[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51251-51256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-21653]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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