UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY
RECORD OF DECISION
.SUPPLEMENTALENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE AIRBORNE LASER PROGRAM
Pursuantto Section102(2)(C)of the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) of
1969,Public Law (P.L.) 91-90(as amended)and the regulationspromulgatedby the
Council on EnvironmentalQuality at 40 Codeof FederalRegulations(CFR) § 1505.2,
the Departmentof Defense(OOD), Missile DefenseAgency(MDA), haspreparedthe
following Recordof Decision(ROD) on the SupplementalEnvironmentalImpact
Statement(SEIS) for the Airborne Laser(ABL) Program. The ROD containsthe
statementof decision,identifiesthe alternativesconsidered,and discussesthe factorson
which the decisionwasbased,and any mitigating measuresdeemednecessaryto avoid or
minimize environmentalimpacts.
OVERVIEW
The United States(U.S.) requiresa more accurateandeffective defenseagainstballistic
missilesby destroyingthem during the boostphase,just after launch. Currently,the U.S.
andits allies are limited to defenseof troopsor high-valueassetswithin a small areaof a
theaterof operationsasthe missilenearsits target. Improvementsin missilerangeand
accuracyand the rapid increasein the numberof missile-capablenationsincreasethe
threat.
The ABL aircraft is a modified Boeing747 aircraft that accommodates
a laser-weapon
systemand laserfuel storagetanks. The ABL aircraft incorporatesan Active Ranging
System(ARS) laser,a Track Illuminator Laser(llLL), anda BeaconIlluminator Laser
(BILL); a laser-beamcontrol systemdesignedto focusthe beamon target;and a HighEnergyLaser(HEL) (i.e., chemical,oxygen,iodine laser[COIL]) designedto destroythe
target. The ARS is a lower-powergaslaser,and the BILL andTILL are lower-power
solid-statelasers.An onboardBattle ManagementCommandCenterprovides
computerizedcontrol of aspectsof the laser-weaponsystem,communications,and
intelligence. The ABL aircraft would fly at high altitudesandwould detectandtrack
launchesof ballistic missilesusing onboardsensors.During flight-test activities,active
trackingof the missile with the BILL and TILL would begin at approximately35,000feet
abovemeansealevel.
The ABL programis one of the elementsof the MDA Ballistic Missile DefenseSystem
(BMDS) that is intendedto provide an effective defensefor the U.S., its deployedforces,
Page 1
andits friendsand allies from limited missile attackduring all segmentsof an attacking
missile's flight. The ABL elementof the BMDS is being developedto provide an
effectivedefenseto limited ballistic missile threatsduring the boostsegmentof an
attackingmissile's flight.
The Final EnvironmentalImRactStatementfor the Prof!famDefinition and Risk
ReductionPhaseof the Airborne LaserPromm (FEIS) waspublishedin April 1997.
The 1997FEIS analyzedseveralalternativesfor establishingthe Home Base,the
DiagnosticTest Range,andthe Extended-AreaTestRangethat arerequiredto effectively
demonstratethe ability of the ABL system. The 1997FEIS consideredEdwardsAir
ForceBase(AFB), California, andKirtland AFB, New Mexico, aspossibleHomeBase
locations;White SandsMissile Range(WSMR), New Mexico, and ChinaLake Naval Air
WarfareCenter,California, asthe DiagnosticTest Range;andthe WesternRange,
including VandenbergAFB and/orPoint Mugu Naval Air WarfareCenterWeapons
Division, both in California, asthe Extended-AreaTestRange.
The ROD for the 1997FEIS identified EdwardsAFB as the HomeBase(to supportthe
ABL aircraft and conductground-testactivities of the ABL system),WSMR asthe
DiagnosticTest Range,andthe WesternRangeasthe Expanded-AreaTest Range(both
for supportingproposedflight-test activities of the ABL systems).Basedupon
operationalandenvironmentalconcernsin that FEIS, EdwardsAFB was chosenasthe
primary location for conductingground-testactivities. Kirtland AFB and WSMR were
identified asalternativeground-testlocationsin the eventthat groundtestingwasnot
possibleat EdwardsAFB.
PURPOSEAND NEED
The SEISsetsforth the supplementalenvironmentalanalysisrequiredbasedon changes
in the proposedtest programthat haveoccurredsincethe 1997FEIS wascompletedand
examinesproposedtest activitiesat EdwardsAFB, Kirtland AFB, WSMR/Holloman
AFB, andVandenbergAFB. HollomanAFB is a U.S. Air Forceinstallationthat shares
mostof its boundarywith WSMR. The 1997FEIS previouslyexaminedtest activities
andtestlocationsand is consideredthe No-Action Alternative for this SEIS. The
following is a list of new or refined actionsthat requirethe preparationof an SEIS:
.
Testingof two ABL aircraft (referredto asthe Block 2004 aircraft and an
improvedfollow-on aircraft, the Block 2008)ratherthanthe individual aircraft
addressedin the 1997FEIS
.
.
Proposedgroundtestingthat wasnot consideredin detail in the 1997FEIS
Potentialeffectsdueto off-rangelasing during testactivities
Page2
.
Potentialeffectsof lowering the test altitudeof the ABL aircraft from 40,000feet
to 35,000feetor higher
.
Testingof the ARS laser,the BILL, the TILL, and the SurrogateHigh-Energy
Laser(SHEL) systemsthat were not consideredin detail in the 1997FEIS
.
Refinementof proposedABL test activities(i.e., location of tests,typesof tests,
andnumberof tests).
Thesenew or refinedactionswill maximizetestingefficiencies andrealism,andprovide
further clarification of the ABL weaponsystemtestprogram
DECISION
The MDA will proceedwith the ProposedAction asdescribedin the SEISand
summarizedbelow. Appropriatemanagementplansand regulationswould be adheredto
and suitablemitigation measureswould be initiated to minimize potentialadverseeffects.
PROPOSEDACTION AND AL TERNA TIVES
The ProposedAction is to conducttest activitiesof the ABL systemat testranges
associatedwith EdwardsAFB and VandenbergAFB, California, and Kirtland AFB and
WSMR/HollomanAFB, New Mexico. Test activitieswould involve testingthe laser
componentson the groundand in flight to verify that lasercomponentsoperatetogether
safelyand effectively. Two ABL aircraft (BJock2004and Block 2008)would be utilized
during test activities. Softwareupgradesto the Block 2004 aircraft would be testedand
addedto that test aircraft undera BJock2006effort. Onceupgradedwith the newer
operatingsystem,the BJock2004aircraft would be designatedasthe Block 2006aircraft.
Groundtestingof the ABL systemis proposedat EdwardsAFB. Kirtland AFB and
WSMR/HollomanAFB havebeenidentified asalternativeground-testlocationsif
groundtestscannotbe conductedat EdwardsAFB. Flight testingis proposedat the
R-2508AirspaceComplex(EdwardsAFB), WesternRange(VandenbergAFB), and
WSMR (including FederalAviation Administration[FAA]-controlled airspaceand
airspaceutilized by Fort Bliss).
The ABL aircraft would be housedat an existinghangerat EdwardsAFB. EdwardsAFB
is also the locationwherethe lasersystemswould be integratedinto the aircraft, where
groundtestswould occur,and is the locationfor initial aircraft flight tests. Although
flight testingof the ABL systemwould occur within the R-2508AirspaceComplex,
WesternRangeandWSMR, ABL test flights would begin andend at EdwardsAFB. The
ABL aircraft could be usedto supportotherBMDS incidentalexercisesanddeployments
from other locations. Theseoperationswould be supportedby otherenvironmental
analysisas appropriate.
Page3
Ground-Testing Activities. Groundtestingof the lower-powerlasersystems(i.e., ARS,
BILL, TILL, and SHEL) would be perfonnedat EdwardsAFB. Ground-testingactivities
would be conductedfrom an aircraft parking pador the end of a runway with the laser
beamdirectedover openland toward groundtargetswith naturalfeatures(e.g.,
mountains,hills, buttes)or earthenbermsasa backstop. Lower-powerlaserscould also
be fired from the SystemIntegrationLaboratory(SIL) at the Birk Flight TestFacility to
rangetargetsfor atmospherictesting. Appropriateautomatichard-stoplimits andbeam
path restrictorswould be incorporatedinto the test designto ensurethat laserenergydoes
not extendbeyondnaturalfeaturesandbackstops.Additionally, the proposedgroundtest
areawould be clearedof personnelprior to initiating test activities. The ground-testing
activitiescould alsobe conductedusing a ground-basedsimulatorwithin Building 151at
EdwardsAFB. No openrangetestingof the HEL (COIL) would be conducted.Ground
testingof the HEL would be conductedat EdwardsAFB within Building 151andthe SIL
using a ground-basedsimulatoror an enclosedtestcell. In the eventthat groundtesting
is not possibleat EdwardsAFB, groundtestingof the ARS, BILL, TILL, and SHEL
systemsonly could be conductedat Kirtland AFB or Holloman AFB/WSMR.
Flight-Testing Activities. Flight testsat rangesassociatedwith WSMR (including FAAcontrolledairspaceand airspaceutilized by Fort Bliss), EdwardsAFB (R-2508Airspace
Complex),andVandenbergAFB (WesternRange)would be usedto testthe ARS, BILL,
TILL, SHEL, and HEL systems.
The ABL testswould include acquisitionand trackingof targetsat short-rangeaswell as
high-energytests. Thesetestswould be conductedagainstinstrumenteddiagnostictarget
boardscarriedby balloons,missiles,or aircraft. Missileswould incorporatea flightterminationsystem,whenrequired,to ensurethat debriswould be containedon the range
in the eventthe targetmust be destroyedduring flight. Proteusaircraft (a mannedaircraft
with a targetboardattached)and Missile AlternativeRangeTargetInstrument(MARTI)
drops(balloonwith a targetboardattached)would be utilized for testingof the lowerpower lasersystems(i.e., ARS, BILL, TILL, and SHEL). MARTI dropswould alsobe
usedfor testingthe HEL.
The MARTI is a diagnostictargetfor ABL that is similar in size and geometryto a
ballistic missile. The basicconstructionconsistsof a shell of aluminumwith aluminum
fins attached,coatedwith paint selectedto representthe propertiesof the paint on
ballistic missiles(no fuel would be onboard). The balloon would rise to an approximate
height of 100,000feet andmay passover privateandBLM-managedlands,dependingon
wind conditionsaloft. Whenthe balloon is over the targetdrop box andat the desired
altitudethe MARTI payloadwould be released.The MARTI would free-fall to 50,000
feet allowing approximately55 secondsof engagementtime, allowing multiple
engagements
on eachdrop. A nominalthreeengagements
per MARTI drop areplanned.
Approximately60 poundsof flare attachedto the MARTI would bum durin,gthe entire
ABL engagementto provide an infraredsourcefor the ARS. The flare would be
Page 4
exhaustedprior to the MARTI reachingthe ground. After the ABL engagementis
complete,a parachutesystemwould be deployedto slow down andrecoverthe complete
MARTI unit for reuse.
During flight testswith the ABL aircraft, up to two "chaseaircraft" may be utilized to
monitor test activities. The ABL aircraft would fly at an altitude of 35,000feet or higher.
The lasersystemswould be directedabovehorizontalin an upwarddirection to minimize
potentialgroundimpact or potentialcontactwith otheraircraft. The energyfrom the
HEL would heatthe missile's boostercomponentsandcausea stressfracture,which
would destroythe missile.
Missile debriswould be containedwithin the rangeboundaries.The geometryof the
testswould precludeoperationof the laserexceptat an anglethat is abovethe horizon.
The onboardsensorsand laserclearinghousedatawould be usedto confirm that no other
aircraft or satellitesare within the potentialpath of the beam,althoughcontrolledairspace
would be utilized during ABL test activitiesand woufd be verified cleared. Airborne
diagnostictestingwould revalidateandexpandon-the-groundtestactivities,confirm
computermodelpredictions,andenablecompletesystemtests.
No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternativeis to proceedwith ABL testing
activitiesasaddressedin the 1997FEIS andassociatedROD.
NEPA PROCESS
The Notice of Intent (NOI) to preparean SEISfor ABL Programtest actionswas
publishedin the FederalRegisteron March 22, 2002,initiating the public scoping
process.Public scopingmeetingswereheld in April 2002in communitiesperceivedto
be affectedby the ABL tests. The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the ABL Draft SEIS
waspublishedin the FederalRegisterin September2002. This initiated a public review
andcommentperiod for the Draft SEIS. Four public hearingswere held in October2002
in the samelocationsas the public scopingmeetings. Commentson the Draft SEISwere
consideredin the preparationof the Final SEIS. A Departmentof DefenseNOA for the
Final SEISwaspublishedin the FederalRegisteron June16,2003. An Environmental
ProtectionAgencyNOA for the Final SEISwaspublishedon July 3, 2003,initiating an
additional30-daycommentperiod. Commentswereconsideredin the decisionprocess,
culminatingin this ROD.
ENVIRIONME.NT AL ISSUES
The proposedactivities addressedin the SEISdo not changethe scope,quantity,or
qua-lityof the actionsanalyzedin the 1997FEIS; therefore,only the following resources
wereanalyzedin the SEIS for potentjaljmpacts: ajrspace,hazardousmaterialsand
hazardouswastemanagement,healthand safety,ajr qualjty, nojse,bjological resources,
Page5
cultural resources,and socioeconomics.Environmentalissuesidentified during the
analysisare summarizedbelow. The completeSEISis availableat the following website:
''http://www.afcee.brooks.af.
mil/ec/eiap/ejs/abJ/ ABL~F -SE.IS_Apr _03. pdf'.
Environmental Effects of the ProposedAction. The currentregionalairspace
restrictionswould continuedueto ABL testingactivities. Flight-testingactivities
occurringwithin FAA-controlled airspacewould be coordinatedwith the FAA prior to
conductingtest activities. Hazardousmaterialsusedand hazardouswastegenerated
during ABL testingactivities would be managedin accordancewith applicablefederal,
state,DOD, andAir Forceregulationsregardingthe use,storage,andhandlingof
hazardousmaterials,hazardouswaste,andhazardouschemicalsidentified underthe
HazardousMaterialsManagementPlan. ABL testingactivitieswould involve groundlevel andin-flight lasing. Performanceof ABL testingactivities in accordancewith
appropriatesafetymeasureswould reducethe potentialfor healthand safetyimpacts.
Therewould be short-term,negligible increasesin pollutant emissionsdueto ground-and
flight-testingactivities. The minimal increaseswould not delayregionalprogresstoward
attainmentof any air quality standard.The negligible increasesin pollutantswould not
exceedthe de minimusthresholdof any regionalair basin. Due to the locationof the
ground-testactivities and the altitudeof the flight-test activities,no residentialareas
would be exposedto continuousnoiselevelsexceeding65 decibels(dBA). Because
ABL testingactivitieswould be conductedin accordance.
with applicableregulationsand
existingstandardoperatingproceduresfor debrisrecovery,adversebiological resource
andcultural resourceimpactsarenot anticipated. The proposedABL testingactivities
would requirea long-termincreaseof approximately750 personnelat EdwardsAFB to
supportthe ABL programand a short-termincreaseof up to 50 programrelated
temporarypersonnelduring test activities. Thesepersonnelwould provide a small,
positive,yet largely unnoticeableeffect on population,income,andemploymentin the
vicinity of the installations.
Environmental Effects of the No-Action Alternative. ABL test activitieswould
continuein accordancewith thoseactionsaddressedin the 1997FEIS and associated
ROD. The regionalairspacerestrictionsat the installationswould continuedue to
ongoingmissionactivities. Managementof hazardousmaterialsandwasteat the
installationswould continuein accordancewith currentpractices. Currentrangesafety
measuresat the installationswould continueto ensurepublic safetyandthe environment
areprotected.Basedon the 1997FEIS,no adverseair quality, noise,biological, cultural,
or socioeconomicimpactsareanticipated.
Preferred Alternative. The ProposedAction is the preferredalternative. This would
involve conductingtest activities of the ABL systemat test rangesassociatedwith
EdwardsAFB and VandenbergAFB, California, and Kirtland AFB and
WSMR/HollomanAFB, New Mexico. Test activitieswould involve testingthe laser
componentson the groundandin flight to verify that lasercomponentsoperatetogether
Page6
safelyandeffectively. EdwardsAFB hasbeenselectedasthe Home Baseandwill be the
primary locationfor ground-testingactivities. White SandsMissile Rangehasbeen
selectedasthe DiagnosticTest Rangeand the WesternRangehasbeenselectedasthe
Expanded-AreaTest Range.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative. The environmentallypreferredalternativeis
the no-actionalternative.
Cumulative Impacts. The SEISfound no cumulativeimpactson the human
environmentfrom proposedABL testingactivities. However,dueto the natureof test
activitiesat the WesternRangeandWSMR, other missiletest and rocket launchactivities
within the rangesto supportother military and commercialfunctionswould be occurring.
Thesemissiletestsandrocket launcheshavebeenaddressedin Environmental
Assessments
(EAs) and EnvironmentalImpact Statements(EISs)that limit the numberof
launchesand arecarefully scheduled/coordinated
to preventconflicts with overlapping
mISSIons.
In the eventthat groundtestsareconductedat HollomanAFB, potential missionconflicts
could occur at HollomanAFB due to parking the ABL aircraft and associatedsupport
equipmentat the westernend of the baserunway. This arrangementwould prevent
aircraft from taking-off or landing(i.e., require closureof the runway). In orderto avoid
missionconflicts at HollomanAFB, otherlessfrequentlyor unusedrunways,taxiways,
or aircraft apronlocationscould be identified/dedicatedto supportthe ABL aircraft
duringthe shortperiod of ground-testactivities. If a suitableground-testlocationthat
avoidsHollomanAFB missionactivities cannotbe identified, the ABL ground-test
programwould be postponeduntil conditionsat EdwardsAFB or Kirtland AFB are
suitable. In addition,during ABL flight-test activities,conflicts with the HollomanAFB
flying missioncould occurdueto theABL test activitiesusingrestrictedairspacethat is
alsousedby Holloman AFB aircraft. This potentialconcernwould be avoidedthrough
schedulingof test activities so that missionconflicts would not occur.
Measuresto Minimize Impacts. All practicablemeansto avoid, minimize, or mitigate
harmto the environmentwould be takenunderthe selectedalternative. Becauseof the
negligibleimpactsthat ABL testactivities would haveon mostenvironmentalfactorsand
measuresalreadytakeby the MDA, Air Force,and Army, no separatemitigation plan
beyondadherenceto applicablelaws, regulations,and 000 guidelinesis deemed
necessary.ABL test activitieswould comply with applicablefederal,state,000, Air
Force,and Army regulatjonsregardingthe managementof hazardousmaterialsand
hazardouswaste. Evacuatjonplansand emergencyresponseplanswill be developedand
jmplementedasrequired. Emergencyplanning documentswill be updatedand
emergencyresponsepersonneltrainedand equippedprior to introductionof new ABL
hazardousmaterials.
Page7
To minimize potentiallaserhazards,multiple controlswould be usedto reducethe
potentialfor off-rangelasingand accidentallasing of unsuspectingreceptors.These
controlsincludethe useof backdropsand enclosures,horizontaland vertical buffer
zones,administrativecontrols,andremovalof mirror-like reflecting surfacesfrom the
testarea. Safetyinterlocksassociatedwith the lasersystemsare in place to stop lasing
activitiesin the eventthat the beamcontrol steersthe beamfrom the anticipatedbeam
path. Evacuations,clearances,androadclosureswould be implementedto ensureworker
andpublic healthandsafety. Any debrisfrom targetmissile impact areaswould be
recoveredin accordancewith establishedStandardOperatingProcedures(SOPs)and
regulations.
Consultationwith appropriatefederaland stateagencies(e.g.,U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service,SHPO)will be completed.Notice of launchactivitieswi]] be providedto any
concernedagencies,local communities,and recreationalusers. Efforts will be madeto
scheduleABL test activitiesto avoid impactson other activitiesat the instal1ations.
With regardto airspace,avoidanceof the R-5119RestrictedArea associatedwith WSMR
would mitigatethe potentialimpactto the Jl3 andJ57 high-altitudejet routesthat transit
throughthe RestrictedArea. In orderto avoid operationalimpactsat Holloman AFB,
otherlessfrequentlyusedor unusedrunways,taxiways,or aircraft apronlocationscould
be identified/dedicatedto supportthe ABL aircraft during the shortperiod of ground-test
activities. If a suitableground-testlocationthat avoidsHollomanAFB missionactivities
cannotbe identified,the ABL ground-testprogramwould be postponeduntil conditions
at EdwardsAFB or Kirtland AFB are suitable.
In the eventthat targetdebrisaffectsWhite Sandspupfish habitat,specific
operationalstepsfor emergencyresponseswould be determinedon a case-by-case
basisin accordancewith the WSMR Missile MishapPlan,Annex P to the Disaster
Control Plan.
Page8
CONCLUSION
The refinementsin the original testingprogramanalyzedin the SEISserveto increase
testingefficienciesandrealism,andprovide further advancementof the ABL testing
program.
The factorsandconsiderationsoffered abovejustify the selectionby MDA of the
ProposedAction aspresentedin the Final SuDDlemental
EnvironmentalImRactStatement
for the Airborne LaserPro~.
I
'
"'
W
~:--_~~~~~1'
Rt>
'i~~~~:
,0
AUG
1
2
AUG 12m
NALD T. KADIS~
LieutenantGeneral,USAF
Director
Page9