NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE DEPLOYMENT; FORT GREELY, SHEMYA ISLAND, AND DENALI AND FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGHS, ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, MASSACHUSETTS, AND CAVALIER, GRAND FORKS, PEMBINA, RAMSEY, AND WALSH COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA
Dates
Year
2000
Citation
2000, NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE DEPLOYMENT; FORT GREELY, SHEMYA ISLAND, AND DENALI AND FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGHS, ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, MASSACHUSETTS, AND CAVALIER, GRAND FORKS, PEMBINA, RAMSEY, AND WALSH COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA: .
Summary
PURPOSE: The deployment of a national missile defense (NMD) program in Alaska, California, Massachusetts, and North Dakota is considered. The NMD system would be a fixed, land-based, non-nuclear missile defense system with a land- and space-based detection system capable of responding to limited strategic ballistic missile threats to the United States. The proposed Alaskan sites include Clear Air Force Station (AFS) in Denali Borough, Eareckson Air Station (AS) on Shemya Island, Eielson Air Force Base (AFB) in Fairbanks North Star Borough, Fort Greely, and Yukon Training Area in Fairbanks North Star Borough. The proposed California site is Beale AFB. The proposed Massachusetts site is Cape Cod AFS. The proposed North Dakota sites include [...]
Summary
PURPOSE: The deployment of a national missile defense (NMD) program in Alaska, California, Massachusetts, and North Dakota is considered. The NMD system would be a fixed, land-based, non-nuclear missile defense system with a land- and space-based detection system capable of responding to limited strategic ballistic missile threats to the United States. The proposed Alaskan sites include Clear Air Force Station (AFS) in Denali Borough, Eareckson Air Station (AS) on Shemya Island, Eielson Air Force Base (AFB) in Fairbanks North Star Borough, Fort Greely, and Yukon Training Area in Fairbanks North Star Borough. The proposed California site is Beale AFB. The proposed Massachusetts site is Cape Cod AFS. The proposed North Dakota sites include Cavalier AFS in Pembina County, Grand Forks AFB in Grand Forks County, Stanley R. Mickelsen Safeguard Complex (SRMSC) Missile Site Radar in Cavalier County, SRMSC Remote Spring Launch Site 1 in Ramsey County, SRMSC Remote Launch Site 2 in Cavalier County, and SRMSC Remote Spring Launch Site 4 in Walsh County. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to airspace restrictions from X-band radar (XBR) operation; construction and operation impacts on vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, wetlands, and fisheries; potential risks to the public from the transportation and operation of the ground-based interceptor (GBI); electromagnetic radiation impacts to wildlife and the public; socioeconomic impacts and benefits from NMD deployment; construction and operation impacts on local water quality; increases in hazardous waste generation; and increases in restricted public use around NMD deployment sites. Two alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would not deploy the NMD system, are considered in this final EIS. If the initial decision were not to deploy under the No Action Alternative, the NMD program would use the time to enhance the existing technologies of the various system elements. The NMD program would also have the option to add new elements if and as they were developed. For potential sites being considered for NMD deployment, the No Action alternative would be a continuation of activities currently occurring or planned at those locations. Under the proposed action, NMD elements and element locations would be selected. The NMD main elements considered for deployment would include the GBI, in-flight interceptor communications system (IFICS) data terminal, XBR, upgraded early warning radar (UEWR), and satellite detection systems, the fiber optic line required to link some of the NMD elements, and battle management, command, and control (BMC2). Under the preferred alternative, an NMD system would be deployed at one GBI site with up to 100 silos. The preferred site for the GBI and BMC2 would be Fort Greely. Under this configuration, the XBR would be at Eareckson AS. The NMD system would make use of the UEWR and the existing satellite detection systems that would be in place at the time of deployment. Since the IFICS data terminals locations have not been identified, no preferred location has been selected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The NMD would be used to protect against non-nuclear missile attack. The development and deployment of the antimissile system would generate substantial employment and income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of NMD facilities would result in the displacement of land, possibly including wetland. The project could adversely affect geological, historical, and archaeological resource sites, depending on the sites chosen. In the unlikely event of a liquid propellant leak, hazardous materials would be released into the environment. Prairie potholes would lie in the path of some of the fiber optic cables in North Dakota. The construction of fiber optic facilities during harvest times for communities and subsistence users could interfere with harvest activities. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (Public Law 96- 487), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 4 0 et seq.), and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 00-0159D, Volume 24, Number 2. For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 99-0324D, Volume 23, Number 4. Source type: reports; Object type: Report; CSAUnique: 8294; AccNum: 8294; EPANum: 000443
