[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68603-68605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-30395]


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

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