Terminal (IDT) at Titan Pasture at Vandenberg AFB; a TPS-X
radar; added range instrumentation (tracking and range safety radars)
at the test site and test support locations; and use of either existing
GMD Fire Control/Communications (GFC/C) facilities and links at RTS, or
new GFC/C facilities that may be developed at Fort Greely, Alaska and/
or Schriever AFB or Cheyenne Mountain Complex, Colorado.
Additionally, MDA has decided to construct an SBX for Pacific range
testing. MDA has also decided to establish a Primary Support Base at
Adak, Alaska. The vessel will be constructed and outfitted with an XBR
and ancillary test equipment in the Gulf of Mexico and will transit to
the Primary Support Base (PSB) and testing region when completed.
This Record of Decision makes no decision regarding Alternative 2's
components at KLC. The FAA is contemplating re-licensing activities at
KLC. Should FAA re-license KLC activities, MDA may issue a second ROD
regarding the KLC portion of Alternative 2.
B. Background
In July 2000, the MDA completed the National Missile Defense (NMD)
Deployment EIS to support decisions concerning deployment of a GMD
(formerly NMD element. At the direction of the Secretary of Defense,
the MDA re-directed the GMD element to focus on operationally realistic
testing. The GMD ETR EIS analyzed the proposed GMD Extended Test Range
actions and alternatives for potential impacts on the environment.
The proposed action analyzed in the GMD ETR EIS is to develop the
capability to conduct more realistic interceptor flight tests in
support of GMD. The extension of the existing GMD test range will
increase the realism of GMD testing by using multiple engagement
scenarios, trajectories, geometries, distances, and speeds of target
and interceptors that closely resemble those in which an operational
system will be required to provide an effective defense. Extended range
testing will include pre-launch activities, launch of targets and
Ground-Based Interceptors (GBI) from a number of widely separated
geographic locations, and missile intercepts over the Pacific Ocean.
On December 16, 2002, President George W. Bush issued National
Security Presidential Directive 23 announcing plans to begin fielding
an initial set of missile defense capabilities by the year 2004. The
MDA proposes to use existing test facilities and infrastructure to the
extent possible in fielding these initial capabilities. Some of the
assets proposed for the Initial Defensive Operations (IDO) capability
are analyzed as part of the GMD ETR EIS. For example, facilities at
Vandenberg AFB will also be used in support of the IDO capability. Due
to the nature of the IDO, the configuration and use of those assets
will be separately analyzed under NEPA, and are also assessed in the
relevant cumulative effects sections. Some assets, such as the SBX,
will also be used in support of IDO. As the SBX in an IDO role will be
operated in the same manner as in a test mode, no further NEPA analysis
is required.
C. NEPA Process
The GMD ETR EIS was prepared pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulation implementing the NEPA (40 CFR
Parts 1500-1508), Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 4715.9, and
the applicable service environmental regulations that implement these
laws and regulations.
The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the GMD Extended
Test Range was published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2002,
initiating the public scoping process. Public scoping meetings were
held from April from December 2002 in eight communities perceived to be
affected by the proposed GMD extended test range. The Notice of
Availability (NOA) of the GMD Extended Test Range 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 from February 24 through March 6, 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. This ROD is the
culmination of the NEPA process.
D. Alternatives Considered
1. No-Action Alternative
As required by the CEQ regulations, the GMD ETR EIS evaluated a No-
Action Alternative. Under this alternative, the GMD ETR would not be
established and interceptor and target launch scenarios would not be
fully tested under operationally realistic conditions. All existing
launch areas and other support facilities would continue current
operations for GMD and other mission activities.
2. Alternative 2 (Selected Alternative)
Target missiles will be launched from Vandenberg AFB, KLC, PMRF,
RTS, or from mobile platforms in the Pacific Ocean. GBIs will be
launched from Vandenberg AFB or RTS. Dual target and GBI missiles
launches will occur in some scenarios. Existing, modified, or newly
constructed launch facilities and infrastructure will support these
launch activities at the various locations.
Missile acquisition and tracking will be provided by existing test
range sensors, shipborne sensors, an SBX, and/or a mobile sensor (TPS-
X) positioned at Vandenberg AFB, PMRF, or RTS; and existing/upgraded
radars at Beale AFB, California, and Clear Air Station and Eareckson
Air Station, Alaska. An IDT will be constructed/installed at a site
near the proposed Ground-Based interceptor launch sites on Vandenberg
AFB. Six potential sites were considered at Vandenberg for the IDT.
Commercial satellite communications terminals will be constructed at
launch locations that do not have fiber optic communications links.
3. Alternative 1
Alternative 1 is similar to Alternative 2, with the exception that
ground-based interceptor launches would be from KLC and RTS instead of
Vandenberg AFB and RTS. The GBI launch would require construction of an
IDT and modifications of existing launch support facilities at KLC.
Alternative 1 would include site preparation and operation of a TPS-X
radar at KLC, Vandenberg
[[Page 51253]]
AFB, RTS or PMRF and the construction of two GBI silos or one GBI
launch pad, and an additional target launch pad that could accommodate
GBI launches if needed, and associated support facilities at KLC. There
would also be target pad modifications at KLC and RTS along with the
installation of a COMSATCOM at KLC. Placement of small mobile telemetry
units and mobile C-band radar at KLC and at one or two of the following
locations: Pasagshak Point, Kenai, Homer, Soldotna, King Salmon, Adak,
Cordova, and Pillar Mountain, Alaska; Pillar Point, California;
Bremerton, Washington; Makaha Ridge and PMRF, Hawaii. The other
components described in Alternative 2 would remain the same.
4. Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would include activities proposed for Alternatives 1
and 2. This would include GBI launches from KLC, RTS, and Vandenberg
AFB, and construction of the required support facilities for dual
launches of GBI and target missiles at each location.
5. SBX Primary Support Base Decision. Encompassed within all three
alternatives was a proposal to construct and operate the SBX. Six
potential sites for a primary support base for the SBX were analyzed in
the EIS.
E. 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, socioeconomics, 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-1A, ES-1B, and Tables ES 2 through ES 11 in the Final ETR EIS
(available on the MDA Internet site: http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/) . The
following is a short comparison of the potential impacts of the
alternatives, including the no-action alternative:
1. Kodiak Launch Complex
a. Air Quality. Under the No-Action alternative, single target and
commercial launches would continue. Under Alternative 2 (the Selected
Alternative), a minimal increase in air emissions from target launch
and support facilities construction and operation of mobile telemetry
would 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 would be below the 1-hour Air
Force standard, but would 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 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), Alaska Ambient Air Quality
Standards (AAQS), and U.S. Air Force standards. Significant air quality
impacts due to Ground-Based Interceptor launches are not anticipated.
Alternative 3 would have the same impacts as both Alternatives 1 and 2.
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 are 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 could occur due to construction. Fence
lines would likely be altered to avoid impacts to wetlands. Testing
impacts would be similar to those noted in the No Action Alternative.
Mobile sensors necessary to support Ground-Based Midcourse Defense
Extended Test Range activities would be located on existing disturbed
areas with minimal effect to biological resources. Alternatives 1 and 3
would have the same impacts as Alternative 2.
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 target launch
activities and support facilities construction would use small
quantities of hazardous materials, which would result in the generation
of some hazardous and non-hazardous waste that would be similar to
current operations. All hazardous materials and waste would 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. Alternatives 1 and 3 would have the same impacts as
Alternative 2.
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 and 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 would include establishing ground and
Launch hazard Areas, issuing Notices to Airmen and Notices to Mariners,
and adherence to program Safety plans. These actions would be in
compliance with federal, state, and local health and safety
requirements and regulations, as well as Department of Defense and
Kodiak Launch Complex Safety Policy and would result in no impacts to
health and safety. Due to the same precautions taken above,
Alternatives 1 and 3 would also result in no impacts to health and
safety.
e. Land Use. Under the No Action Alternative, Publication of
availability of KLC's beaches and coastline will continue. Under
Alternative 2 (Selected Alternative), minimal impacts would 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 would occur for the Pasagshak Point Road at the
KLC site boundary. Under Alternative 1, the proposed activities would
not significantly impact the availability of recreational
opportunities. Impacts under Alternatives 1 and 3 would be the same as
Alternative 2.
f. Water Resources. Under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 2
(Selected Alternative), and Alternatives 1 and 3, there is a minor
potential for short-term increase in erosion and turbidity of surface
waters during construction. Missile launches would disperse exhaust
emission products over
[[Page 51254]]
a large area. These emissions would not cause a significant water
quality impact. Water quality monitoring would continue on an as-needed
basis.
2. Vandenberg Air Force Base
a. Air Quality. Under the No Action Alternative, current missile
activities would continue. Under Alternative 2 (Selected Alternative)
and Alternative 3, 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, California AAQS, and U.S. Air
Force standards. Based upon this, the proposed launches would not cause
or contribute to violation of any air quality standards. Under
Alternative 1, 2 and 3 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 would be below the 1-hour Air Force standard, but would exceed
the peak hydrogen chloride standard for a short duration. Other
emissions were determined to be within NAAQS and California AAQS. A
single Peacekeeper target launch would be within NAAQS, California
AAQS, and U.S. Air Force standards. The proposed launches would not
cause or contribute to violation of any air quality standards.
b. Biological Resources. Under all alternatives, temporary effects
to vegetation from emissions, discoloration and foliage loss and
temporary, short-term startle effects from noise to wildlife and birds
are possible. Although a remote possibility, individual animals close
to the water's surface could be hit by debris.
c. Cultural Resources. Under the No Action Alternative, resources
would continue to be managed in accordance with cultural resources
regulations. For GBI launches under Alternative 2 (Selected
Alternative) and Alternative 3, possible minor modifications may be
required for buildings 1819 and 1900, as well as LF-02, LF-03, or LF-
10. All of these are listed as National Register of Historic Places-
eligible. Prior to the reuse of these facilities, consultation would
occur with the State Historic Preservation Officer to ensure their
protection or appropriate mitigation to preserve information concerning
these buildings. Only in the unlikely event of flight termination over
land (necessary debris recovery within the region of influence) would
the possibility for impacts to cultural resources from off-road vehicle
activity exist. Even then, all areas affected by ground impacts of
flight hardware would be cleared of all recoverable debris in strict
accordance with current Vandenberg Air Force Base policy. Under
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, possible minor modifications may be required
for target facilities. LF-03 and LF-06 are listed as National Register
of Historic Places-eligible. Prior to the reuse of these facilities,
consultation would occur with the State Historic Preservation Officer
to ensure facilities, consultation would occur with the State Historic
Preservation Officer to ensure their protection or appropriate
mitigation to reserve information concerning the sites. The potential
for impacts due to a flight termination over land would be the same as
in Alternative 2.
d. Land Use. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no
impact Vandenberg Air Force Base publicizes recreation availability,
and activities are consistent with the California Coastal Zone
Management Program. Under Alternative 2 (Selected Alternative) and
Alternatives 1 and 3, disruption to land use would occur from routine
closures of recreation areas near the region of influence during
launches. Such action would represent a minimal impact to land use.
3. Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Test Site
Biological Resources. Under all alternatives, temporary affects to
vegetation from emissions, discoloration and foliage loss and
temporary, short-term startle effects from noise to wildlife and birds
are possible. Although a remote possibility, individual animals close
to the water's surface could be hit by debris. Personnel would be
instructed to avoid areas designated as avian or sea turtle nesting or
avian roosting habitat and to avoid all contact with any nest that may
be encountered.
4. Pacific Missile Range Facility
a. Air Quality. Under the No Action Alternative, current missile
activities would continue. Under Alternative 2 (Selected Alternative)
and Alternatives 1 and 3, it is anticipated that operation of the TPS-X
or continued missile launches would have no adverse impacts on regional
air quality at PMRF. Therefore, there would be no change to the
region's current attainment statistics.
b. Biological Resources. Under the No Action Alternative, short-
term disturbance to wildlife, including migratory birds, from minor
site preparation activities and increased personnel could occur.
Reflection from outdoor lighting could disorient the Newell's
Townsend's shearwater. Temporary effects to vegetation from emissions,
discoloration and foliage loss and temporary, short-term startle
effects from noise to wildlife and birds are possible. Although a
remote possibility, individual animals close to the water's surface
could be hit by debris. For Alternative 2 (Selected Alternative) and
alternatives 1 and 3, the TPS-X Radar is not expected to add any
additional impacts above those identified in the No Action alternative
because the TPS-X will not radiate lower than 5 degrees above
horizontal and the relatively small radar beam would normally be in
motion which reduces the probability of bird species remaining within
this limited region of space.
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) and alternatives 1 and 3, in
addition to missile launch activities, TPS-X Radar activities would
generate small quantities of hazardous waste. The use and disposal of
hazardous materials and wastes would be in accordance with Pacific
Missile Range Facility, State of Hawaii, Environmental Protection
Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of
Transportation, and Department of Defense policies and procedures.
d. Health and Safety. Under the No Action Alternative, planning and
execution of target launches would continue. Ground and Launch hazard
Areas, Notices to Airmen and Notices to Mariners, and implementation of
Safety plans would protect workers and the general public. Under
Alternative 2 (Selected Alternative) and Alternatives 1 and 3, TPS-X
Radar Electromagnetic Radiation hazard zones would be established
within the beam's tracking space and near emitter equipment. A visual
survey of the area would verify that all personnel are outside the
hazard zone prior to startup. The TPS-X Radar would be prevented from
illuminating in a designated cutoff zone, in which operators and all
other system elements would be located. Potential interference with
other electronic and emitter units (flight navigation systems, tracking
radars, etc.) would also be examined prior to startup. Compliance with
federal, state, and local health and safety requirements and
regulations, safety procedures relative to radar operations, as well as
Department of Defense and Pacific Missile Range Facility Safety Policy
would result in no impacts to health and safety. Missile
[[Page 51255]]
launch activities would use the same safety plans and procedures as in
the No Action Alternative.
5. Sea-Based Text X-Band Radar
a. Air Quality
1. RTS: The SBX would not be considered a stationary source and
would not require a U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll Environmental Standards
New Source Review. The increase in air emissions from operation of the
SBX would not affect the region's attainment status.
2. Pearl Harbor: The SBX would not be considered a stationary
source and would not require a Prevention of Significant Deterioration
review or a Title V permit. Air emissions from the operation of the SBX
would be in compliance with appropriate State Implementation Plans.
3. Naval Base Ventura County: The SBX would not be considered a
stationary source and would not require a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration review or a Title V permit. Air emissions from the
operation of the SBX would be in compliance with appropriate State
Implementation Plans.
4. Naval Station Everett: The SBX would not be considered a
stationary source and would not require a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration review or a Title V permit. Air emissions from the
operation of the SBX would be in compliance with appropriate State
Implementation Plans. Dust suppression measures such as periodic
watering of areas being graded, minimizing area traffic, reducing
vehicle speeds near work areas, and wet sweeping or otherwise removing
soil deposits from paved roadways and parking areas, would be used as
required for support facility construction.
5. Adak, Alaska (Selected Alternative): The SBX would not be
considered a stationary source and would not require a Prevention of
Significant Deterioration review or a Title V permit. Air emissions
from the operation of the SBX would be in compliance with appropriate
State Implementation Plans.
6. Valdez, Alaska: The SBX would not be considered a stationary
source and would not require a Prevention of Significant Deterioration
review or a Title V permit. Air emissions from the operation of the SBX
would be in compliance with appropriate State Implementation Plans.
b. Airspace. All sites: Potential impacts to airspace would be
minimized by adhering to operational requirements. An Electromagnetic
Radiation/Electromagnetic Interference survey and analysis and DD Form
1494 would be required as part of the spectrum certification and
frequency allocation process. The SBX high-energy radiation area would
be configured to minimize potential impacts to aircraft and other
potentially affected systems, and would be published on aeronautical
charts. In addition, SBX information would be published in the Airport
Facility section of the FAA Airport Guide, and local Notices to Airmen
would be issued. Flight service personnel would brief pilots flying in
the vicinity about the SBX high-energy radiation area.
c. Biological Resources. For all sites, minor, short-term impacts
from construction noise, such as starting and temporary displacement,
may occur. The SBX is not expected to radiate lower than 10 degrees
above horizontal for calibration and maintenance testing at the mooring
site. The relatively small radar beam would normally be in motion that
reduces the probability of bird species, marine mammals, or sea turtles
remaining within this limited region of space. The SBX vessel would
incorporate marine pollution control procedures such as keeping decks
clear of debris, cleaning spills, and residues, and engaging in spill
and pollution prevention practices in compliance with the Uniform
National Discharge Standards provisions of the Clean Water Act. The
potential for impacts to marine mammals or sea turtles due to an
accidental release of diesel fuel is considered low. The relatively
slow speed of the SBX platform would preclude the potential for
collision with a free-swimming marine mammal.
1. RTS: Overall no adverse impacts to marine mammals or sea turtles
are anticipated.
2. Pearl Harbor: Overall no adverse impacts to marine mammals or
sea turtles are anticipated.
3. Naval Base Ventura County: No significant long-term adverse
impacts are anticipated to seabirds and shorebirds, Guadalupe fur
seals, California sea lions, northern elephant and harbor seals and sea
otters or to widely distributed, open water species such as gray and
killer whales.
4. Naval Station Everett: No significant long-term adverse impacts
are anticipated to seabirds and shorebirds (bald eagle), Chinook
salmon, bull trout, or widely distributed, open water species such as
humpback, blue, fin, sei, and sperm whales; green, leatherback, and
loggerhead sea turtles; and Steller sea lions.
5. Adak, Alaska (Selected Alternative): No significant long-term
adverse impacts are anticipated to seabirds and water fowl or widely
distributed, open water species such as Steller sea lions, sea otters,
harbor seals, and whales.
6. Valdez, Alaska: No significant long-term adverse impacts are
anticipated to Essential Fisk Habitat, area seabirds and water fowl, or
widely distributed, open water species such as humpback, killer and
minke whales, sea otters, Steller sea lions, harbor seals, and Dall and
harbor porpoise.
d. Hazardous Materials and Waste. All potential sites: The small
quantities of potentially hazardous materials used during construction
activities would result in generation of added wastes that would be
accommodated in accordance with existing protocol and regulations. The
SBX would follow U.S. Navy requirements that, to the maximum extent
practicable, ships shall retain hazardous waste aboard ship for shore
disposal. In compliance with Uniform National Discharge Standards, the
SBX vessel would incorporate marine pollution control devices, such as
keeping decks clear of debris, cleaning spills and residues and
engaging in spill and pollution prevention practices, in design or
routine operation. Handling and disposal of hazardous materials and
hazardous waste would be in accordance with state, Environmental
Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Department of Transportation, and Department of Defense policies and
procedures.
e. Health and Safety. All potential sites: An Electromagnetic
Radiation/Electromagnetic Interference survey and analysis and DD Form
1494 would be required as part of the spectrum certification and
frequency allocation process. Implementation of SBX operational safety
procedures, including establishment of controlled areas, and
limitations in the areas subject to illumination by the radar units,
would preclude any potential safety hazard to either the public or
workforce. These limitations would be similar to the existing Ground-
Based Radar Prototype on Kwajalein, resulting in no impacts to health
and safety.
f. Visual and Aesthetic Resources.
1. RTS: No impact.
2. Pearl Harbor: Visual impacts would be minor, as the SBX would be
comparable to ships passing along the horizon. The SBX would be moored
at an adequate distance away from the shore and would not obstruct
panoramic views. Visual resources could be affected by the SBX if it is
in the line of site from boats to the island; however,
[[Page 51256]]
the SBX would only inhibit the view of the island temporarily as the
boat passes by.
3 Naval Base Ventura County: No impact.
4. Naval Station Everett: While there is a high amount of viewer
concern, the SBX would be considered visually compatible with the port
and present military uses; therefore only moderate impacts are
expected.
5. Adak, Alaska (Selected Alternative): Due to limited visibility,
a moderate scenic value, and low viewer concern, there would be minimal
adverse impacts.
6. Valdez, Alaska: Because Valdez is the site of the terminus of
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, numerous oil tankers are entering Prince
William Sound which would limit the impacts to visual resources caused
by the SBX. However, adverse impacts to visual resources could occur
due to some concerned viewers and a high scenic integrity.
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 been 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 will
be no new construction or operation of GMD elements at any of the
potential sites. Continuation of current site operations at these
locations will result in few additional environmental impacts.
Among the three alternatives to the Proposed Action in the EIS,
Alternative 2 is the environmentally preferred action to establish and
operate the GMD ETR because the proposed GBI launches from existing
silos at Vandenberg AFB will require less construction and ground
disturbance than the other alternatives. The proposed launches from
Vandenberg AFB would be within the number of launches per year allowed
in existing agreements with state and federal regulatory agencies.
Adak, Alaska is the environmentally preferred location to establish a
SBX PSB because, while placement of the mooring may cause minor impacts
to the environment, locating the SBX at Adak would require little or no
new construction of administrative or warehouse facilities and
operations would have minimal adverse impacts on the surrounding
environment.
Conclusion
In accordance with NEPA, I have considered the information
contained within the GMD ETR EIS as well as cost, mission requirements
and other factors in deciding to establish an extended GMD test range
capability.
I have decided to select Alternative 2 over the other alternatives
to the proposed action. Although the No-Action Alternative has fewer
environmental impacts, it does not support the agency's ability to
conduct realistic testing nor does it support IDO as directed by the
President. Selection of Alternative 2 will meet the mission
requirements of creating an extended test range for the GMD wile
utilizing, to the greatest extent practicable, existing test assets at
Vandenberg AFB, the Pacific Missile Range Facility and the Reagan Test
Site and associated test support sites. Alternative two also offers the
quickest path to enable the program to support IDO and provide a
protective capability for the nation.
I have chosen Alternative 2 over Alternative 3 because there are
currently no plans to finance GBI interceptors at KLC. If funding
becomes a realistic possibility in the future, I will re-assess this
view, and perform additional NEPA as appropriate before making any
decisions in this regard.
LTG R. KADISH have also decided to defer any decisions at KLC
regarding the remainder of the actions contemplated in Alternative 2.
FAA, as cooperating agency to this EIS, may entertain relicensing
activities at KLC. LTG R. Kadish believe my decision should be deferred
pending those activities so that LTG R. Kadish can be confident that
all operational and environmental concerns have been addressed.If FAA
acts to re-license KLC, LTG R. Kadish may issue an additional ROD at
that time, as appropriate.
LTG R. Kadish have further decided to construct and operate the
SBX, and have chosen Adak, Alaska as the location for the PSB. When
work commenced on this EIS, the President had not directed the IDO
capability enhancements. Accordingly, the SBX PSB analysis was focused
only on various test locations in the Pacific region. In view of the
President's directive on 16 December 2002, LTG R. Kadish have re-
examined candidate PSB locations and selection Adak, Alaska as the most
prudent location to support IDO while still supporting the test
program.
Dated: August 19, 2003.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 03-21653 Filed 8-25-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-M