NRO APPROVED FOR RELE-AtE YL-A 

1 JUNE 2015 

t_.1, Environmental Files 

Doc # 74 

o2.oro 

c“mpliaik-c - NEPA - k Ff.,;, 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

ANALYSIS PROCESS 

VOLUME III 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF 

TITAN IV/CENTAUR LAUNCH COMPLEX 

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA 

AUGUST 1930 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 CO. • COVER SHEET HUG 10 190 

• 

(a) Responsible Agency: U.S. Air Force (USAF) 

(b) Proposed Action: Construction and operation of Titan IV/Centaur Launch Complex (TCLC) 

on South Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California, for launching the Titan IV/Centaur 

space vehicle. This action would: (1) support requirements for timely and reliable launch of 

critical Department of Defense (DOD) satellites from a location where highly inclined and polar 

orbits can be safely achieved, (2) provide capability to launch payloads in the 10,000 pound 

class to high energy, inclined orbits, and (3) maintain assured access to space by providing 

backup launch capability for the Titan IV/NUS (No Upper Stage). 

(c) Preferred Alternative: Based on environmental analysis undertaken for the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), comments on the Draft EIS received from federal, 

state, and local government agencies, elected officials, the public (individuals and 

organizations), and Congressional action, USAF has determined that the conversion and 

subsequent operation of the existing Space Launch Complex 6 (SLC-6) is the preferred 

alternative to meet DOD launch program requirements. 

(d) Responsible Individual: Mr. John Edwards 

HQ SSD/DEV 

P.O. Box 92960 

Los Angeles, California 90009-2960 

Telephone: (213) 643-0934 

(d) Designation: Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) 

(f) Abstract: This EIS addresses the construction and operation of the proposed action on 

South VAFB, California, to provide for processing and launch of the Titan IV/Centaur, an 

unmanned space launch vehicle, capable of launching payloads in the 10,000-pound class into 

high energy, near-polar orbits. 

Alternatives considered include the no action alternative and the development and operation 

of the facility at three undeveloped sites and one developed site (SLC-6) on south VAFB. 

Primary impacts to the physical environment of South VAFB would involve soil and 

vegetation loss during construction (for the undeveloped alternatives) and effects of sonic 

boom on Channel Islands wildlife during launch events. Primary impacts to the human 

environment of north Santa Barbara County relate to the potential for a maximum of 550 

employment opportunities during project construction and 400 during operations. The 

primary regional effects of temporary and permanent population growth would be increases 

in economic activity and in demands on public services and facilities. Other impacts would 

include the visual impacts from implementation at one of the undeveloped sites and the 

potential closure of Jalama Beach County Park during launch events. Potential impacts to 

health and safety also would occur, related to the fuels utilized. 

Impacts to the environment from implementation of the proposed action at the Vina Terrace, 

Boathouse Flats or Cypress Ridge site would be similar. For most environmental 

considerations, impacts from the proposed implementation at SLC-6 would be substantially 

less. 

(g) Released to the public August 10, 1990. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• AUG 10 1990 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF TABLES/LIST OF FIGURES 

LIST OF TABLES/LIST OF FIGURES 

CHAPTER 3.0, ADDENDA AND ERRATA TO THE DRAFT EIS 

PAGE NO. 

iii 

SUMMARY S-1 

1_0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 

1.1 Environmental Impact Analysis Process 1-1 

1.2 Public Review 1-2 

1.3 Final EIS Format 1-5 

2.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2-1 

2.1 Written Public Comments and Responses 2-1 

2.2 Public Hearing Comments and Responses 2-187 

2.2.1 Lompoc, California Public Hearing 2-189 

2.2.2 Santa Barbara, California Public Hearing 2-245 

3.0 ADDENDA AND ERRATA TO THE DRAFT EIS 3-1 

3.1 Draft EIS Text 3-1 

3.2 Draft EIS Tables 3-23 

3.3 Draft EIS Figures 3-47 

4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 4-1 

5.0 REFERENCES 5-1 

6.0 FINAL EIS MAILING LIST 6-1 

6.1 Federal Agencies 6-1 

6.2 State Agencies 6-2 

6.3 County Agencies 6-2 

6.4 Local Agencies 6-3 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUN? 2015 

TABI OF CONTENTS 

(Continued) 

PAGE NO, 

6.5 Libraries 6-4 

6.6 Organizations 6-4 

6.7 Businesses 6-5 

6.8 Individuals 6-6 

6.9 Elected Officials 6-8 

6.10 Educational/Research Institutions 6-8 

7.0 DOCUMENTATION OF DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARINGS 7-1 

7.1 Federal Register Notice of Availability of Draft EIS 7-3 

7.2 News Release for Draft EIS Public Hearings 7-5 

7.3 Mailing List for Notification of Draft EIS Public Hearings 7-7 

7.4 Notification of Draft EIS Public Hearings 7-17 

7.5 Newspaper Notification of Draft EIS Public Hearings 7-21 

7.6 Newspaper Publication Dates of Draft EIS Public Hearings 7-23 

7.7 Public Hearing Summary Handout 7-25 

7.8 Public Hearing Registration Card 7-29 

7.9 Written Statement Form 7-31 

7.10 Draft EIS Public Hearings Attendance and Speakers Lists 7-33 

8.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 8-1 

APPENDIX A: GLOBAL WARMING 

APPENDIX B: WHITE PAPER ON BIXBY RANCH UPDATE 

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF RISK ASSESSMENT 

APPENDIX D: THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

CONSULTATION 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 iii • LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE NO. 

S.1 Existing SLC-6 Facilities and Proposed Utilization S-28 

S.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures S-44 

S.3 Numerical Comparative Summary of Impacts For Project Alternatives S-52 

1.1 Summary of Comments on Draft EIS 1-4 

2.1 Summary of Collective Public Risks from VAFB Launches 2-151 

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE NO. 111LE PAGE NO, 

S .1 Regional Location Map S-4 

S.2 Titan IV Vehicle Configurations S-5 

S.3 Conceptual Drawing, Primary TCLC Support Structures S-7 

S.4 Titan Program, Existing VAFB Facilities S-12 

S.5 Titan IV/Centaur, Typical Vehicle Assembly S-15 

Flow Diagram 

S.6 Titan IV/Centaur, Typical Vehicle Assembly Time S-17 

Line and Labor Requirements 

S.7 Alternative Sites S-20 

S.8 Preliminary Construction Schedule and S-21 

Personnel Requirements for the Proposed Action 

S.9 Conceptual Layouts for Undeveloped Sites S-22 

S.10 Utility Corridors, Cypress Ridge Alternative S-24 

S.11 SLC-6 and Surround Areas S-26 

S.12 Space Launch Complex 6 S-29 
NRO 4FPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • 

FIGURE NO, 

LIST OF FIGURES 

(Continued) 

TITLE PAGE NO. 

S.13 Preliminary Construction Schedule and Personnel S-31 

Requirements for Implementation of TCLC at SLC-6 

S.14 Utility Corridors, Boathouse Flats Alternative S-33 

S.15 Utility Corridors, Vina Terrace Alternative S-35 

2.1 Results of LARA Analysis for Launch Azimuth of 192 2-154 

Degrees from Cypress Ridge Site 

2.2 Results of LARA Analysis for Launch Azimuth of 153 2-155 

Degrees from Cypress Ridge Site 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • LIST OF TABLES 

CHAPTER 3.0 

ADDENDA AND ERRATA TO THE DRAFT EIS 

DRAFT EIS TTTLE DRAFT EIS 

TABLE NO. PAGE NO. 

• 

1.4.1 Scoping Process, Summary of Issues 1-8 

1.5.1 Ambient Air Qualityt Standards 1-15 

2.2.1 Existing SLC-6 Facilities and Proposed Utilization 2-43 

2.3.1 Comparative Summary of Impacts for Project Alternatives 2-52 

3.2.1 Surface Water Quality, Point Arguello Area 3-25 

3.3.1 Approximate Distribution of Vegetation at Alternative Sites 3-41 

4.1.3 Potential Regional Ground Motion 4-7 

4.5.1 TCLC Operational Emissions 4-58 

4.5.2 Comparison of TCLC and VAFI3 Annual Emissions 4-59 

4.5.3 Estimated Construction Equipment Emissions, Cypress 4-61 

Ridge Site 

4.5.4a Estimated Construction Emissions SLC-6 Site 4-66a 

4.5.4b Estimated Construction Equipment Emissions, 

Boathouse Flats Site 

4-67a 

4.5.4c Estimated Construction Equipment Emissions, Vina 4-67b 

Terrace Site 

4.5.5 Cumulative Emissions 4-68 

4.6.1 Estimated Launch Wastewater Characteristics After 4-84 

Hypochlorite Treatment 

4.10.1 Estimated Personnel Requirements 4-122 

4.12.1 Construction Employment Public Service Impacts 4-143 

4.13.1 Projected Missile Launch Rates, VAFB 1986-1995 4-156 

B.11 Specially Protected Marine Species B-43 
NRO AXPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

LIST OF FIGURES 

CHAPTER 3.0 

ADDENDA AND ERRATA TO THE DRAFT EIS 

DRAFT EIS TITLE DRAFT EIS 

FIGURE NO. PAGE NO. 

2.1.1 Regional Location Map 2-3 

2.1.2 Alternative Sites 2-5 

2.1.3 Conceptual Layout, Cypress Ridge Site 2-6 

2.1.7 Preliminary Utility Corridors and Construction 2-15 

Areas, Proposed Alignment 

2.1.8 Preliminary Utility Corridors and Construction 2-16 

Areas, Alternative Alignment 

2.1.9 Titan Program, Existing VAFB Facilities 2-19 

2.1.10 Preliminary Construction Schedule and Personnel 2-24 

Requirements for Undeveloped Sites 

2.1.11 Proposed Borrow and Spoil Locations 2-25 

2.1.12 Titan IV/Centaur, Typical Vehicle Assembly Flow 2-29 

Diagram 

2.1.13 Titan IV/Centaur, Typical Vehicle Assembly Time Line 

and Labor Requirements 

2-31 

2.2.1 Project Alternatives and Access and Utility Corridors 2-40 

2.2.2 SLC-6 Site 2-42 

2.2.3a Preliminary Construction Schedule and Personnel 2-46a 

Requirements for Implementation of Proposed 

Action at SLC-6 

2.2.4 Conceptual Layout, Boathouse Flats Site 2-48 

2.2.5 Conceptual Layout, Vina Terrace Site 2-49 

3.1.1 Regional Physiography 3-3 

3.1.2 Local Soils Map (Soil Series) 3-6 

3.1.3 Geologic Structures Map (Onshore Features) 3-8 

3.1.4 Earthquake Epicenter Map (Magnitude 4.0 or Greater) 3-11 

3.1.5 Drainage Areas and Discharge Points 3-15 

3.2.1 Ground Water Basins VAFB Vicinity 3-20 

3.2.2 South VAFB Existing Production Wells 3-23 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

vii • LIST OF FIGURES 

(Continued) 

CHAPTER 3.0 

ADDENDA AND ERRATA TO THE DRAFT EIS 

DRAFT EIS 

FIGURE NO, 

TITLE DRAFT EIS 

PAGE NO. 

• 

3.3.2 Vegetation Communities at Alternative Sites 3-34 

3.3.3 Plant Communities, Environmental Study Area 3-35 

3.3.4 Locations of Curly-Leaved Monardella and Crisp 3-43 

Monardella on VAFB 

3.3.5 Environmental Study Area, Colonies of Monardella 3-44 

Undulata var. Frutescens 

3.4.1 3.4.1Nesting Locations of California Least Tern and 3-52 

Western Snowy Plover 

3.11.2 Titan IV/Centaur Hypothetical HCI Isopleths, 3-136 

Normal Launch 

3.13.1 Coastal Zone, North Coast Planning Area 3-153 

4.2.1 South VAFB Proposed Ground Water Withdrawal 4-18 

Rates 

4.3.1 Near-Field Acidic Deposition, Cypress Ridge Site, 4-26 

Titan IV/Centaur Launch 

4.3.2 Near-Field Acidic Deposition, SLC-6 Site, 4-29 

Titan IV/Centaur Launch 

4.3.3 Near-Field Acidic Deposition, Boathouse Flats Site, 4-30a 

Titan IV/Centaur Launch 

4.3.4 Near-Field Acidic Deposition, Vina Terrace Site, 4-31a 

Titan IV/Centaur Launch 

4.4.1 Titan IV/Centaur Sonic Boom Footprint 4-37 

4.4.3 Acidic Deposition in Vicinity of Honda Creek, 4-44 

Cypress Ridge Site, Titan IV/Centaur Launch 

4.4.4 Acidic Deposition in Vicinity of Honda Creek, 4-48a 

SLC-6 Site, Titan IV/Centaur Launch 

4.4.5 Acidic Deposition in Vicinity of Honda Creek, 4-48b 

Boathouse Flats Site, Titan IV/Centaur Launch 

4.4.6 Acidic Deposition in Vicinity of Honda Creek, 4-49a 

Vina Terrace Site, Titan IV/Centaur Launch 

4.6.1 North VAFB Hazardous Wastes, Titan II and IV 4-80 

Programs and Proposed Action 
NRO 4PurROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • LIST OF FIGURES 

(Continued) 

CHAPTER 3.0 

ADDENDA AND ERRATA TO THE DRAFT EIS 

DRAFT EIS 

FIGURE NO. 

ITTLE DRAFT EIS 

PAGE NO. 

4.6.2 Launch Wastewater Generation and Treatment Cycle 4-85 

4.6.3 Summary, Onsite Hazardous Waste Generation, 

VAFB and Proposed Action 

4-88 

4.6.4 Summary, VAFB Cumulative Hazardous Waste 4-92 

Generation 

4.6.5 Comparison of VAFB and California Hazardous Wastes 4-93 

4.7.1 Projected Maximum Noise Levels From 4-96 

Titan IV/Centaur Launch 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 S-1 

• SUMMARY 

Consistent with the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 

Parts 1500 - 1508) and Air Force Regulation AFR 19-2, this Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) does not reprint the Draft EIS (USAF 1989c) since changes to the Draft EIS in 

response to comments are minor. Unless indicated otherwise, the term Space Launch Complex 7 

(SLC-7) was used for convenience throughout the Draft EIS to refer to the proposed new launch 

capability. That program has been retitled Titan IV/Centaur Launch Complex (TCLC), and that 

new title is used throughout this final EIS. As described in Chapter 1.0, Introduction, this Final 

EIS provides public and agency comments and responses to those comments, addenda and errata 

to the Draft EIS, documentation of the Draft EIS public hearings, and additional information in 

response to comments. 

IN I RODUCITON 

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) has proposed the construction and operation of the TCLC in support 

of the Department of Defense (DOD) space program. The proposed action would be located at 

Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California (see Figure S.1, Regional Location Map), and be 

designed for a minimum operational period of 25 years. 

The Titan IV/Centaur is an unmanned, expendable space launch vehicle capable of launching 

critical DOD satellites, including payloads in the 10,000-pound class, to high-energy orbits. The 

proposed space launch complex allows achievement of polar and highly inclined orbits. It would 

be designed specifically to accommodate the Titan IV/Centaur, but would also serve as a backup to 

other facilities for launch of the Titan IV/NUS (No Upper Stage) to assure access to space and 

timely and reliable launch of critical missions. The proposed facility represents the latest 

modification to the continuing Titan program at VAFB. 

VAFB is assigned to the USAF Strategic Air Command (SAC). As host command, SAC's 1st 

Strategic Aerospace Division (1STRAD) is responsible for providing management, operational 

analysis, and material support for SAC and over 40 federal and civilian tenant agencies located 

at VAFB, as well as for controlling and conducting the SAC Intercontinental Ballistic Missile 

(ICBM) operational flight tests into the Western Test Range (WTR). VAFB provides extensive 

launch and technical support facilities to sustain the variety of space and missile systems that 

operate from the base. 

• 

• 
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP 

TCLC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

S-3 

A principal tenant of VAFB is the Western Space and Missile Center (WSMC). WSMC and the 

Eastern Space and Missile Center (ESMC) are subordinate organizations to Air Force Systems 

Command (AFSC), Space Systems Division (SSD). ESMC is responsible for operating 

and maintaining the Eastern Test Range (Ell() at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), 

Florida, while WSMC is responsible for operating and maintaining the Western Test Range at 

VAFB. WSMC goals are to: 

• Process and launch all U.S. polar orbiting satellites, utilizing Atlas, Titan, 

and Scout booster rockets. 

• Conduct flight tests and evaluations of all new USAF ICBM systems, 

including Peacekeeper, Rail Garrison, modified Minuteman, and Small 

ICBM. 

• Operate the WTR (a national test range) in support of critical space 

programs, ICBM development, and aeronautical systems testing to assure 

essential telemetry, flight analysis, and range safety. 

In addition to the Titan program, VAFB has hosted ongoing space launch activities associated with 

the Scout, Delta, Atlas, and Space Shuttle programs for over 25 years. Space Launch Complex 6 

(SLC-6) was modified for the Space Shuttle from its original configuration for the Manned Orbital 

Laboratory (MOL) program, but has since been placed in mothball status. It is being evaluated as 

an alternative for the proposed action. Other recent construction activities at VAFB have centered 

on Space Launch Complex 4 (SLC-4). SLC-4 East is being modified for processing and launch of 

the Titan IV/NUS. SLC-4 West has been modified and is currently an operational Titan II facility. 

• 

VAFB is located on a promontory of the California coast where space vehicles can be launched in 

southerly directions over the Pacific Ocean without overflying populated areas. This ability to 

launch over unpopulated areas is necessary for the maintenance of a controlled launch safety 

program. VAFB provides the only location within the contiguous United States where hazards 

from southerly launches of large boosters can be maintained at acceptable levels. In general, the 

VAFB launch azimuths are complementary to the over-water launch azimuths available at CCAFS 

and the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) Kennedy Space Center in Florida, 

which both provide for near-equatorial satellite orbits. 

• 

The configuration of the Titan IV/Centaur vehicle requires a specific launch pad design and 

associated support facilities. Although these facilities exist at CCAFS in Florida, launches from 

them are constrained for safety reasons to easterly azimuths between 35 and 120 degrees. 

Consequently, polar orbits cannot be safely achieved. 
NROCr ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 AWE -2015 • Based on the environmental analysis undertaken for the Draft EIS, the comments received from 

federal, state, and local government agencies, elected officials, the public (individuals and 

organizations) on the Draft EIS, and Congressional action taken since the issuance of the Draft 

EIS, USAF has determined that the conversion of and subsequent operation of the existing SLC-6 

is the preferred alternative to meet DOD launch program requirements. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

PROJECT ELEMENTS 

This section provides descriptions of project elements common to the alternatives considered. 

Discussion of elements particular to individual alternatives are contained in the Project Alternatives 

section. Project elements necessary for the proposed TCLC include the Titan IV/Centaur vehicle, 

onsite facilities, adjacent offsite facilities (such as utilities and other ancillary facilities), and other 

existing VAFB facilities (such as the Launch Control Center). 

The launch complex provides the ability to assemble, check out, and launch the Titan IV/Centaur 

or, in the case of a launch abort, to safely shut down the vehicle systems. Its design includes 

launch control and check-out equipment. Following a launch, post-launch refurbishment and 

preparation for the next launch would occur according to specific mission requirements. 

Commodity storage capacity for propellants (fuels, oxidizers, etc.) is planned to meet a timely 

turnaround requirement for successive launches. 

Ancillary facilities adjacent to the launch complex include a parking area for privately-owned 

vehicles (POVs), a weather station, a sanitary sewage treatment plant, evaporation/percolation 

ponds, an electrical substation, and utility corridors. Elements of the launch complex, including 

the Titan IV/Centaur space launch vehicle, primary support structures, and ancillary structures, are 

described below. 

Titan IV/Centaur Space Launch Vehicle 

Components of the Titan IV/Centaur include two upgraded Solid Rocket Motors (SRMUs), Core 

Vehicle (stages I and II), Centaur Stage, Payload Fairing (PLF), and Satellite Vehicle (SV) (see 

Figure S.2, Titan IV Vehicle Configurations). Another configuration that would be supported 

from the proposed launch complex is the Titan IV/NUS launch vehicle (see Figure S.2). 
TITAN IV/NUS 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE S-5 

U) 

w 

m In 

co 

PROPELLANTS COMPONENTS 

SATELLITE VEHICLE (SV) 

PAYLOAD FAIRING (PLF) 

CENTAUR STAGE 

G. 

CENTAUR STAGE 

Li-12 = 7,489 LBS. 

LO2 = 37,446 LBS. 

HYDRAZINE = 340 LBS. 

CORE VEHICLE 

STAGE II 

STAGE H OXIDIZER 

N204 = 49,134 LBS. 

STAGE H FUEL 

AEROZINE 50 = 27,735 LBS. 

SRMUs 

TOTAL PROPELLANT 

— 1,360,788 LBS. 

■ / 

r 

CORE VEHICLE 

STAGE I 

STAGE I OXIDIZER 

N204 = 223,166 LBS. 

SOLID ROCKET 

MOTOR UPGRADE 

STAGEIFUEL 

AEROZINE 50 = 117,965 LBS. 

TITAN IV/CENTAUR 

LEGEND 

1-H2 - LIQUID HYDROGEN 

102 - IJOUI0 OXYGEN 

N204 - NITROGENIEIHOMDE 

AEROZINE - 50% HYDRAZINE, 50% UDMH 

SOURCE: USAF 1988b. 

FIGURE S.2 

TITAN IV 

VEHICLE CONFIGURATIONS 

TCLC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE X015 • The two SRMUs power the initial liftoff and together contain a total of approximately 1.4 million 

pounds of solid rocket propellant. The SRMUs fire for approximately two and one-half minutes, 

at which time they separate from the core vehicle. The expended SRM1Js fall into the ocean and 

are not recovered. The core vehicle is constructed in two stages and uses liquid propellants 

consisting of a fuel and an oxidizer. Stage I burns for approximately three minutes, at which time 

it separates from Stage II. Stage II then burns for approximately four minutes, at which time it 

separates from the remainder of the space vehicle. These stages also fall into the ocean and are not 

recovered. The Centaur is the last stage of the space launch vehicle and is used to boost the 

satellite into high energy orbit with one to three burns, depending on the desired orbit altitude for 

the satellite. After the final burn, the Centaur separates from the satellite and remains in orbit. 

The PLF consists of three sections called "trisectors" which, when joined, form the cylindrical 

satellite housing. The PLF trisectors are jettisoned during the Stage I burn, fall into the ocean, and 

are not recovered. 

• Primary Support Structures 

Various support structures and equipment are necessary to process and launch the Titan IV/ 

Centaur. These consist of specific structures at the launch complex as well as facilities and utilities 

located elsewhere on VAFB. The primary support structures described below would be located 

within the launch complex area. 

• 

Launch Support Structure 

The Launch Support Structure (LSS) is a partially underground concrete structure, located near the 

launch mount area (see Figure S.3, Conceptual Design, Primary TCLC Support Structures). The 

LSS would have electrical, computer, and communications equipment necessary for processing the 

launch vehicle. 

The LSS would be constructed to withstand the effects of a launch. This is accomplished by 

.designing the structure to withstand launch-induced overpressure and by providing flame shields 

and protective coatings to reduce the effect to the structure from heat generated by the SRMUs. 

Launch Mount, Umbilical Tower, and Exhaust Duct 

The Launch Mount (LM) and Umbilical Tower (UT) are situated near each other over the exhaust 

duct (see Figure S.3). The LM provides structural support for the launch vehicle. It also provides 

the staging area and facilities necessary to support launch-related activities, including assembly of 

the launch vehicle components, systems check-out, and launch. The exhaust duct, an open 
S-7 

1 JUNE 2015 

FIGURE S.3 

TCLC ENVIRONMENTAL MI PACT STATEMENT 

OPERATIONS SUPPORT BUILDING MOBILE SERVICETOWER LAUNCH SUPPORT STRUCTURES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUN 4015 

concrete channel, directs the exhaust flames and resulting plumes from the ignition of the two 

SRMUs away from the launch deck and complex for safe dispersal. The exhaust duct also stores 

wastewater runoff from launch deluge and fire suppression activities for treatment at a later date. 

The UT provides electrical, propellant, and air conditioning systems to support the launch vehicle 

while it is on the LM. The UT also provides personnel access to various levels of the space launch 

vehicle during final launch preparation. 

Mobile Service Tower 

The Mobile Service Tower (MST) (see Figure S.3) is an approximately 300-foot-high structure, 

housing a 220- to 240-ton crane to be used for vehicle assembly and a clean enclosure for satellite 

vehicle integration and testing. The MST has internal platforms that provide access to the launch 

vehicle. The MST is located on a track and is moved into place surrounding the LM. Launch 

vehicle components arrive at the launch pad deck on transporters and are positioned under the MST 

crane to be hoisted into a vertical position on the LM. 

Operations Support Building 

The Operations Support Building (OSB) provides facilities necessary for daily engineering and 

operations support and coordination of the proposed project (see Figure S.3). Included within the 

OSB are: briefing/training room, technical operations area, offices, data library, communications 

equipment, launch complex management center, maintenance and machine shops, storage, toilets, 

lockers, showers, lunchroom, and other necessary personnel support areas. 

Ancillary Project Elements 

Ancillary project elements at other locations within VAFB also are necessary for operating the 

TCLC. These include roads, buildings, storage facilities, and utilities. Ancillary roads and utilities 

would link the TCLC with other existing VAFB systems. 

Roads and Parking 

New roads would be constructed or existing roads would be upgraded to provide access to and 

security patrol roads for the facility. A POV parking area would be located adjacent to the launch 

complex within the site boundary. 

• Support Equipment Buildings 

Support equipment buildings would be provided within the fenced launch complex area. These 

facilities would include a paint and lubricant storage building, ordnance bunker, storage facility, 

essential power building, and other structures, as necessary. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 S-9 • Propellant and Gas Holding Areas 

Propellant and gas holding areas include a gas storage area, Titan IV core vehicle fuel and oxidizer 

holding areas, payload fuel and oxidizer holding pads, and cryogenic commodity holding areas. 

The various holding areas would be equipped with pollution control devices, as appropriate. 

Storage facilities and approximate commodity quantities are as follows: 

The Gas Storage Area would include storage and handling facilities for 

approximately 3,000 cubic feet of gaseous helium, at 6,000 psig, and 

5,000 cubic feet of gaseous nitrogen, also at 6,000 psig. 

The Titan Core Vehicle Oxidizer (N?O4) Storage Area would consist of a 

40,000-gallon ready storage vessel (RSV), pump, vapor control system, 

propellant loading unit, and a 40,000-gallon waste vessel. Separate 

containment areas are provided for the storage and waste vessels. These 

areas are sized to contain about 60,000 gallons each. 

• The Titan Booster Vehicle Fuel (Aerozine 50) Storage Area would consist 

of a 40,000-gallon RSV, pump, vapor control system, propellant loading 

unit, and a 40,000-gallon waste vessel. In addition, an automatic deluge 

water system would dilute any spill, thereby reducing the possibility of 

vapors escaping to the atmosphere. There would be two separate 

containment areas for the RSV and waste vessel. Each containment area 

would have a volume of approximately 175,000 gallons and would be 

designed to hold the contents of each vessel, plus deluge water, at a ratio 

of 1:3. In addition, there is a 1,500-gallon sump within the waste tank 

containment area. The sump functions as a drain from each area and is 

designed for one-way flow so that fluid which enters cannot flow out. 

• The Payload Fuel and Oxidizer Holding Pads would be used for shortterm storage until payload fuel and oxidizer could be transferred to the 

satellite vehicle. 

• The Cryogenic Holding Areas would include storage for about 15,000 

gallons of liquid oxygen (L02), about 40,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen 

(LH2), and about 4,000 gallons of liquid helium (LHe). The liquid 

hydrogen area would use a flare stack to bum excess vapor, and the liquid 

oxygen area would use a dump pond to evaporate liquid oxygen spills. 

Liquid helium spills would be contained by a wall surrounding the liquid 

helium tank. 

UtilitieslUtility Corridors 

Utilities necessary for operation of the proposed action would include a series of onsite systems, 

including water (potable, wastewater, and deluge), sanitary sewer, propane gas, communications, 

and electrical. Configurations of utility corridors for each alternative are provided in the discussion 

of Project Alternatives. 
NRO,6k.P.PriNOVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNff2015 • Electrical 

Electrical demand for the launch complex is estimated to be approximately 6,000 kVA. A 

switching mechanism in the substation would allow either commercial or standby power to be fed 

to the secondary power distribution system. During launch processing, the Space Transportation 

System (STS) Power Plant would be used to supply power, with commercial power providing a 

standby power source. For launch, commercial power would be used, with the STS Power Plant 

providing backup. An essential power generator has also been included in the proposed concept. 

This would be a 480 V, three-phase generator capable of supplying a minimum of 500 kVA. In 

case of a power failure during launch operations (i.e., in the event of failure of both the STS 

Power Plant and commercial power supply), the essential power generator would supply power 

for the launch site security system and for essential launch shutdown and safety functions. 

Propane 

Propane gas would be utilized for heating and cooling and as auxiliary fuel for flare stack pilot 

flames, if required. Appropriate storage vessels and distribution lines would be provided in 

support of these needs. • Potable Water 

A distribution system would supply water for fire suppression, launch deluge, washdown, and 

domestic uses. For each Titan TV/Centaur launch, approximately 146,000 gallons of water would 

be required. Of this amount, 80,000 gallons would be used for pre-launch check-out, 26,000 

gallons for launch deluge, and 40,000 gallons for post-launch washdown. Of the 146,000 

gallons, 20,000 would evaporate during launch and form a ground cloud. Based on fire 

suppression water requirements, a minimum of 800,000 gallons would be stored in reserve. 

This storage and distribution would be achieved through a supply system interconnected with 

the existing VAFB water supply system. 

• 

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 

Disposal of wastewater from launch deluge and pad washdown would be accomplished by the use 

of existing VAFB treatment and disposal facilities. Wastewater would be disposed of by either 

evaporation at the SLC-6 evaporation ponds or by first treating the water at the SLC-6 treatment 

plant prior to use of the SLC-6 evaporation ponds. An ultraviolet (UV)/ozone wastewater 

treatment system would be used to treat launch deluge and pad washdown water, if available at 

VAFB. A sanitary sewage treatment facility located onsite would be utilized to treat domestic 

wastewater. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE S-11 

1 JUNE 2015 • Communications 

Communications equipment would be provided for voice (intercom and telephone), closed circuit 

TV, computer data, public address, and area warning systems. Remote video and film cameras 

would be positioned at offsite locations surrounding the launch complex. Communications would 

be via buried fiber-optic cable, scheduled for completion prior to the initial launch. 

Other VAFB Facilities 

There are facilities and systems at VAFB that serve as common support for the existing launch 

complexes. The proposed action would utilize a number of these facilities during launch 

preparation and operations (see Figure S.4, Titan Program, Existing VAFB Facilities). For 

example, facilities are in place for the receipt, testing, inspection, and assembly of vehicle 

components. Building 8510 on North VAFB would be used as a Launch Control Center (LCC) 

during launch operations to communicate with the launch complex and the launch vehicle. 

Other systems are in place for transportation and utilities (electric power, water, gas, and 

communications) that could be utilized/extended to support the proposed action. • Safety Systems 

A mission-specific safety plan would be developed by USAF to ensure that each launch operation 

is in compliance with applicable regulations, as specified in USAF documents, including the 

following: 

• AFR 800-16 - Acquisition Management, USAF Safety Programs 

(including AFSC Supplement 1, AFR 800.16) 

• WSMCR 127-1 - Range Safety Regulation 

• 1STRADR 127-200 - Missile Mishap Prevention 

• AFR 127-100 - Explosive Safety Standard 

• AFM 88 Series - Design Criteria and Standards for Air Force 

Construction 

• EM-385-1-1 - Safety and Health requirements for all Corps of Engineers 

activities and operations. 

• 1STRAD/SEWE - Explosive Site Safety Plan 

• Hazard Analysis, to be developed by launch support contractors. 

• AFOSH - U.S. Air Force Occupational Safety and Health 

The Safety Plan would also recognize the following codes and regulations: 

• NFPA/NFC - National Fire Protection Association, National Fire Codes 

• ANSI - American National Standards Institute 

• OSHA - Occupational Safety & Health Administration • 
S-12 

Win APPRO ED 

1 JNE 2015 

E X11 

MISSION 

HILLS 

POINT 

PEDERNALES 

LOMPOC 

I SLC-6 SITE 

VINA TERRACE SITE 

CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

POINT 

ARGUELLO BOATHOUSE FLATS SITE 

FACILITY BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS 

1. BOOSTER VEHICLE RECEIPT AND PROCESSING - #8401 

2. STS POWER PLANT 

3. WATER STORAGE 

4. SRMU RECEIPT. INSPECTION AND STORAGE - 0398 

5. PAYLOAD FAIRING RECEIPT AND PROCESSING -#8337 

6. SLC-6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLC-6 SITE 

7. LAUNCH CONTROL CENTER- #8510 

8. HYPERGOLIC PROPELLANT STOCKPILE FACILITIES 

#975 AND #977 

4 MILES 

SCALE 

FIGURE S.4 

TITAN PROGRAM 

EXISTING VAFB FACILITIES 

TCLC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 S-13 

• Fire Protection System 

Fire detection, alarm, and suppression systems would be provided for the fuel holding areas, 

support facilities buildings, LSS, ordnance bunker, MST, and other structures. The OSB and 

LSS would have Halon fire extinguishing systems installed in selected areas to protect computer 

and electrical equipment as consistent with USAF Engineering Technical Letter 88-8 (USAF 

1988d). Ultraviolet detectors and infrared flame detectors used in the fuel holding area would 

activate both the area deluge system and alarms at the OSB and the VAFB Fire Department. For 

oxidizer holding areas, a fire detection and alarm system would be provided. However, an area 

deluge system would not be included, due to the reactivity of N204 with water. 

Cathodic Protection 

An active cathodic protection system would be provided in accordance with AFM 88-45. The 

equipment that would be protected includes the underground piping and some of the aboveground 

and/or any underground storage tanks. The cathodic protection system would include rectifiers, 

groundbeds, test stations, interface bonds, and sacrificial anodes. 

Security 

Security measures for the proposed action are an integral component of project safety 

requirements. Security measures would be incorporated within the project design and through 

operational procedures. Elements of site security include a perimeter security fence, clear zone, 

entrapment area road, security lighting, security standby power, intrusion detection system, and 

security patrol roads. Security measures include use of entry controllers, alarm monitors, 

alarm/security response teams, and appropriate weapons, radios, and vehicles in accordance with 

USAF regulations. 

Safety 

Safety procedures for the area surrounding the launch site would be established. Prior to launch, 

the coastal waters and surrounding areas would be patrolled, and train movement through VAFB 

would be monitored. Jalama Beach County Park would be selectively closed to public access prior 

to space launches near this area. Before launch procedures would begin at the TCLC, the USAF 

would encourage that only essential personnel remain on offshore oil rigs in the path of the space 

vehicle over-flight. 
NRO ASPHROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• Emergency egress for personnel would be provided consistent with WSMCR 127-1. Emergency 

egress for surface personnel would consist of gates in the perimeter security fencing that could be 

opened from the inside in case of emergency. In addition to provisions for evacuation of surface 

personnel, the launch pad area would be equipped with a tunnel(s) to provide access to sheltered 

areas that are sufficiently distant from the launch pad to ensure personnel safety. 

Quantity-Distance Criteria 

Quantity-Distance Criteria (QD) are used to establish safe distances from launch complexes 

and associated support locations to nonrelated facilities and roadways. These regulations are 

established by DOD and USAF Explosives Safety Standards. The criteria utilize the TNT 

(trinitrotoluene) explosive equivalent of propellants onboard a fueled launch vehicle, or stored 

components or propellants, to determine safe distances from space launch operations for 

processing and holding areas. For the Titan IV/Centaur, this TNT equivalent amount is 72,000 

pounds for a fully loaded vehicle on the pad prior to launch. This translates into a minimum 

allowable distance from an inhabited building to the propellant-loaded launch vehicle of 1,700 feet, 

and a minimum allowable distance to an uncontrollable public thoroughfare of 1,000 feet. The 

proposed action is designed to meet these criteria. 

PROJECT OPERATIONS 

The Titan IV/Centaur launch vehicle components would be transported separately to VAFB. Upon 

arrival, the components would undergo a variety of receiving inspections and off-line processing 

before being transported to the TCLC launch pad for integration, test, and launch. 

Launch process operations that would occur at the launch site include launch preparation, launch 

operations, and post-launch refurbishment. These activities, planned to begin in 1994 or 1995, are 

described in the following paragraphs. 

Launch Preparation 

Launch preparation activities involve assembly and testing of the Titan IV/Centaur vehicle. 

Vehicle assembly is depicted in Figure S.5 (Titan IV/Centaur, Typical Vehicle Assembly Flow 

Diagram). The launch vehicle components and payload elements would be transported to the 

launch pad from their off-line processing areas or from the point of arrival at VAFB on their 

individual transporters. The elements would be sequentially erected on the LM. 
SOURCE USAF 1988c 

CO 

CC 

• (i) 

< < 

< te 

Lf? 

(..) < — D 5 • - 

• Z> 0 

< I—U_ 

< 

>- 

TCLC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

S- 15 

QJ 

O 

LL 
NRO V1F6ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• Following successful completion of integrated system tests, the satellite would be brought to the launch site and erected in a clean enclosure in the MST, where pre-launch check-outs and testing 

would be conducted. The PLF sections would then be installed. 

Completion of the vehicle assembly and testing activities leads to a pre-launch phase in which the 

launch vehicle and payload are prepared for launch countdown. This includes battery installation, 

propellant loading, ordnance installation (e.g., stage separation charges), and other selected 

hookups. 

Titan IV core vehicle commodity servicing is provided by propellant loading systems installed 

at the launch pad and comprised of ready storage vessels, propellant loading units, and piping. 

Propellants would be piped from onsite storage vessels and transfer systems to the launch vehicle 

through umbilicals at the UT. 

• 

Scheduling of launch preparation activities is depicted in Figure S.6 (Titan IV/Centaur, Typical 

Vehicle Assembly Time Line and Labor Requirements). As shown, off-line processing of vehicle 

components would occur over a 70-day period. Components would then be transferred to the 

launch site for approximately 150 days of vehicle assembly and testing. 

Launch Operations 

Countdown and launch activities are divided into two parts, known as the R-count and the terminal 

count. The R-count begins approximately two weeks prior to launch and involves activities 

such as installation of flight batteries, oxidizer and propellant loading, and ordnance installation. 

The terminal count begins approximately one day prior to launch and includes activities such as 

Centaur propellant loading, vehicle verification and guidance checks, range safety checks, moving 

the MST away from the vehicle, and the final countdown to launch. The launch complex would be 

evacuated of all nonessential personnel prior to fueling the Centaur stage. After Centaur fueling 

has started and been stabilized, all other personnel are evacuated. 

• 

Launches from the TCLC would be controlled from an LCC located on North VAFB. The LCC 

would communicate with the TCLC by a fiber-optic cable link, with a launch complex computer 

receiving commands. The LCC would be used to perform the pre-launch testing and check-out 

and would run the entire countdown and launch phase. Selected pre-launch onsite testing and 

check-out functions would be performed at the launch pad. The terminal launch countdown would 

start approximately 500 minutes prior to launch and could include built-in time delays. The MST 

would be moved back to the park position away from the launch pad during the countdown. 
ONISS3001:Id IN3N0d1A100 S33A01d113 

1— D

- 0 l— a 

6 M 

-J 111 

co U ° 

M cc w 

cc I U) < 

U(-) 

Z 

-1 1-w Ill LI/ 

W 

• LLI 

CC 

CC 0 

W 

(l) 

W LL. >

0 

LLI w 0 

as 

CC 

0 

w 

ORE VEHICLE ASSEMBLY CHECK OUT 

N 

8 51 8 S 8 8 El ° 

0.1 

I I I I I I 1 I I 

2 

z 

tQi r`i 

0 

o 

w

z 

LL

0 

O 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 •41. 

0 

0 

0 

rn 

0 .1* 

"IT 

0 

8 

0 0 

WORKING DAYS 1 

•••••■•11 

ON-PAD PROCESSING 

0 

0 

1— 

LIJ W -J 0 2 

Ua z 

(/) 

0 

CC CC Ea. (>-) 

cc < 

cc

W O 111a C - 0 0 CI_ CC 

Z Z _J 

> .,•7c1 0 

(r) f.■ 0 —1 

CJ) 

0Z_ 

W 

I 

w 

z 

0 

z 

(/) 

0 < 

8 ci" 

0 

• < 

0 Z

1— 0 1— 

Er 

• w 

O uw 

• z 

cc 1-- 0 

o_ 

COMBINED SYSTEM TEST 

RECEIVESRMUs RECEIVE PLF 

LLI _J 

LI1 Z 

> 

O CC as ¢ z 

z < 

w 

o w 

w 1— 0 cc 

• o_ 

FIGURE S.6 

TCLC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Source: USAF 1988c. 

1. 

Time line shown asworking daysbased on 8-hour/day, 5-day/week schedule. 

2. 

24-hour/dayworkschedule. 

• 

J) 

w 

w 

cc 

0 

u_ 

0 in 

O 

0 

Z 

S-17 
NRO ca')MOVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • At ignition, water would be sprayed at the vehicle exhaust from valves located at the UT, LM, 

LSS, and exhaust duct. This spray cools the SRMU exhaust in order to minimize damage to the 

launch pad. Approximately 26,000 gallons of water would be sprayed during the vehicle launch. 

Total operations personnel is estimated at 300 during normal launch operations. About 400 

persons would be onsite for final vehicle processing for a period of approximately one month. 

Post-launch Refurbishment 

Following a launch, washdown and cleanup of the launch area would be completed. Post-launch 

activities would also entail replenishment of commodities such as propellants, cryogenics and 

gases, and minor repair to launch support facilities. 

Other activities following a launch would include the receipt and off-line processing of vehicle 

components in preparation for the next launch. The initiation of this phase would be concurrent 

with and overlap the previously described on-pad launch preparation activities. 

• PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives to the Titan IV/Centaur vehicle and locations for the launch complex were evaluated in 

the Draft EIS. Alternative launch vehicles, including the Space Shuttle, were considered but 

determined not to be viable based on lack of availability or inability to achieve required orbits. 

Alternative locations for the Titan IV/Centaur launch complex at and remote to VAFB were also 

evaluated. CCAFS was rejected because of the inability to launch vehicles from that location and 

safely attain polar orbits. Other sites remote to VAFB were eliminated from further consideration 

due to location and/or the absence of necessary infrastructure. 

The no action alternative was also evaluated and determined not to be a viable solution to DOD 

mission requirements. Use of existing Titan IV launch facilities neither supports the requirement 

for timely launches of critical DOD satellites nor provides the backup capability (i.e., for launches 

from CCAFS and SLC-4 East) which experience demonstrates is necessary for assured access to 

space. 

From the range of alternatives considered, it was determined that the development of 

Titan IV/Centaur launch facilities at South VAFB would present the most reasonable course of 

action, considering mission requirements, technical needs and cost, engineering, and design 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE S-19 

1 JUNE 2015 • 

• 

considerations. Based on siting factors and mission requirements, three undeveloped sites, 

Cypress Ridge, Boathouse Flats, Vina Terrace, and one developed site, SLC-6, were identified for 

detailed consideration. The locations of the four sites are shown in Figure S.7 (Alternative Sites). 

CYPRESS RIDGE 

If the proposed action were to be implemented at Cypress Ridge, it is anticipated that construction 

would require a period of approximately four years, beginning in 1990, as shown in Figure S.8 

(Preliminary Construction Schedule and Personnel Requirements for Undeveloped Sites). There is 

the potential for construction to require five years, in which case the activation/operations phase 

would occur in Year 6, one year later than indicated in the figure. 

Facility Construction 

Initial construction activities following final design would primarily entail grading for the project 

site, POV parking area, roads, and evaporation/percolation ponds. In order to accommodate the 

50-acre Cypress Ridge site, approximately 120 acres would be disturbed by grading activities, 

equipment movement and storage, and the establishment of temporary construction "laydown" 

areas (see Figure S.9, Conceptual Layouts for Undeveloped Sites). 

Depending upon the final design and grading plans for the Cypress Ridge site, earth movement 

would involve a minimum of about 1.5 million cubic yards (CY) each of cut and fill. Between 0.2 

and 0.6 million CY of fill would come from borrow areas located on VAFB. The balance of the 

unused cut material would be removed from the project area and transferred to either a spoil site 

located about three miles north of the Cypress Ridge site near Point Arguello or another, approved 

location. The top six inches of topsoil would be removed and stockpiled onsite for respreading on 

disturbed areas for revegetadon and erosion control after completion of construction. Appropriate 

erosion control measures would be implemented at the stockpile. 

New paved road construction for access to the launch complex would include the realignment of a 

portion of the existing Space Shuttle External Tank Tow Route (Coast Road) (see Access Road in 

Figure S.9) and/or provision for other roads to give access to the site, the electrical substation, and 

the sanitary sewage treatment plant. New roadways within the launch complex area would include 

a perimeter road, an entrapment area road, and other access roads linking project elements and 

associated parking. 
SLC-5 SOUTH 

C) • 0 

..... , ...... .•_ ... , . 

•

* ::::::::: 

). BASE) 

4000 

.75 

5 

w 

cr 

EXTERNAL TANK 

TOW ROUTE 0 

ALTERNATIVE SITES 

4111 SOURCE: USAF 19890. TCLC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

t: 't 

VANuENBERG 

,r 

SMITH rtvEz 

440uNTAINS 

AIR FORCE 

VINA TERRACE 

."‘•441..01v 

PONT 

PEDERNALES 

POINT 

ARGUELLO 

_ 

BOATHOUSE AREA 

8000 FEET 

SCALE 

FIGURE S.7 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

S-20 
cn 

F— 

LijZ 

w cn 

U-I 

Lu cc Fri 

CC

›- C) 

0 

5 

4:( 

0 LL1 

u j CL 

z cc 0 

W 

Lu C) Z Lu 

cc 

0- CC O O 

U) CC 

0 

Z L1.1 CC 

° 

0 Ca Li

z 

- 

FIGURE S. 

A 

S - 2 1 TCLCENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTA 

ACTIVATION/OPERATIONS 

Ga 

w 

w 

0 

u_ 

0 

O 

• 

Lc 

O _ 

Z 

PROJECT PHASE 

FACILITY DESIGN 

GROUNDSUPPORTSYSTEMS 

z 

0 

<t 

z EC71 

FEIS/Fig 5.8/PrC 

0 

CC CC 

I i M ll 1 i I I I I 

§ 8 

. a 0 

<<3 a. 0 a .5 c 

a. a. 

5 0 I' 

0 

-g 3 o. ..:. 

1 

F- ,:, 

o 

75 

.-5 74 g 

.9. 0 

.0 c) ;" :-_-. 0 

-1'

u 

c) tr G E 8 

O 0 Zi g 

:€1 >-. ) 

.5. .= 

-0 .,, ti:j 0 

g ..= th ..., t..)> <1.) •-• C • 0 O -a a cci Cl. -0 .... ...I .2, ,. .• 6- 1 

.„ 0 0 ui F) >, 74 '''' O E i 

E.-. g t 

0 e5 

O 0 8 to - 0 = .... 0 v'... o 

,,c DI 

CO 

u 

.1 cn "E; 

:a g" 

r3 '' ,... IT; 0 

u O 7,. .e 4 u 

>, , -0 -6 ,:. u >, u ,, 3 00 -. 

.., 

F. 

■-• 

-0 5 'al • a) •S ai 

8 6 c o..6 u 

i5 E V§ 0 c := ri 

c 5 

O s6 g ..,2 5', . I' ''' '--- .1iEg V) I "4C E

...,, ,.a Li ,,, ..„, 

. .. 

G.I.: '3 E g E p, 1 1 

— 

.>_. ' ,.2. 6.'. , t..0 -S. 
SOURCE: USAF 1989c. TCLC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

S-22 

NRO APPROVED, FOR RELEASE ; 1 JUNE 2015 

CYPRESS RIDGE _CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT 

BOATHOUSE FLATS CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT 

VINA TERRACE CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT 

FIGURE S.9 

1,000 2,000 FEET 

SCALE 

CONCEPTUAL LAYOUTS 

FOR UNDEVELOPED SITES 

0 • 

ACCESS ROAD 

SITE BOUNDARY 

LAUNCH COMPLEX 

PARKING AREA 

SEWAGE 

EVAPORATION 

PERCOLATION 

PONDS 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 S-23 

• Corridors for communication, water, electrical, and other utilities would temporarily disturb about 

65 acres of land (see Figure S.10, Utility Corridors, Cypress Ridge Alternative). The majority of 

utility distribution lines are planned for underground installation. For electrical power lines, only 

those portions crossing existing roads or railroads would be located underground. Water 

distribution lines would be extended from an existing water storage site located on a knoll about 

1.5 miles north and east of the Cypress Ridge site and also from the Space Shuttle External Tank 

Processing and Storage Facility. In addition, there would be a utility corridor easement to 

accommodate the future provision of natural gas to the site. 

Construction of the Titan IV/Centaur facilities at the Cypress Ridge site would include previously 

discussed structures, such as the LSS, OSB, and ancillary support facilities. Fencing and 

landscaping would be completed after construction of these buildings. 

• 

Laydown areas would be cleared, grubbed, and graded. Temporary parking would be provided at 

the site of the future POV parking lot. During construction, this area would be fenced and used for 

a contractors' village, with temporary mobile office units (trailers), equipment storage area, 

maintenance facilities, parking, and for other construction needs. 

A temporary concrete batch plant and truck washdown area would be provided within the 

boundaries of the laydown area located north of the Space Shuttle External Tank Storage and 

Check-out Facility. The washdown area would be provided with an impoundment to contain 

collected washdown water and concrete waste to be disposed of at completion of construction in 

accordance with county and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations. If 

necessary, due to the potential for surface runoff, a nonpoint source discharge permit would be 

obtained from the RWQCB. 

The level of employment during the anticipated three-year facility construction phase is expected to 

range from about 100 to 425 people, with peak facility construction occurring at the end of year 

two and lasting for about six months (see Figure S.8). Average employment over the three-year 

period would be about 250 people. 

Automobile traffic for the facility construction phase is estimated to average 250 cars per 

day, based on a worst-case assumption that every employee would drive one car to the site. 

A maximum of 425 cars per day could occur for a limited duration during peak construction. 

• 
S-24 

r<u Ut-UK. KtLt. 

JUNE 2015 COAST ROAD 

GN2 PLANT 

TS POWER PLANT 

POINT ARGUELLO 

POTENTIAL RECYCLE 

WATER TANK 

VINA TERRACE SPACE SHUTTLE EXTERNAL 

TANK STORAGE AND 

CHECKOUT FACILITY 

POCKY POINT RIDGE 1 

X.c) 

DIRT RaiD 

V-33 TOW ROUTE 

LEGEND 

WATER DISTRIBUTION LINES 

r77.7.77:77.7:71 ELECTRICAL AND COMMUNICATIONS LINES 

GN2 AND NATURAL GAS LINES OCEAN 

ELECTRICAL AND COMMUNICATIONS ALTERNATIVE ROUTING 

33Frar.arardsig$ EASEMENT FOR POTENTIAL RECYCLED INDUSTRIAL 

WASTEWATER LINE 

2000 4000 FEET 

SCALE 

FIGURE S.10 

GN2ALTERNATIVE ROUTING 

EXISTING FACILITY 

PROPOSED FACILITY 

UTILITY CORRIDORS 

CYPRESS RIDGE ALTERNATIVE 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 S-25 

• Truck traffic is estimated to reach a maximum of 45 to 50 trucks per day during the early part of 

construction when site preparation is being completed, decreasing to approximately 25 to 

35 trucks per day toward the end of construction. 

Ground support systems design, procurement, and installation would be the second phase of 

construction and would begin approximately 24 months after the start of facility construction. This 

phase would consist of the construction and installation of equipment directly linked to the vehicle 

and its performance, such as umbilical systems, flight control devices, and support structures, 

including the LM, MST, UT, and the propellant holding vessels. Some equipment, such as the 

MST, would be shipped in modules via shallow-draft ocean barge to the Space Shuttle External 

Tank Landing Facility (Boathouse area), then transported to the site via the External Tank Tow 

Route (see Figure S.7). Employment during this phase is expected to range from about 75 to 175 

persons (see Figure S.8). Automobile traffic could reach a maximum of about 175 cars per day 

during the peak employment period of this phase. 

• Because the facility construction and ground support systems installation phases are expected to 

overlap for a period of about 18 months, peak employment greater than that for either phase alone 

is expected. This peak is anticipated to occur at the end of year two and last for about six months, 

with employment of about 550 people per day and a potential for a maximum of 550 cars per day 

(see Figure S.8). During the other 12 months of this overlap period, average employment onsite 

would be about 370 people, with a corresponding maximum of approximately 370 cars per day. 

SLC-6 

The SLC-6 site is a developed space launch complex currently configured for the Space Shuttle 

(see Figure S.11, SLC-6 and Surrounding Areas). SLC-6 was originally constructed in 1970 for 

the Titan HIM manned launch space vehicle. The Titan HIM was to be used for the MOL program. 

Subsequent to cancellation of the MOL program, SLC-6 was modified for the Space Shuttle. 

However, primarily as a result of the 1986 Challenger disaster, the USAF has not used SLC-6 for 

Shuttle launches. 

• 

SLC-6 is located about one mile inland from the Pacific Ocean. The fenced complex covers an area 

of about 100 acres, although the total area that would be utilized for Titan IV/Centaur launches is 

estimated to be about 280 acres. Access to SLC-6 is primarily through the. South Vandenberg 

Main Gate, as shown in Figure S.1. 
S-26 

01 

CO 

w 

CC 

NRO APPR 

1 JUNE 201 

EXISTING SLC-6 FACILITIES AND ADJACENT HILLS 

VIEWED FROM THE SOUTH-SOUTHWEST. 

EXISTING SLC-6 FACILITIES AND ADJACENT HILLS 

VIEWED FROM THE NORTH-NORTHWEST. 

FIGURE S.11 

SLC-6 AND SURROUNDING AREAS 

TCLC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 S-27 

Project Facilities 

Conversion of SLC-6 to support the Titan IV/Centaur would involve retention of some 

facilities, modification of others, demolition of some, and new construction. All construction or 

modification activities are planned to occur in areas disturbed by previous construction. A list of 

major facilities and their utilization for the TCLC is shown in Table S.1 (Existing SLC-6 Facilities 

and Proposed Utilization). The existing site configuration for the Space Shuttle, which would be 

modified for the Titan IV/Centaur, is shown in Figure S.12 (Space Launch Complex 6). 

In addition to those facilities discussed in the description of the proposed action, SLC-6 is 

equipped with a Payload Changeout Room (PCR), Payload Processing Room (PPR), and Shuttle 

Assembly Building (SAB). The PCR is not planned for use as a part of the TCLC and likely 

would be demolished. The PPR would be modified to process Titan payloads to be launched 

from various facilities at VAFB. 

• The SAB would be utilized as an all-weather enclosure during the vehicle integration and 

preparation phases of the launch cycle. During final pre-launch activities, the SAB would be 

backed away for vehicle preparation and launch. 

The Access Tower (AT) would be demolished, and the existing MST, originally built for the 

Titan IBM and modified for the Space Shuttle, would likely be demolished and replaced with 

a new structure. The existing LM, designed for the Space Shuttle, would be demolished and 

replaced by a structure designed for the Titan IV. The exhaust ducts would be modified to suit the 

Titan IV configuration. The existing Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) ducts and the Space Shuttle 

Main Engine (SSME) duct would be combined into a single exhaust duct. 

• 

Other major onsite facilities which would be modified or upgraded for the requirements of the 

proposed action include the communications system, security system, and guardhouse. Some 

facilities/systems which were constructed for the Space Shuttle would be inspected and brought to 

full operational capability for the proposed action. These include the hydrazine and N204 storage 

and transfer systems, the industrial wastewater treatment facility, evaporation ponds, water tank, 

and utilities (water distribution, electricity, natural gas, sewage disposal). The POV parking area 

would be situated in its present location northwest of the fenced launch site. Other systems built 

for the Space Shuttle, such as the Ice Suppression System (ISS), would not be used for the TCLC. 

Also present at SLC-6 are several underground diesel fuel and jet fuel storage tanks. These tanks 

would be modified to meet all current regulations before being utilized for the Titan IV program. 
• 

• 

0-38APPROVED FOR RELEASE TABLE S.1 

1 JUNE 2015 

EXISTING SLC-6 FACILITIES 

AND PROPOSED UTILIZATION 

FACILITY 

STATUS 

PROPOSED UTILIZATION 

UTILIZED IN PRESEN CONFIGURATION 

UTILIZED WITH 

MODIFICATIONS 

M

OTHBALLED OR 

UTILIZED FOR OTHER 

PROJECTS 

DEMOLITION 

Payload Processing Room (PPR) X Modified to accommodate Titan payloads 

Payload Changeout Room (PCR) X Subject to demolition 

Shuttle Assembly Building (SAB) X Utilized in present configuration 

Access Tower (AT) X Subject to demolition 

Aerial Escape Tram X Disassembled and disposed of offsite 

Launch Mount (LM) X Subject to demolition 

Launch Exhaust Ducts (LD) X Modified to accommodate Titan IV/Centaur 

Mobile Service Tower (MST) X Subject to demolition 

Operations Support Building (OSB) X Modified to accommodate Titan IV/Ccntaur 

Launch Control Center (LCC) X Utilized for office space 

Security Systems, guard shack X Completed, modify as necessary 

Hydrazine Storage and Transfer X Modified, prepared for use, APCD permit 

Nitrogen Tetroxide (1\1204) Storage 

and Transfer 

X Modified, prepared for use, APCD permit 

Cryogenic Storage Areas X Modified, prepared for use 

Industrial Wastewater Treatment 

Facility 

X Modified with addition of equipment and 

storage capacity, cleaned, prepared for 

operation 

Deluge Water Transfer System X Inspected, cleaned, prepared for operation 

Communications System X Modified to accommodate Titan IV/Centaur 

Utilities Inspected, cleaned, prepared for operation 

Water X 

Electricity X 

Propane X 

Sewage Disposal X 

Water Tank X Inspected, cleaned, prepared for use 

Parking X Utilized in present configuration 
FIGURE S.12 

LAUNCH COMPLEX 6 

TCLC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

0; 

(NJ CV CV CV cJ l`7 EMERGENCYPOWER BLDG. 

chi 

Lll 

cr 

5 

LL 

H2 VENT F LARE O 

LO 

w wU— 

C3 

C:3 0 

1 

w 

U) 

I 

23. 

GAS STORAG E AREA 

25. FAN HOUSE 

w 

<

w 0 f-- < 

a_ 0 C7 a cn C.; 

c-, c-) •ct 

FUELHOLDING AREA 

I D 

SHUTTLE WATE R STORAG ETANK 

EMERGENCY EGRESS GATE 

L H2 STORAGE AREA READY BLDG. 

FUEL UNLOADING AREA 

32. LAUNCH CONTROL CENTER (V26) 42. WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY 

43. OPERATIONS SUPPORTBUILDI NG 

ICE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMBLDG. 

a 

35. FLAMMABLE STORAGE BLDG. JP-4 FUEL AREA 

csi 

PAYLOAD PREPARATION ROOM 

ELECTRICAL SU BSTATION 

* 6 6 

ct 

ct 

O a. 

9.L02STORAGE TANK 

W

Q 

6 

cc; n cci 

SHUTTLE ASSEMBLY BLDG. 

0 

z 

LU —J 

OXIDIZER VAPORBURNER 

OXIDIZERUNLOADINGAREA 

q

Z 

rc 

O 

O 

4. 

SRB EXHAUST DUCT 

I. VAPORIZER PAD 

5. 

FACILITY VALVE PIT 

2. 

LO2 WASTE TANK 

0. GO2 STORAGE 

3. 

SSME EXHAUST DUCT 

20. 

ACCESS TOWER 

21. 

SUPPORTEQUIP. BLDG. 

22. 

COMPLEX SERVICE BLDG. 

S -29 

• 

LU 

(/) 

LIJ 

_1 

cr 

cc 

0 

0 

LU 

0 Lc) 

cr CD 

CC 

Z 
NRO (ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• 

Facility Construction 

Implementation of the SLC-6 alternative would involve demolition prior to construction of 

new project facilities or modification of existing facilities. The concrete and steel LM would be 

removed, producing approximately 1,000 tons of steel. Demolition of the exhaust ducts would 

generate approximately 5,200 cubic yards of waste concrete and 7,500 tons of steel. Concrete 

generated by the demolition of the exhaust ducts would be disposed of at an approved VAFB spoil 

site, and steel resulting from this operation would be salvaged for scrap. Demolition would be 

accomplished primarily by using jackhammers to crack the concrete and torches to cut through 

the steel reinforcing bars. The PCR, AT, and MST would be demolished, resulting in 

approximately 9.5, 5.0, and 12.5 million pounds of steel respectively, to be recycled. Demolition 

would be accomplished primarily by cutting the structures into sections with torches and 

disassembling with a portable crane. 

As shown in Figure S.13 (Preliminary Construction Schedule and Personnel Requirements for 

Implementation of TCLC at SLC-6), modification of existing facilities and construction of new 

facilities would begin near the conclusion of demolition. Overall, facility design, demolition, and 

construction are expected to occur over a period of four and one-half years. Demolition is expected 

to take about one year and three months, with facility construction, integration, and check-out 

occurring over a 28-month period. As shown in Figure S.13, demolition and construction 

employment is expected to range from approximately 100 to 300 people, with an expected average 

over the period of approximately 200 people. 

Automobile traffic is expected to average 200 cars per day, based on a worst-case assumption that 

every employee would drive one car to the site. A maximum of 300 cars per day may occur for a 

limited duration during peak construction. Truck traffic is estimated to reach a maximum of 35 to 

40 trucks per day during the early part of construction, when demolition and site preparation are 

being completed, decreasing to about 20 to 30 trucks with the completion of construction. 

• 

Facility Operations 

For the most part, project operations would be the same as with the other alternatives. However, 

the onsite location of the industrial wastewater treatment facility would simplify some procedures. 

The facility would be located approximately 600 feet from the launch exhaust ducts where the 

deluge water would be collected. The existing system would be utilized to pump the deluge water 

from the launch duct to the treatment facility. 
• 

LU 

(f) 

LU 

_J 

LU 

0 

Ot 

LL 

0 

LU O

• 

u) 

wz 0 

Z 

87-2711IIFEIS/Flg S.13/PrCoSc R EV. 8/ 19/90 

ACTIVATION/OPERATIONS 

Ii 

• •.• 

0 0 

• 

GROUND SUPPORT SYSTEMS 

0 0 

• 

MST/LM/UT 

I II 

DEMOLITION 

CONSTRUCTION (2) 

z C E— — En ct 

• C-1.) 

• < 

;.1.1 

C/D 

z r.4 

0 

CONSTRUCTION 

z 0 

r0 

0 Cl) Ui PROCUREMENT 

S-31 TCLC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

0 cl 

> 

. 

. _. 0 

"C' 1-•z j

<.s ..c cp 0..) E 

.z.-. g c

c ...) c o 

cn O ts cc. E.i c '5 o 

.... Z.1 

-o c 1... C •••■ CZ V) 

C c/: 0 

a: -o 'a V.) -0 c g 0 c o 

o e) 

O c 

-0 > 

c . .c. 

c,, = 

c.., 0..) c* 

o vi = 45 c...) 0)•u u ,...d >, •-n .0 := '5 = 0,3 Ei . 

'.= 2 

cn 0 t.,c5 .2 

..c 

0 0 ICI la: 

6 0 t 0 

— 

._ CC. -0 0 ,,, 0.) -0 0_,(21 .) 0 c z .,). j72 . = . c, 0., r.1.3 

o 

z:. 

-<-7; r,-, -- _1 
NRO IS ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

Other operational procedures would be the same as those discussed in the description of the 

proposed action. 

BOATHOUSE FLATS 

A 130-acre site known as Boathouse Flats is located adjacent to the coastline, south of the SLC-6 

and Cypress Ridge sites (see Figure S.7). The site is relatively level, with elevations ranging from 

50 to 150 feet. This alternative was selected based upon an anticipated reduction of project costs 

for grading, access, and utilities extensions. A conceptual layout for implementation of the TCLC 

at Boathouse Flats is shown in Figure S.9. 

Grading to develop the launch complex at this site would require about 0.6 million CY of cut and 

about 0.4 million CY of fill. A maximum of 0.4 million CY of fill would be taken from a borrow 

area located on VA1-B. The amount of fill required would depend on the suitability of the cut 

material for use as fill. 

• 

A portion of the Space Shuttle External Tank Tow Route intersects the site and would provide 

construction and operations access (see Access Road in Figure S.9), although some modifications 

would be necessary. Electricity, underground piping, and communications would be extended to 

the site from SLC-6, along the existing Coast Road and External Tank Tow Route, then along the 

northern site boundary to the launch complex (see Figure S.14, Utility Corridors, Boathouse Flats 

Alternative). The area of disturbance for utilities would be about 90 acres. A distribution line for 

potable water would be extended about two miles from the existing water tank, disturbing an area 

of about one acre. Personnel requirements for construction of the TCLC at Boathouse Flats are 

shown in Figure S.B. 

VINA TERRACE 

The Vina Terrace alternative site is located about one and one-half miles east of the Pacific Ocean 

(see Figure S.7). It occupies about 150 acres on a westerly sloping terrace, with elevations 

ranging between 600 and 800 feet. This alternative was selected based upon an anticipated 

reduction in impacts to cultural resources. The complex would require grading in the amount of 

about 10 million CY of cut (no fill is anticipated). It also would require construction of a new 

access road. In order to accommodate the six percent road grade limitation for transportation of 

vehicle components, the access road would be approximately three miles in length. A conceptual 

layout for the TCLC at Vina Terrace is shown in Figure S.9. Utilities, including electricity, 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE S-33 

to 

MIMI= OCEAN 0 2000 4000 FEET 

SCALE 

FIGURE S.14 

LEGEND 

WATER DISTRIBUTION LINE 

ELECTRICAL AND COMMUNICATIONS LINES 

GN2 AND NATURAL GAS UNES 

• EXISTING FACILITY 

• PROPOSED FACILITY 

NOTE: CORRIDOR WIDTHS NOT TO SCALE. 

UTILITY CORRIDORS 

BOATHOUSE FLATS ALTERNATIVE 

SOURCE: USAF 1989c. TCLC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

UNC 2 1 

•

u, N2 PLANT 

J 

STS POWER PLANT 

srs 

POINT ARGUELLO 

EXISTING WATER 

STORAGE TANK 

1

7— 

POTENTIAL RECYCLE E21 

WATER TANK 

—J 

SPACE SHUTTLE EXTERNAL 

407. TANK STORAGE AND 

CHECKOUT FACILITY 

ROCKY POINT 

<:1,4 

DIRT ROAD 

V-33 TOW ROUTE 

BOATHOUSE AREA 

COAST ROAD 
NROMVPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • 

• 

underground piping, and communications, would be extended along this new roadway (see 

Figure S.15, Utility Corridors, Vina Terrace Alternative). The area of disturbance for the road 

and utilities would be about 100 acres. 

Personnel estimates for construction of the TCLC at Vina Terrace are shown in Figure S.B. 

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

The four alternative sites considered for the TCLC are located within the same general area 

of South VAFB (see Figure S.7). Therefore, the characteristics of the existing environmental 

setting are similar for the four sites. The primary differences relate to topography, distance to the 

ocean, and level of development. The Boathouse Flats site is located on a relatively flat plain atop 

a coastal bluff adjacent to the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of approximately 50 feet. The Vina 

Terrace site lies along a ridge line at an elevation of about 800 feet. The Cypress Ridge site is 

intermediate between the two in terms of location and topography. SLC-6 is located on an elevated 

marine terrace about one mile north of the Cypress Ridge site. Unlike the other three sites, SLC-6 - 

has been extensively developed with structures and facilities designed to support launches of the 

Space Shuttle. 

The TCLC alternative sites are located at the western-most terminus of the Santa Ynez Mountains 

and are underlain by bedrock of the Monterey Formation. Several potentially active faults are 

known to exist within 60 miles of this area. Surface water resources in the vicinity are limited, 

consisting primarily of a small number of perennial and ephemeral streams that drain into the 

ocean. Potable water is provided from the nearby Lompoc Terrace aquifer, as no appreciable 

ground water supply has been found in the vicinity of the four sites. The area is generally arid, 

with average annual precipitation of about 16 inches per year, occurring primarily between 

November and April. Stream flow depends mainly on rainfall, with relatively high yields during 

periods of precipitation due to the steep local topography. 

The climate of the region is Mediterranean. During summers, the area is characterized by persistent 

night and morning low clouds and fog, and is also subject to Santa Ana wind conditions, when 

strong, gusty, warm and dry winds blow westward from the inland desert. The air quality is 

generally good, with the exception of infrequent occasions when ozone exceeds ambient air quality 

standards. These occasions occur primarily when meteorological conditions are such that 

pollutants generated in the Los Angeles basin are transported northwest to the VAFB area. • 
POINT ARGUELLO EXISTING WATER 

STORAGE TANK 

/". 

COAST ROAD 

GN2 PLANT 

TS POWER PLANT 

STS 

O 

SPACE SHUTTLE EXTERNAL 

TANK STORAGE AND 

CHECKOUT FACILITY-----. 

V-33 TOW ROUTE 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE S-35 

a 

• w 

Ur 

JUNE 4._U 

r

■-•___,--N-'--"'.. 

_._ 

0/ 

/-" \ z_)■'' 

C#/ \

i W) 

POTENTIAL RECYCLE 'g 

WATER TANK dl 

) 

-J 

ROCKY POINT RIDGE 

Oo 

COAS\° T\ R 4 '") 

OCEAN 0 2000 4000 FEET 

SCALE 

FIGURE S.15 

UTILITY CORRIDORS 

VINA TERRACE ALTERNATIVE 

TCLC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

OlRT ROAD ____ 

LEGEND 

WATER DISTRIBUTION LINE 

ELECTRICAL AND COMMUNICATIONS LINES 

ON2 AND NATURAL GAS LINES 

• EXISTING FACILITY 

• PROPOSED FACILITY 

NOTE: CORRIDOR WIDTHS NOT TO SCALE. 

SOURCE: USAF 1989c. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 J U N-3"k15 

• 

• 

The TCLC alternative sites are located within an ecological boundary region between the coastal 

southern and central California provinces. At the southern end of the Coast Ranges and western 

end of the Transverse Ranges, the area contains a number of plant and animal species that have 

reached their northern, southern, or western limits. For this reason, the area is one of ecological 

and biogeographical interest. Much of the local vegetation has been modified or disturbed by 

human activities over the past century. In general, the proposed project area is vegetated with 

central coastal scrub, ruderal plants, riparian scrub, and small wetlands. In some places, 

individuals of the Federal Category 2 candidate species curly-leaved monardella (Monardella 

undulata var. frutescens) occur. Other special interest plants in the project area include large-leaved 

wallflower, western dichondra, and fiddleneck. 

Because of its coastal orientation, the project vicinity contains terrestrial, aquatic, and marine 

animals. In general, the wildlife community tends to be composed of common, wide-ranging 

reptile, amphibian, mammal, and bird species that frequent a variety of habitat types found 

throughout the region. Active sign of badger (Taxidea taxus), a regionally rare mammal, was 

observed on the Cypress Ridge site during 1988 field inventories. Mountain lion (Fells concolor), 

a protected species in the state of California, may be expected to occur in the vicinity. Six species 

of birds that are federal- or state-listed or federal candidate species are known or expected to occur 

in the vicinity: California brown pelican, ferruginous hawk, American peregrine falcon, California 

least tern, Western snowy plover, and long-billed curlew. The unarmored three-spined 

stickleback, a federal- and state-listed endangered species, has been introduced into Honda Creek, 

about two miles north of SLC-6 and about three miles north of the Cypress Ridge, Boathouse 

Flats, and Vina Terrace sites. 

The northern (Santa Barbara) Channel Islands are included in the environmental analysis because 

they are situated beneath the space vehicle overflight area and could experience launch-related 

impacts, primarily from sonic booms. The northern Channel Islands contain a relatively 

depauperate animal population composed of species that are common and widespread along the 

mainland. The island fox, a state-listed threatened species, occurs on the largest islands. Within 

the marine region of the project area are several haul-out areas for harbor seals, California sea 

lions, and occasional elephant and Northern fur seals. Harbor seals are the only known pinniped 

species to use these hauling grounds as rookeries in the spring. 

The visual environment in the vicinity of South VAFB is varied, characterized by rolling hills, 

valleys utilized for agriculture, urbanization of the nearby Lompoc Valley, and the VAFB launch • complexes and support structures. Topography is dominated by the east-west trending Santa Ynez 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE S-37 

1 JUNE 2015 

Oeuntains, which narrow near the coast and terminate in the project area. All four alternative sites 

at the western extremity of these mountains and slope toward the south onto an elevated marine 

terrace. 

The primary socioeconomic area of VAFB influence is the North County region of Santa 

Barbara County, north of the Santa Ynez Mountains. Generally, North County employment is 

concentrated in agriculture, manufacturing, and government. VAFB is a major economic force in 

this area, estimated to provide about two-thirds of local employment. Santa Barbara County had 

an estimated 1988 population of 345,000, with 32,300 in Lompoc, 53,000 in Santa Maria, and 

about 8,000 at VAFB. The North County is a growth area, in response to employment 

opportunities related to VAFB, the oil and gas industry, and as a bedroom community to the city of 

Santa Barbara. Both temporary and permanent housing are available in nearby areas, as are public 

services and utilities. 

The area in the vicinity of the alternative sites is primarily undeveloped and rural, and sound 

levels measured for most of the region are low, with average background community noise 

equivalent levels (CNEL) of about 40 to 45 A-weighted decibels (dBA). Higher noise levels occur 

On industrial areas and along transportation corridors. Land use both in the county and in the 

vicinity of VAFB consists primarily of agriculture and other undeveloped uses, and a few 

urbanized areas, primarily the communities of Lompoc and Santa Maria (see Figure S.1). Land 

use on VAFB is primarily (97 percent) open space. Developed public recreation in the vicinity of 

the proposed project area is limited and consists of Jalama Beach County Park, south of VAFB, 

and Ocean Beach County Park, at the mouth of the Santa Ynez River (see Figure S.1). 

The transportation system in the area consists of the highways in the vicinity of Lompoc and 

VAFB and surface streets within the city of Lompoc. The main transportation routes in the area 

connect with Highway 101, the primary north-south transportation corridor in the region (see 

Figure S.1). Access to VAFB and the project area is provided by four gates and paved roadways 

through the base. In general, there is little traffic on South VAFB roads. 

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

There are potential impacts to the natural and human environments that could result from 

implementation of the proposed action. Many of these would be minor, and most would be 

minimized through project design and/or application of existing state, federal, and USAF rules 

0 and regulations, and/or mitigation measures. Potential impacts to the natural environment are 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 J1.1015 • to geology and soils, vegetation, wildlife, water resources, and air quality. Potential impacts to the 

human environment are to noise, cultural and visual resources, waste management, health 

and safety, socioeconomics, transportation, land use, and recreation. 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

At the Cypress Ridge, Boathouse Flats and Vina Terrace sites, geology and soils impacts would 

occur primarily during the four-year project construction period, especially during grading 

activities, with soil loss on the order of 4,000 tons per year anticipated. This would be mitigated 

to the extent possible by erosion control measures during construction. Implementation of the 

proposed action at SLC-6 would minimize soil loss, since grading or excavation activities are not 

anticipated. Other potential impacts to all of the sites, such as from earthquakes and slope failure, 

would be minimized through project design. 

• 

VEGETATION 

Vegetation would be lost as a result of selecting one of the undeveloped sites. The amount lost 

would depend on the site chosen, with a potential temporary loss of 120 to 150 acres due to 

construction disturbance, and a permanent loss of about 50 acres, which would be covered by 

impervious surfaces. No additional disturbance is anticipated at SLC-6, as the launch complex is 

already developed, and no grading or excavation is planned. Development at the Cypress Ridge 

site would result in the loss of about 800 to 1,000 mature individuals of the Federal Category 2 

candidate species curly-leaved monardella (Monardella undulata var. frutescens). This impact 

would not be significant on a regional level due to the size of regional populations. 

Wil DLIFE 

Wildlife populations would decrease or be displaced due to loss of habitat, resulting primarily from 

grading activities at the Cypress Ridge, Boathouse Flats, or Vina Terrace site. Implementation of 

the project at one of these sites would represent a small decrease in available habitat on South 

VAFB. These effects would not be significant. Implementation of the project at SLC-6 would 

result in a lower level of impact since there would be minimal loss of habitat. Operational effects 

of launch-related sonic booms are expected to produce minor impacts to Channel Islands wildlife. 

These sonic boom impacts would be the same from the four sites. 

• WATER RESOURCES 

Local (South VAFB) and regional (Lompoc and Santa Maria) water resources would be affected by 

ground water withdrawal for direct project construction and operations needs and for domestic use 

by project construction and operations personnel and their families. Increases in withdrawal from 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 S-39 • the local aquifer are expected to be about 380 acre-feet per year during the anticipated four-year 

construction phase at the Cypress Ridge, Boathouse Flats, or Vina Terrace site. Construction at 

SLC-6 would minimize water consumption during construction as there would be less demand for 

water for dust control, the primary use of water during construction. Overall, effects to the local 

ground water basin from construction are expected to be minor. 

The long-term effect to ground water resources from operations would be significant in that the 

projected 45 acre-feet per year requirement for operations represents a 17 percent increase in water 

demand which would add to the existing overdraft condition of the local aquifer. Withdrawals 

from the aquifers supplying water to the regional environment are dependent on the number of 

project personnel and would, therefore, be the same for all four sites during operations. Regional 

demand for water would be expected to increase by approximately 305 acre-feet per year, or 

0.2 percent over existing rates. The regional aquifers are currently in an overdraft condition. 

Therefore, the anticipated increase in water use would be significant, based on the long-term 

operational demand related to the proposed action. 

• 

• 

AIR QUALITY AND ME1E0ROLOGY 

Potential air quality impacts during construction at the Cypress Ridge, Vina Terrace, or Boathouse 

Flats site would primarily be dust from earthmoving operations and would be mitigated by onsite 

watering. Potential construction impacts would be minimized by implementation of the proposed 

action at the SLC-6 site. At SLC-6, a relatively small amount of dust would be generated by 

demolition activities; however, the significant emissions from earthmoving activities associated 

with the undeveloped sites are not anticipated. 

Operational air quality impacts would be similar for all four sites, consisting of fuel and oxidizer 

vapors, plus combustion products such as carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous 

oxide (NO,), and hydrogen chloride (HC1). These emissions would be minor and infrequent and, 

therefore, insignificant. The greatest source of emissions would be from vehicle launches. The 

primary air contaminants that would result from launches are HCl and aluminum oxide (A1203) 

from combustion of the SRMUs, and CO and NO, from combustion of hypergolic fuels. Based 

on modeling contained in the Risk Assessment for the proposed activity (Environmental Solutions, 

Inc., 1989), a potential vehicle failure would produce similar emissions. Standard VAFB launch 

operations procedures would result in minimum migration of pollutants into inland uncontrolled 

areas near VAFB. Studies indicate that the short duration and intermittent nature of proposed 
NRO FSPRROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• activities would not measurably affect local and regional air quality. It is expected that projectrelated emissions would result in a small reduction in stratospheric ozone. Launch activities would 

not be expected to contribute significantly to global warming. Impacts to air quality from 

operations would be the same for the alternative sites. 

NOISE 

Noise would occur primarily from normal launch events and would result in noise levels of about 

100 dBA at Lompoc and 90 dBA at Santa Maria, persisting for about 60 seconds for a maximum 

of three launches per year. Due to its short duration and the fact that is nuisance level, such noise 

would not be significant. Significant cumulative impacts from VAFB launches are not expected 

due to low noise levels in sensitive areas. Noise impacts would be similar from the four alternative 

sites. 

• 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Visual impacts would result from conversion of the Cypress Ridge, Boathouse Flats, or Vina 

Terrace sites from undeveloped open space to an active, industrial-type use. On a local basis, if the 

proposed action were implemented at one of the undeveloped sites, it would represent a southerly 

extension of the existing array of space launch complexes and, as such, would not be a unique 

visual feature. Due to the distances from which it would be viewed and the limited number of 

persons involved, these impacts are not considered significant. Implementation of the proposed 

action at the SLC-6 site would result in the least visual impact, since the site has already been fully 

developed and is part of existing viewer expectations. Changes made to accommodate the Titan 

IV/Centaur program at SLC-6 would be visually minimal. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Regional impacts to historic and prehistoric cultural resources would not be expected from 

implementation of the project at any of the alternative sites. However, the caliche plant fossils on 

San Miguel Island may be affected by the shock from launch-induced sonic booms, regardless of 

the chosen alternative. Within the proposed project vicinity, there could be effects to the historic 

former U.S. Coast Guard Rescue Station (Boathouse), to archaeological sites which preliminary 

studies indicate may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), 

and to a prehistoric Chumash rock art site. Disturbance to archaeological resources would occur 

primarily from grading and trenching activities at the Cypress Ridge, Boathouse Flats, and Vina 

Terrace sites. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 S-41 

• 

• 

These potential impacts would be mitigated through avoidance by design, a pre-project data 

recovery program, and onsite construction monitoring as developed through consultation with the 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP). Implementation of the proposed action at SLC-6 would minimize the potential for 

impacts to buried archaeological resources since no excavation or earth moving activities are 

anticipated. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

The extent of potential socioeconomic effects would depend on the number of persons who 

move to the area for the employment opportunities provided by the proposed project, shown in 

Figures S.8 and S.13. These additional persons would increase demands for housing, public 

services, and utilities, primarily in Lompoc and Santa Maria. Assuming maximum impacts, 

population could increase by 1,440 in the North County area during construction at Cypress 

Ridge, Boathouse Flats, or Vina Terrace, and by 1,470 during operations. Implementation of the 

proposed action at SLC-6 would result in a smaller population increase during project construction 

(approximately 790 persons) and the same population increase during operations. In general, these 

impacts are expected to be beneficial to the growing North County area due to increased tax 

revenues. Adverse socioeconomic impacts would include increased demands for public services 

and infrastructure. Accordingly, the beneficial impacts from construction of the proposed project 

at SLC-6 would be less than if one of the undeveloped sites were selected, as fewer construction 

personnel would be required. Potential transportation impacts to regional streets and highways 

also would occur as a result of additional construction and operations workers who may move to 

the area for employment. There also could be delays in entering VAFB due to additional traffic at 

the Main and South Gates. These impacts would not be significant for implementation of the 

proposed action at any of the four sites, and no mitigation measures are proposed. 

HEALTH AND SAFETY 

Potential health and safety impacts are primarily related to the possible occurrence of an accident 

involving a launch anomaly, hypergolic propellant transportation, and storage and/or transportation 

and preparation of the SRMU segments. Risks to the public from a launch anomaly would be 

from debris scatter and exhaust gases. These risks are maintained at safe levels through adherence 

to USAF safety procedures and are therefore insignificant. Rupture of hypergolic storage vessels 

could result in the release of toxic gases and the possibility of explosion. Shipments of hypergolic 

propellants are in compliance with U.S. Department of Transportation regulations for transport of 

hazardous materials. Hypergolic propellants have been shipped to VAFB since 1958, with no • major accidents. An SRMU accident could result in ignition of the propellant and subsequent 
NRO 14ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• release of HC1, A1203, and heat, with subsequent adverse health effects. Impacts related to fuel 

transport and use are not expected to significantly affect the public, and no mitigation measures are 

proposed. Some human health impacts may result from the depletion of stratospheric ozone. 

These impacts would primarily be a small increase in skin cancer rates. 

LAND USE AND RECREATION 

Land use and recreation impacts would occur as a result of potential health and safety risks 

associated with launches from any of the four potential sites. These impacts primarily would be to 

future potential land use and temporary disruption of existing offshore oil and gas extraction 

activities and shoreline and marine recreation. Initial concerns were that agricultural areas having 

potential for residential use in areas southeast of VAFB could be affected by launches from the 

proposed project. However, in an independent action, USAF is proposing to acquire real estate 

interests over potentially affected private lands, thereby minimizing the potential for land use 

impacts to these areas. 

• 

WASTE MANAGEMENT 

Project implementation would result in the generation of domestic, industrial, and hazardous 

wastes. The generation of domestic wastes during construction would be greater at an 

undeveloped site than at SLC-6, as a greater number of construction personnel would be required. 

Domestic waste generated during operations would be the same for the four alternative sites. It is 

anticipated that the SLC-6 alternative would produce greater construction debris due to demolition 

of existing facilities. There are storage, treatment, and disposal facilities available on VAl-B and in 

the project region with the capacity to routinely accommodate construction debris and domestic and 

industrial wastes. Therefore, these wastes would not create a significant impact. 

It is estimated that 119 tons of hazardous waste per year would be generated from operations 

and require appropriate treatment or disposal. This would be less than 0.02 percent of the 

approximately 576,000 tons of hazardous waste disposed of in California in 1987 (CDHS 1989). 

In addition, it is estimated that implementation of the proposed action at the SLC-6 site would 

generate an additional 80,000 gallons of hazardous waste during construction due to replacement 

of hypergolic fuel and oxidizer delivery systems. Disposal of construction and operations 

hazardous wastes at an appropriate facility would incrementally shorten the facility's useful life and 

so is considered adverse. No mitigation measures for waste management are proposed. 

t 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 S-43 

• 

• 

SUNLMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES 

Table S.2, Summary of Mitigation Measures, shows the range of activities that would be 

undertaken to minimize impacts at each of the alternative sites. Mitigation measures were 

developed for the construction and operations phases of the proposed action at the level of detail 

consistent with project conceptual design. Additional mitigation details would be developed as 

project design proceeds and, where appropriate, in consultation with government agencies. 

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF AL I ERNATIVES 

A comparative analysis of the alternatives was prepared in compliance with Section 1502.14 of 

the CEQ guidelines for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The result of this 

analysis is a summary comparison of potential environmental effects of the proposed action as 

implemented at the four alternative sites, shown in Table S.3 (Comparative Summary of Impacts 

for Project Alternatives). The table provides comparisons of potential effects to specific 

environmental resource areas and compares these effects among the four alternatives. Four 

symbols are used to indicate the extent of relative impact among the four alternatives, ranging from 

least impact (indicated by 0), to low intermediate (indicated by 0 ), to high intermediate 

(indicated by 0 ), to most impact (indicated by •). An example of this comparison is Geology 

and Soils - Excavation, where the SLC-6 alternative is 0 , Boathouse Flats 0 , Cypress Ridge 

C , and Vina Terrace • . This example shows that, for the proposed action, the SLC-6 site 

would result in the least impact from excavation, and the Vina Terrace site would result in the 

largest impacts. The Cypress Ridge site, with a 0 , would result in higher impacts than 

Boathouse Flats ® , but less than Vina Terrace. An impact that would be the same under more 

than one alternative may be shown as 0 or, when two or more of the project alternatives have the 

same relative impact, they may be shown with the evaluative 0, 0 , 0 , or • . 

The comparisons shown in Table S.3 are relative and do not indicate an absolute level or 

magnitude of impact. Therefore, although the level of effect may be greater at one site than at 

another, the actual effect on the environment may be minimal or insignificant. Further, the ratings 

do not provide a mechanism for comparison of effect between categories. Therefore, a 0 in one 

category could indicate an effect either greater or less than a 0 in another category. The symbols 

provide a mechanism for comparisons within a category. They do not provide sufficient 

information to compare impacts between categories. • 
S -44 

PROJECT SITE MITIGATION 

VINATERRACE 

.D.- 

70

1 

cc °-) 

. 

" g 

U g 

,,,, _ cc -,73, lc.) C~ 00 

... 

en 

,.., •

1. SameasCypress Ridge 

Mitigation Measures1-2. 

1. SameasCypress Ridge 

Mitigation Measures1-7. 

BOATHOUSE FLATS I 

1' t:4- T7 , 

1=4 ' E. )

v., = 

el. 5' 

U 

oZ 

..i., V 04, 

g:.---- : 

cn 

1. Sameas CypressRidge 

MitigationMeasures1-2. 

1. Sameas CypressRidge 

Mitigation Measures 1-7. 

'4?U 

ce) 

0 

8 clc '

5 " 0 

U go

-5 

-13)2 To'. "C) 

0 g 

....,, 

00) .5 

1. SameasCypress Ridge 

Mitigation Measure2. 

1. 

Limitconstructionto 

previously disturbedareas. 

2. 

SameasCypress Ridge Mitigation Measures 5 and 

7. 

CYPRESS RIDGE I 

,n 

8-0 -0 ,... 0 5 • 

0 go 6 cc) c..) 

4. .., v) 

57p' 

8 s 0

,g 

at.:4 t-0 

... 

6.= .'4 

>-, (13 

3 • 

i- 5 

0 0 

.= :a 

E 

Z 

csi 

00 

0 •- ,.., 

04- .0 

0, 

cz ovii L.4 ..." a. 

. G = 1:3 0 17, ).9.,0,,,,G) 

13.'0 = .../5 7° 

0 g g .2 g,L. -' ■0 ,.. 0 o '-' 

.503.8 

17 

k' §." 0.0 g 

er; 

8 

 2 

0 •a 

c,0 

>-) 

... 

= 

Z a 

4 

1. 

Duringconstruction,minimize 

surfacerunoff byrevegetation, constructionof temporary drainagedevices,and other 

erosioncontrol measures. 

2. 

Afterconstruction, reclaim and revegetatedisturbed areas. Establishpermanentdrainage 

and erosioncontrol measures, inaccordancewith the 

restorationplan. 

1. 

Providetheopportunityfor 

interested partiestorecover 

specimensof special interest plantspriortoconstruction. 

2. 

Pre-planconstructionactivities 

tominimizetheextentof 

disturbed land and avoid wetlands. 

3. 

Limitconstructionvehicle travel todesignated roadsand staked areas. 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSIDERATION 

v) 

..-. 

0 

Cn 

5 

00 0 -5 

6 

WaterResources Vegetation 

• 

LLI 

0 w 

CD ISD 

z 
S-45 

PROJECTSITE MITIGATION 

CYPRESS RIDGE SLC-6 1 BOATHOUSEFLATS VINATERRACE 

,1:5 C.) ■ 00 — 

'0 ,,, 

= 

VI n 

U w 

,=,.. 4 ' 6) OD 

E 1E71 

c7i 

„, sd 

cz — 'D ,••., a E). 

0 g 

C_.) g 

..._ 

C.) 00 

cil 2 

,r 

(--7 

papN 

..-.9_ 6 

ce ■-. 

i1) :A 0 

Vi.2 >, 

U= o 

• 

6) 

6 

..c 

,<.-. 

0 c5) 0 E> 

...., 0 o 

krg 

orio 

4 

c::: to 

>, 

E z „,„ ' 7E 

= c.) 0 •;:-.) .2 g,- v) 8 o 0 0.a - c.) •-, 0 a 

'” „., ;-,- 0 .8:5 7.3. .0 0 ,. 5 0 • .20.I.'' 0 ,.., _ 

...g § ag 2 6 E „„„., 4.) 

--• o 

§ gl g 1 

E85',7, 

4,-; 

izs 

g 

.a 4c -a' -•G a> -4 .5 c...`ch 8 2 • r —. g , a... .7.-...:-_,. 

8 

1:4) 

•a 6 , 

<E=tz ∎D 

8 8. 

P,`-' -3' 

2 

-a <4 ' 

o 2 

.- ..c :75 0 0. 

C4 gv c) 

C.) 

,9 M g ' E 5 §.2.2R. 

= .,;, o F. 

.r. .4 .g 

,„ <1.) 

11'1 

r--: 

ca - 

, o . 0 .7, ,.... ,

a> 4-. o E 0 u) 

,-. 8 

-. 

555,) • 

..... ..c) g E N 

g .-a:a" 

74 .1 = ,,, -;g0:::1 E 

— 

• 

m) 

P000<4 L •.= -6 5 

>, 0 x I!? ..cp — ■-• 5 ' o •,,, ..,•,:.•t, o . — n — ,... 3 5 co — ,.,, 

c.) .; a: cn 's1 "a 2 0 .1" g , f '4) F, a .2 ..F) •E '' g "SR 4) o * —, 

0.= c., g . - - usg 00 - g .6. ' D." 

N [+'1 

..„, 

_ 

_ 5 

...., 

3 

Eh' = 

0 0 

.-0, • 

"Eg -a '.

z.- o 

---- 

ri 

0 

cp 2 5z 

8 

_, 

C 

,..) s--; 

.• 

. › 

• oo 

0 

OD 

0. 

Lu 

co 

Lu 

0 

0 

Lu 

O) 

Z 
• ot 

0 

CO 

L1.1 

U) 

w 

w 

O 

O 

w 

0 LC) 

z 

S-46 

PROJECTSITEMITIGATION 

CYPRESS RIDGE SLC-6 BOATHOUSE FLATS VINATERRACE 

4. 

Employproperprocedures and equipmentatthe External 

Tank Landing Facilityto 

minimizetheopportunity for 

wildlifetobeaffected by spills,human interference, or otherhazards. 

5. 

Appropriateenvironmental 

monitorwill bepresent,as necessary, duringclearingand 

gradingactivities. 

6. 

Establishamonitoring 

programtoassess operational 

noiseandairemissions 

impactstowildlife,with an emphasison listed species. 

s.r.i e..., . .0.— 

x2 

r) n 

I. 0 

U g 

2.E-,4 C.) ,z4 

00

c.,, 

.43 — 

-0 , 

i2 a) 

,,, 

ts n 

›, u g * g 

C.) MO 

g :74 

01 

.--: 

sci 0 1 

00 ... 

.0 R. 1S2 

= 

n c' 

e 2 

U g 

0 ,,,i, g1.,.. 

8 0.) ,••:- -S ,.. co g . 

5 2 

._ Opp E -c 8 .9. 

1. 0 5 = 5 g ,) . 0 al., v) c5 CL> V) ..., svg :.., • •-• ..". 

::.9 -48 :',73_. 5Eu -0> 83. ›.og 0 -6 8.5 • '• , 'ab 

111•Ga) .-g• ..oE, tis .5 •i ... .E.4. 

T4 E • •E' „ cr. " Q3g5.1a) a) a) ca. 

— • 

12 

= 0 " 0 2 . c) ,... 7-..". 0 VS 

,..-. th •—• 

8 , = 5 .c — 

'-' .. 0:53 

cd 

.=° .

8°' 

92 

.0 3 I 

„..- ,..) .... -c; 1.. 

c4 

p., 8 

c9 u - 

,..., 

-0 22 -8 

,, _. ii„ 

/ „, 'a (...‘ C) 

.—. • m ..-• 

■-■ 3 b 

41 ._,.,....d 

''. t)i

ll 

cm: aSu f, .0 

 5 15 '8 .= 

1 t '3) n -c E c Z c 

c•-; 

tfti . „: c --• z 0 .a- c..) — . 0.-5. . 

' .5. .... ‘-' 

5 

Er 8 = o ,... •8 c CIO-. 

5,9g c7a 

-§ -Cu 

8. ,Y, '

"E .... — 6 5 

 - -g. 8 -a" 4 c 3 

4- 

ENVIRONMENTAL . 

CONSIDERATION 

..... 26 

O t...) 

• - -Ei 

'" 

g

,..' 

(22 <

•b 

w 
S-47 

PROJECT SITE MITIGATION 

VINATERRACE 

.- 7. a\ 

. 

.- 

U§ 

.,,,t 

0 o4 

vl ...z-

. 

1. SameasCypress Ridge. 

BOATHOUSEFLATS 

. 

0 t+.0I

--. 

-0 , 

F2 2 

cf) 

§] 

u§ 

.--i -

0 *0 

,.=: " v).4 

• 

I. Sameas CypressRidge. 

SLC-6 

..f 

- 

,„ 

'a4 

'0, a). 0 

E 

0 . ct 0 0, 

:.-,._. 

cn 

1. Sameas Cypress Ridge. 

CYPRESS RIDGE 

5. 

Duringconstruction, if required 

by SBCAPCD,activities 

maybecurtailed inorderto 

reduceemissions. 

6. 

If feasible,airconditioning systemswould utilizeCFC-22, 

ratherthan CFC-12. 

7. 

Conductacceptancetesting for 

the firesuppressionsystems, 

using freon12. 

41 t:_-. „, -.0 .E, ® -v 5 -8 at 7; .— 7,-..310 "0 

= ,- tl' `c-, ' 5 5 0 E .E E = 0) 

.5a:A g 04.2 ..q. 

p __. 2 z-> 7,5 g 9 -" o 

sg 0 6

546, . 0 -a 

.e a 

,o b ,., 0 b ,1 3 = 

g 0 a, .-.: c4 8 ,s -8 is 

,...., 

. ,,so 3 o • 

. 0 = .5 (...) o - 0 "" ....7 ;'.1--■ .4 v) .5 

0 ri 51 R . )...- 0 

't .° -4. 2 

-6= E a -° ,'-.; = 8 .2 

(:)02,A 4•?_•;,. .....0.. 

- 5 LE 0. 00 w ta. ca 0 00Q n>.; .5 e 8 

,-,i 

...0 0 ._ 

.-.J. — z pu •"" 

2 J0 ri .5 

? = = 

• 0 0 

Ea u o2 - "c' c .5 qs0g .N E'F'.3 = Q -a c) t) , cl., E -0 ura u 0 -"' :a — 52b-8 

c.-; 

-4' ° U0 "'g 

,... • 

,,, Q,..0 .5'6 

000:1 .-...-2. 

.6 

-a zt, 0 > 

u8 t 

32 ,. 

kik 

4 

1. During launch events,exclude 

personnel fromsiteareas 

exposed tothegreatestnoise levels. Providehearing 

protection,asnecessary. 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSIDERATION 

AirResources -(Cont'd.) 

.6' E 

a 

0 

3 

o w) 

..... o Z 

• 

W.4 

SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES 
• 

• 

LU 

Cr) 

LU 

_J 

0 

a 

111 

LO 

CC 7c ) 

"--) 

TABLE S.2 

SUMMARY OF MITIGATIONMEASURES 

S-48 

PROJECT strr, MITIGATION 

CYPRESS RIDGE SLC-6 BOATHOUSE FLATS VINATERRACE 

1. Use lowglarelightswhich are1. Sameas Cypress Ridge. 1. Sameas Cypress Ridge. 1. Sameas Cypress Ridge. 

shieldedfromareasoutside 

theperimeterof thelaunch 

complex,asappropriate. 

a)'" ot)— 7:1 ,„ 

e2 V. 

'6' I 

u 6 * %Ed 0 .0 

C 

.--: 

O 

6 a.) 2 

Z. cl. 04— ,,, E >, 

,.... — o ..e. ,, a) .= a.) , 

-- - .., 0 

o ,* 

1

a)

.. .5 > . g 

(..) >, a;*p.o.— L)g 75 o z 

A .g, .e3 

6) 0.0 11.1 al r.r.. 00 

..... 

a .— v, v) < ca 'o 3 •-•-■ Ci 

4.: 

• e.) 

e 

.4 

o 

-a 

,., 6 6

TO 

.,,.. 

.- o 

> 

0

,„ 

< 

ri 

kri 

- 

7:5

oca.--, 0 a t.' 

g,1 P a> 

L),), .c9 Cl FCI (7) .

0 04 •-• :F. 1:3 

C/5 2 g 

8 

0 .,.g 0 — 

t .8 ›. o 

h.:-._ 

-- § m 0

cl) I. i... 

.„6 v2 • 0 . r. g 7. 6 • g ,, 

... 

Z"q EA igg 

-- 00 I. :24 °J jo 

° ' — ' "'" 8 a ¢i3 .gh..'.f., 

OA 0 5 .0 

'0 -- ., -. .z ,._, 0 

,. ,„ 

c,,.... on 0 

45gb ,';') f..) ,-..--, 

c„ u, 9 

0 = al 

-g 2 00 

..= 

10 

z 2 17') O'czti.;iti 

'o "0 "" I.. 

0 0 U eij

-0' .0: , o o ,,,, 

mo .?:. al _.Q -`-' — • .6 0 Do -a ,_. 0 0 

z''',205 

tlet-C/8 U 

VI 5 u 2 .8 . af 0 u , = ..c3 

2> g r, -91 

4.) b ..= 

°"="—' • Sg.gg 

— 0 d.) ,... 0. 0 0 .g.— 

- a 

-, 1.) 1 ° 

re t -, . . 54 8 u .so , a.) , 

• e)gri5 

..- €...(118. 

g 

.1 

4.- 05 ..a 6 q) E 0 

> • = 

.t..• 

g .-.1

a = 0 •c 

a* 

0 

ca-1 2 o 

a> ^ 

0 0 74 

2 .r.„ 

0 g.-3 

ti3 8 3 ..c 

E.5.,.. 

6 -e.°) P ca •

....., = -0 ,... m al 

5 5 .5 ,:3•.> 0 

... = — tc) i -0 L, .,,, — 

-- 

A 82',';; 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSIDERATION 

Visual Resources 

6 

g 

. 

- ca

g 

d 

w 

1 

• 
S-49 

PROJECT SITE MITIGATION 

CYPRESS RIDGE S LC-6 BOATHOUSE FLATS VINA TERRACE 

1. Sameas Cypress Ridge. 

C4 0 

00'-' 

-0 cn 

• "" (Z 1,-. 0 

rn ,,, V) tTi 

V. '-) C., 

›, 

U 0 

'A 1 

0 CZ 

....... 

• 

1. Sameas CypressRidge. 

(-4 U 

OW". 

"J cn 

• '" 0 

iq 0.... >, 

u L" _ 0 

,„ 

U CD • -2 ..1 v, .... 

1, Sameas Cypress Ridge. 

CNi C.) . 

00 

- ' 0 (.17 

C " 7 c n , V 1 

0 t) 6.. 

>, 

U 0 tn • -.• 

CCS ,4 

C.) 0.0 

g.s..:-.. 

C/1 .... 

• 

9. 

Utilizequalified personnel to 

monitor forpaleontological resourcesduringearthmoving 

activities. 

10. 

Implementanaccelerated maintenanceprogramatthe 

former U.S. Coast Guard 

RescueStation(Boathouse). 

1. Support US

AF policyof 

encouragingcarpoolingand 

staggeredworkhoursto diminish peak traffic. 

10 

-0 

U5 

• -- -O 

-ci-i -,3 I,— ,,,,, k-, cz -5 

*P -0 i'.,' 

... ... 

o = ,,-o „i 

X 640) 

.;.-,„,„,.,,,A 

-- ,)-) P., ■D . — -a t ;,.., cn •>, 2 *.,,,ca ...e5 

Z E 8..v) 

• 

... 

. 2 2, ,, , 5 

O eu v.) o L-a 

...., 

'ICnsid Li.. 0 0 0 

• .>...? .., . >, ' '-' 0 , < >, C.) L... 0 -J C 3 . an ..... 

. — 

5.--) < v, • — 0 — ,. 63' .: -5 a.) 4 •-• - .--', o -- — ,.._. r...) -1: ci 3 

U -5 '-d 0 '-' ,-, -8 . z 0 „5 , .0 e.) C

O

,.. .

. ‘,., 0 — . .,-,, c,) — • (,) c.2 — as ,..,-, , z DC > e...) _- v, o >. 6. 0 — - .•E, 6 -

cd ,.) -za , 7.E O 0 E • a..) 9 0 ), ,..... .s.0 c.) S ,., > 

fa. " ,-. E3 9- 5 tf,.. gm, e, -a LI rt. 0 -,4 .:-.-: .4 Li c) ,,$ ...- ,_, -= ..... ,, o ..= 8 ,.= 0_ -0 o 2 8.,,.,,, „„ ;_•...... v, > E.. -, > L-I 

PC ,-.n 0 0 CI en zn H C, rtl , 0 -- -E) C.) 9 ;:4 . n L.) ..., „,......- ...s> , ..... = „ , -4.5 ..: .,,,,,>„),.., ota P- 0 LI 4.7., 0 — v ) -5 c

o c.) -0 a, — .— L., ) f, ) ._ ( . ) 7 P...'1 72. v) F. ca., 0 _ 0.) c4 Si 3 ,., -,-, p_ -6 7_, ,. - O ■-• ,

„ 

43 0 .— " o.. ..... c 5 B .:.-- ZU Z 8 — • - -4 o .... .12 .) ..-5 -

.2 uto > 5-5 -0 .' ,n.-- -- cti o. - o >, C 

._. a..) .., 1... ,... = , or-TIooL'oozio E-- 3 .. .Q ,..„ ... ... -. ... .... en P c..) O. 0 C.) "0 0 

CV 

ENVIR

ONMENTAL 

CONSIDERATION 

Cultural Resources -(Cont'd.) Transportation 

T 

,a2 

id VI 

"0 

'S 

". 0) 

= 

• TA

BLE S.2 

LIU 

(J) 

LIJ 

0 w LL 

0 

0 LC) 

e W

11 "7 

Z 

SUM

MARY OF MITIGATIONMEASURES 
PROJECT SI

TE MITIGATION 

VINA TERRA

CE 

1. Sameas Cypress Ridge. 

4-4 

mo — 

ce ,... 0o E r, 

... 0.) 

L.) g 

as 

:.= 

4.) to 

g .. '

• 

BOATHOUSE FLATS 

1. Sameas Cypress Ridge. 

0 c-,i , 

„4,_., 

10 v3 " - C4 u

,-. 

ti ,„ co 

co c) 

C-) F, 

tn.- cz 7,4 

(..., ..0 

cn 

‘. 

sr) 

1. SameasCypress Ridge. 

c 4)si 

on -0 " 

a

-- c 

, 

- 

. 

,...,, 

C..) 

cc3 '74 c

0) 0.0 

g .=' 

(/) 

CYPRESS RIDGE 

of theranch undercurrent 

zoning(one houseper 320 acres) doesnotcreatean 

unacceptablerisk,duetothe 

lowpopulation density. 

1. Nomitigationmeasures are 

prop

osed for Socioeconomics. 

.. 

CA 

:Z.: 0 x, ..... 

•c-ci ,, , 5 

00 0.) 

..= s..3 70 

T .E 0. 23 

-C-C1 

g -8 8,2 

Z E ti..‘..1 

— 

• 

•

. • ,... 

?. '''' ...a 0) col <A ,' • 

Z = 

•,-- .=„, l ,,,, v >. 2 

= .- VI 0 0 -- . ?-, ,, 2 .,,,- 8.- - 5 > ' > ° 0 -- 

, _ •- .0 ..0 0 q., .-- ........0 ,.., .,..„ 

u ..a.,...„-, cc _, - -0 -a' •-7 -0 - A E -" a. c/ . Z,,, • 0 10 '77) " 60 ,---, 73 •-= 

- C.) 4.) — 00 -. C) = 0 :.z e.) — - ‘. c..) = C.) c ce, ,d 

as g -‘7,, = , to 0 > 4.) ,...., ,..„ u; > ,0 ''' g , s) 0.5._ 0 .:, 0. ..0 ._.,..-,..--=,.) E -47:. 0 .9. 0 a. .,, '-'-e' 0 0 0 

.0 0., •-• ))). 4.) 9 !:.4 - vz ;-_,-• 0., ..-■ ., )., I.. 0 -,.. ca 2 mt u c.. 

,, 2 . 0 ..,$) E. ,.) a. C.) . ,., v) ..c 1E) c, u 

r a, 5 • 7, 0 7/ 9,.., F . :, c z C. . " 0 . , t L ) 6 E — a' a' (-4 0 

= ,3..) In -. > ag 2 -- 0 -5..0 4.,.. z 4.) 4..) c•-s = 

5 kral * c,-' = to 0 0 5 --' :s C) E .- o 

".E -0 CC ci. 0.. as -E - = cs .5. c,•3 o = 0 11..) 4-1 g2) = = ti 7::) 7;3 

csi 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSIDERATION 

Health and Safety-(Cont'd.) 

Socioecono

mics 

73 

3 

• 

• 

LL! (f) 

_J 

LLJ 

C 

LL 

0 

LLJ 

0 Lr) 

'S 

0 

Z 

SUMMARY OF MITI

G

ATIONMEASURES 

TABLE S.2 

S-50 
• 

" 

E0 

0.0 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES 

S -5 1 

VINA TERRACE 

1. Sameas Cypress Ridge. 

0 0 

130ATI lOUSE FLATS 

1. SameasCypress Ridge. 

PROJECT SI TE M ITIGATION 

1. SameasCypress Ridge. 

U 

c) 

.9 `a 

0 0 

z 

U 
S-52 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• 

TABLE S.3 

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Pane 1 of 4 

RESOURCE POTENTIAL EFFECT 

ALTERNATIVE SITE 

CYPRESS 

RIDGE SLC-6 

BOATHOUSE 

FLATS 

VINA 

TERRACE 

1. Geology and Soils • Earthquake 0 

s. 000 00000 1S)-0la0 00 19.0 

5) 1 Q0-

0- 

0 0 

• Landslide C 0 • 

• Erosion C 0 • 

• Soil losses 

- Construction C 0 • 

- Operations C 0 • 

• Excavation C 0 • 

• Fill • C 0 

• Borrow site(s) • C 0 

• Spoil site(s) C 0 • 

2. Water Resources 

• Ground Water • Water Use 0 0 0 

• Surface Water • Increased runoff 0 0 • 

• Contamination from spill 0 0 0 

3. Vegetation • Loss of habitat 0 • 0 

• Loss of sensitive species • 0 0 

• Operational deposition 0 0 • 

4. Wildlife 

• Channel Islands birds, • Launch noise, sonic boom 0 0 0 

mammals 

• Nearshore marine birds, • Construction/operations disturbance 0 • 0 

mammals • Use of External Tank Landing Facility 0 0 0 

• Air Emissions C • 0 

• Terrestrial birds, • Loss of habitat, roosting sites 0 0 • 

wildlife • Launch noise, sonic boom 

• Air emissions 

0_, 

P 

0_, 

P 

0„ 

P 

Legend 

O = Least impact compared to other three sites 

O = Low intermediate impact compared to other three sites 

O = High intermediate impact compared to other three sites 

• = Most impact compared to other three sites 

0 = Same impact as other site(s) 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 S-53 

TABLE S.3 

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Page 2 of 4 

RESOURCE POTENTIAL EFFECT 

ALTERNATIVE SITE 

CYPRESS 

RIDGE S LC 6 - 

BOATHOUSE 

FLATS 

VD: A 

TERRACE . 

5. Air Quality/Meteorology • Facility construction dust C 

0st-0:1926). 'S. • •IS. la • 'a ors, Ass,$), 0 0 

0 • 

• Pre-launch and post-launch 

processing emissions 

0 0 0 

• Launch emissions 0 0 0 

• Vehicle failure emissions 0 0 0 

• Stratospheric ozone depletion 0 0 0 

6. Waste Management 

• Domestic Waste • Santa Maria sewage treatment 

facility 

0 0 0 

- Industrial Waste • Construction 

- North VAFB Class III landfill 0 0 0 

- Lompoc Class II landfill 0 0 0 

• Operations 

- North VAFB Class III landfill 0 0 0 

- Lompoc Class II landfill 0 0 0 

• Hazardous Waste • North VAFB hazardous waste 

storage facility 

- Construction 0 0 

- Operations 0 0 0 

• Class I landfill 

- Construction 0 0 0 

- Operations 0 0 0 

7. Noise • Normal launch 0 0 0 

• Explosion 0 0 0 

8. Visual Resources • Impair view from Jalama Beach 0 C • 

• Impair view from railroad 0 • 0 

. — 

Legend 

O = Least impact compared to other three sites 

= Low intermediate impact compared to other three sites 

O = High intermediate impact compared to other three sites 

• = Most impact compared to other three sites 

0 = Same impact as other site(s) 
• 

• 

Ngi54 APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

TABLE S.3 

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Pate 3 of 4 

RESOURCE POTENTIAL EFFECT 

ALTERNATIVE SITE 

CYPRESS 

RIDGE 

SLC-6 BOATHOUSE 

FLATS 

VIVA 

TERRACE 

9. Cultural Resources 

• U.S. Coast Guard 

Rescue Station 

• Rock Art Site 

• Archaeological 

Resources 

• Paleontology 

• Caliche Fossils 

10. Transportation 

11. Health and Safety 

12. Socioeconomics 

• Disturbance from normal launch 

• Vibration and emissions 

• Vibration and emissions 

• Disturbance from explosion 

• Disturbance from grading and 

earthmoving 

• Disturbance from grading and 

earthmoving 

• Vibration from sonic boom 

• Increase in traffic 

• Need for additional traffic control 

• Normal launch 

• Unscheduled event 

• Explosion damage 

• Fire damage 

• Stratospheric ozone depletion 

• Construction 

- Increased employment 

- Increased population 

- Increased housing demand 

- Increased demand to public 

services/utilities 

- Increased local/regional spending 

• Operations 

- Increased employment 

- Increased population 

- Increased housing demand 

- Increased demand to public 

services/utilities 

- Increased local/regional spending 

0 

0 

• 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0* 

50 0 

0 

0* 

50 

0 

0 

0* 

0000 0 0 

00 -as®® - ' *0000 O

mtslt9. 

0 0 

,

4

0

* 

• 

• 00 0 • -cD. las• o 

Iscaao. !csl. !asosca 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

• 

0 

0* 50, 

50 

0 

0* 

ID 

0 

0 

0* 

Legend 

O = Least impact compared to other three sites 

O = Low intermediate impact compared to other three sites 

C = High intermediate impact compared to other three sites 

• = Most impact compared to other three sites 

0 = Same impact as other site(s) 

* = Positive/beneficial impact 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 S-55 

TABLE S.3 

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Page 4 of 4 

RESOURCE POTENTIAL EFFECT 

ALTERNATIVE SITE 

CYPRESS 

RIDGE 

SLC-6 BOATHOUSE 

FLATS 

VINA 

TERRACE 

13. Land Use • Interference to adjacent/nearby uses 0 0 0 0 

• New development area 0 0 4) • 

• Coastal zone management 0 0 • 

14. Recreation • Jalama Beach closures 0 0 0 0„ 

• Marine recreation interruptions V V V SO 

flb Legend 

O = Least impact compared to other three sites 

= Low intermediate impact compared to other three sites 

= High intermediate impact compared to other three sites 

• = Most impact compared to other three sites 

0 = Same impact as other site(s) 
NRO SP3AROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• CONCLUSIONS 

Based on environmental evaluation and the comparative analysis of impacts, there would be fewer 

environmental impacts associated with reconfiguration of SLC-6 than with development of either 

the Cypress Ridge, Boathouse Flats or Vina Terrace alternative. Also, for the four sites evaluated, 

most environmental impacts would not be considered significant after implementation of mitigation 

measures. However, many of those impacts would not occur, and most others would be reduced, 

if the proposed action is implemented at SLC-6 rather than at one of the undeveloped sites. 

Implementation of the proposed action at SLC-6 would involve site demolition, in addition to 

facility modification and construction activities. However, additional excavation or ground 

clearing is not anticipated and the proposed activities would occur within areas that have been 

previously disturbed. Therefore, compared to the undeveloped sites, converting SLC-6 would 

result in less soil loss from construction and less impact to borrow and spoil sites. 

• 

Further, with the SLC-6 conversion, impacts to vegetation and special interest plants would be 

substantially lower, since ground clearing activities are not planned. There also would be less 

impact to animal habitat and to sensitive animal species. In addition, since most major facilities are 

already built at SLC-6 or would be replaced with facilities of equal size, there would be less visual 

impact than with development of one of the other sites. 

However, conversion of SLC-6 would result in greater generation of liquid hazardous waste 

during construction generated by modifications to the hypergolic fuel and oxidizer delivery 

systems. Since fewer personnel would be required for construction activities at SLC-6 than at an 

undeveloped site, fewer economic benefits would be generated in the region during the project 

construction period. 

Overall, the reconfiguration of SLC-6 for the Titan IV/Centaur program represents the 

environmentally preferred alternative since it would result in fewer environmental impacts than 

would implementation of the proposed action at one of the three undeveloped sites. 

• 

Based on the analysis of alternatives contained in the Draft EIS (USAF 1989c), comments received 

during review of the Draft EIS, program goals and requirements, and Congressional action taken 

since the issuance of the Draft EIS, USAF has determined that the conversion of and subsequent 

operation of the existing SLC-6 is the preferred alternative to meet DOD launch program 

requirements. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • 

• 

INTRODUCTION 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• 

• 

1.0 IN I RODUCTION 

The purpose of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to respond to comments on the 

Draft EIS for the Construction and Operation of Space Launch Complex 7 (SLC-7) for the Titan 

IV/Centaur at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California (USAF 1989c). It should be noted 

that, subsequent to circulation of the Draft EIS, the name of the proposed action was changed from 

Space Launch Complex 7 to Titan IV/Centaur Launch Complex (TCLC). This change reflects the 

addition of the conversion of Space Launch Complex 6 (SLC-6) as one of the preferred 

alternatives. 

1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PROCESS 

This Final EIS has been prepared in accordance with: (1) the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), as implemented by Executive Order 11514, 42 USC 4321, (2) the President's Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 

1500 et seq., and (3) U.S. Air Force (USAF) Regulations AFR19-1, AFR19-2, AFR19-7, 

and AFR19-9, which constitute USAF directives for compliance with NEPA. 

The following briefly summarizes the Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP) for the 

proposed action: 

• Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS - The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS 

for the proposed action was published in the Federal Register and in local 

newspapers located within the region of the proposed action on April 8, 

1988. 

• Public Scoping Meetings - Public scoping meetings were held on May 3 

and May 5, 1988, to solicit input from interested individuals, groups, 

government organizations, and elected officials. Items or issues to be 

addressed in the Draft EIS were compiled from both oral and written 

statements. These meetings were announced by: (1) publishing the 

Notice of Intent in the Federal Register, (2) letters to agencies, public 

officials, and public interest groups, (3) legal notices in local and regional 

newspapers, and (4) a USAF official news release to local and regional 

news media. 

• Preparation of the Draft EIS - A Draft EIS was prepared that identified, 

described, and analyzed the environmental issues associated with the 

proposed action and alternatives. The Draft EIS was published on 

July 20, 1989. 

• Preparation of Supporting Documents to the EIS - Supporting documents 

to the EIS were prepared and contained the detailed analyses from which 

the discussions about the existing environment and potential project 
NROffPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

impacts presented in the Draft EIS were drawn. These documents were 

made available to government agencies and the public upon request. 

Supporting documents prepared included: 

Biological Assessment, Titan IV/Centaur Launch Complex, 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. 

Federal Consistency Determination. 

- Cultural Resources Inventory for Titan IV/Centaur Launch Complex, 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. 

Waste Assessment, Titan IV/Centaur Launch Complex, Vandenberg 

Air Force Base, California. 

- Risk Assessment: Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Construction and Operation of Space 

Launch Complex 7, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara 

County, California. 

• Review and Comment of the Draft EIS - The Draft EIS was released for 

public review on July 20, 1989, to interested individuals, groups, 

government representatives, and agencies. The Draft EIS was filed with 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on July 21, 1989. The 

Federal Register Notice of Availability appeared on July 28, 1989, and 

initiated the 45-day public comment period. The public comment period 

ended on September 11, 1989. 

Public Hearing - Public hearings were held on August 30 and 31, 1989, 

during the Draft EIS review period to provide agencies, organizations, 

and the public with an opportunity to verbally comment on the Draft EIS. 

Preparation of the Final EIS - This Final EIS incorporates and responds 

to public comments received as a result of review of the Draft EIS. 

• Record of Decision - After publication of the Notice of Availability of the 

Final EIS and a 30-day waiting period, the USAF will make a decision 

regarding the proposed action and will prepare and publish a public 

Record of Decision. 

1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW 

During the draft EIS review period, comments were received from federal, state, and local 

government agencies, elected officials, and the public (individuals and organizations). Written 

comments were submitted to Headquarters Space Systems Division (SSD/DEV) in El Segundo, 

California. Written comments were received from 24 commenters, among whom were five 

federal, three state, three county, and two local agencies. Two private interest groups and one 

Native American organization also provided written comments. The remaining eight commenters 

were private individuals. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 1-3 

• 

t 

Verbal comments were received at two public hearings held in the Grossman Gallery of the 

Lompoc Public Library, Lompoc, California, on August 30, 1989, and in the Santa Barbara 

County Superintendent of Schools Auditorium, Santa Barbara, California, on August 31, 1989. 

A total of 46 persons attended the Lompoc public hearing, and 16 attended in Santa Barbara. 

Seven of those in attendance had verbal comments. 

Table 1.1 (Numerical Summary of Comments on Draft EIS) summarizes written and verbal 

comments received on the Draft EIS. Those who submitted the greatest number of comments were 

the County of Santa Barbara Resource Management Department (53), the County of Santa Barbara 

Air Pollution Control District (50), and the Bixby Ranch Company (31 and 14 comments in two 

separate letters). In total number of comments submitted, the next group consisted of the 

Department of Interior Office of Environmental Project Review (24), Environmental Protection 

Agency (23), National Marine Fisheries Service (16), and Marine Mammal Commission (13). The 

remaining 16 commenters each had six or fewer separate comments in their written and verbal 

submissions. 

Of the 272 total separate written and verbal comments, the greatest number addressed Wildlife 

(48), Air Quality/Meteorology (47), and Health and Safety (41). The issues of next greatest 

concern were Vegetation (25), Water Resources (15), Land Use (11), Project Alternatives (10), 

and Cultural Resources (9). Other issues each received seven comments or less. There were also 

18 "Other" comments which addressed various concerns, ranging from a verbal statement that 

written comments would be submitted later to comments as to the adequacy of the Risk 

Assessment prepared for the Draft EIS. Issues that were addressed in the Draft EIS but were not 

mentioned in any of the verbal or written comments included the Scoping Process, Mitigations, 

Noise, and Transportation. 

The USAF responses address each comment individually as consistent with the CEQ regulations 

(40 CFR Part 1503). Since changes to the text of the Draft EIS in response to the comments are 

minor, the Draft EIS was not completely rewritten. Instead, the Final EIS consists of a summary, 

public and agency comments, responses to comments, and addenda and errata to the Draft EIS 

(40 CFR Part 1502.9). 
1-4 

lvIJINIIIIS li3.:1 Sil•ra3•0410D 'ON r.AA':2-. 2... 0. 

Mill. 01.101 SA JA-2131.1)10:4S :: :1: 

e 

I 1 m : : • : : : , , 

. 

14 

SIDRA:33 SS11-3ACtv 3-111vCa0AvNII :;-:;• :il• 1:••••• ::• ;:• I :::::::: 

1131-1.LO I : ••• : I : : - ••,• : . : ; ••• •••• ; : : ; : - : : : : ; ; : - i ; ••,• 

Nowt-DiaDi -

. . . , . • : 1 • ; ,, : • : : • : : • : • : : • ,.. 

u sn GNY-I : : : — 

SODIONOD'HODOS : 1 : : ; • ; ; • ; I ;•• • - I • : ; • : " ' 

A.1.3.4vSONY arival : ; •••• : ; . 

: , • ••• - r- 1 : . ••-• ..7.• . 1 . - . " . . : ; : : 1 z•r; 

1•1012.v12104SNYILL ' : t • : : : • 1 : • ; : • : • '''''''' : : • '''' . 

S-3321:1053)3 1VO111.1:1f1D : : - . : 1 , . . - .. 

SED2LOOSTH 1VriSIA : : ; : : • ; 1 • : ; •••• • ; : • : : • . ''''' . . 

2 SION : : 1 : : I : ! : : : : : 1 1 : . 

IACEIK3OvNVIN 31,Svm : ••-• : ; 1 • I ••, • : : •••• • : : • : ; • : • : ; ; : ; : : : I • I : : : ; ,,7; 

A DO-107303134ShUnvot) -sty : ., : : : . 

• 

• • . 

. . — • . 

..r; 

341-10-112A •-•; •■:, ;-; : • ; : ; • 1 ; ,„-• • _, • : : • : : • ; • : '' : I

. • ''' .. 

.., 

NoLIN1393A 1 ..:. ,.• ; 1 . : : : . : : •• ■ . : : 

. 

, . , 

. . 

. . , . . • . 

Sa011OOSTS EILWA . : 1•;• :.••• ; ; • ; • :- :N:-- 

S-110S acv ADO-1030 : ; I 1 : • : : I • : •-• ••• • .• , 

. . : 

. . 

,••• 1 . . 

. 

..^ 

SNOLLvOLLDVAXYWINIIS :::::• ;;;• I • 1 . • I : • 

SI,DvciKI aALINIIDNIID/AllvINYVIS . • • .-. 

sa AuyN-MIL-lv ,L73./011.1 " ■ 1 1 • I : - . : . ^ : . : . - . •••• - . t r'., -• 

33;•:vnaPIOD AEOlvIn On : ,.• : ; ; 1 - 

. 

. •••• : . : . 1 : •-• 

S530013.:10eadODS ' • : : : • : ' ' ; • . . • • • .• 

033.,; CL•iv 3so.mna . — I ; : ■ . 1 : , . • " • 

. — 

.Ofica0.4 Sr3 .L4V210 • : : • •', 

SY3O021c1 SIE1 :::::• 1:: f:t :: -; ; ;;;11:1: 

IREIN1110.7 ON : i 1 i - ' •-• ; : • 1 : 1 • : ; 1 ; • : 1 : 1 1 : ! 1 ,.. 

COMMENT CATEGORY 

COMMENTER 

i'' 2 

8 

tx 

3 

•E 

..g, • 0 • 

i • 

.b . 0 >,> 

iTill. 

XcElu<' 

.. .II' 

t'-. 

ig 4 < . 

= .),. 0:z -, . 

'1:5oE24 

• 

t • 

i • 

. -c, • 

.mg, 

--el. 

-,t6 'F. 

iz&' 

igg' 

8g;. 

11-0 '6.0. 2.11. 

Agg 

1-,• i • 

§.. g • c...) -6 B • 

— i • 

- I• 

. 

4 !••-E -

441;* ,L3,. 

g 

gig. 

:: 8. 

• 

... • 

b' • 

. 

-=' , • 

0. 

LI' 5 

- 

• 

. 

. 

6..., . 

—.r...' 

P°. - .2 

••• 

AI— 00 —0 • 

-=-= 2r if 

.z. .o '" 

..(4. 

j. 

•-7i • 

I. 

.t.• 

• 

. 

' 

C.J 

x 

. 

cZc°4 

r=9 

...; 

. 

7'-'• 

-SU t5 , E ',.1 ••• g u _ =-,-. 

Pl3 p41 10--. BA 

2,,, c.5•,i. t.",,q, 

.VERBAL COMMENTS 

NATIVE A

MERICAN ORGA

M7ATIONS 

Elaine Schneider Reggie Pigaling VARIOUS Howard Grantz 

JamesSpellman, Jr. 

Bill Mullins 

LeRoy Scolari 

JeremyGraves TOTALCOMMENTS PER CATEGORY 

S 

1.1J 

CO 

uJ 

LIJ 

0 

0 

0n

LU 

,S T

41k 

z 

c/ 

z 

C 

cr. 

C 

4.1 

C 

7 

ri 

z

c.) 

Fc 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

1.3 FINAL EIS FORMAT 

The remainder of the Final EIS is organized under the following primary headings: 

• 2.0 Public Comments and Responses 

Comments received from federal, state, and local government 

agencies, elected officials, and the public (individuals and 

organizations), and the responses to those comments are contained in 

this chapter. Both written comments and the transcripts of public 

hearings are included. 

• 3.0 Addenda and Errata to the Draft EIS 

- Factual corrections and additions or modifications to the analysis 

contained in the Draft EIS in response to public and agency 

comments. 

• 4.0 List of Preparers 

Identifies individuals and organizations responsible for producing the 

Final EIS. 

• 5.0 References 

- List of materials referenced in the text of the Final EIS. 

• 6.0 Final EIS Mailing List 

Agencies, organizations, elected officials, and individuals to whom 

the Final EIS was mailed. 

• 7.0 Documentation of Draft EIS Public Hearings 

- Documentation of the Draft EIS public hearings. 

• 8.0 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 

- List of Acronyms and Abbreviations used in the Final EIS. 

• Appendix A - Global Warming 

- This appendix provides a brief discussion of potential global 

warming impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed action. 

• Appendix B - White Paper on Bixby Ranch Update 

- The white paper on Bixby Ranch Update is provided in this 

appendix. 

1-5 

• 
NRO hfr)PROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• Appendix C - Summary of Risk Assessment 

- This appendix provides the Executive Summary of the Risk 

Assessment performed for Titan IV/Centaur launches and related 

activities. 

• Appendix D - Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation 

This appendix documents the Threatened and Endangered Species 

Consultation (Section 7) with the National Marine Fisheries Service 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-1 • 2.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 

2.1 WRI ITEN PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 

This section contains written comments received from federal, state, and local government 

agencies, elected officials, and the public (individuals and organizations) and responses to those 

comments, per the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR Part 

1503). Verbal comments from the public hearings and responses to those comments are provided 

in Section 2.2, Public Hearing Comments and Responses. Comments are numbered consecutively 

as indicated on the comment letters, and responses are keyed to those comment numbers. This 

section is structured so that each comment letter is followed by its response(s). Where a comment 

warrants changes or additions to the Draft EIS, it is noted in the response and the change is 

provided in Chapter 3.0 (Addenda and Errata to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement). 

• The following is a summary of the comment letters received on the Draft EIS: 

Letter No. Correspondent 

Federal Agencies 

1 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, E. C. Fullerton, 

Regional Director 

2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region Dc Deanna Wieman, 

Director, Office of External Affairs 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Patricia Sanderson Port, 

Regional Environmental Officer 

4 Marine Mammal Commission, John R. Twiss, Jr., Executive Director 

5 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 

Barry S. Brayer, Manager, Planning and International Aviation Staff, 

AWP-A 

State Agencies 

6 State of California, Office of Planning and Research, Robert P. Martinez, 

Director 

7 The Resources Agency of California, Gordon F. Snow, Ph.D., for 

Assistant Secretary of Resources 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region, 

William R. Leonard, Executive Officer 
NROr PROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JU 

22

015 

• 

• 

• 

Santa Barbara 

County Agencies 

9 

10 

11 

County of Santa Barbara, Air Pollution Control District, 

Deborah S. Pontifex, Responsible Agency Review 

Santa Barbara County Park Department, Michael H. Pahos, Director of 

Parks 

County of Santa Barbara, Resource Management Department, 

Jeffrey T. Harris, Deputy Director 

Local Agencies 

12 City of Lompoc, King Patrick Leonard, Planning Director 

13 Vandenberg Village Community Services District, Howard E. Grantz, 

President, Board of Directors 

Businesses/ 

Organizations 

14 Bixby Ranch Company (September 8, 1989), Kenneth C. Bornholdt, 

Senior Vice President and General Counsel 

15 Bixby Ranch Company (October 6, 1989), Kenneth C. Bornholdt, 

Senior Vice President and General Counsel 

Native American 

Organizations 

16 Tribal Elders Council, Manuel Armenta, Chairman, and 

David D. Dominguez, Chairman, Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians 

Individuals 

17 Maurice "Greg" Cooper, Lompoc, California 

18 Nancy Flanders, Lompoc, California 

19 Lawrence E. Liles, Santa Barbara, California 

20 John J. Markon, Lompoc, California 

21 Michael E. McClure, Lompoc, California 

22 J.C. Picciuolo, Lompoc, California 

23 Mary Gaines Read, Lompoc, California 

24 Donald D. Smith, Lompoc, California 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE LETTER 1 1 JUNE 2015 2-3 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atrnesphstria Adminlotration 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

Southwest Region 

300 South Ferry Street 

Tertihal Island, California 90731 

September 12, 1989 F/SWR14:BH 

• 

Mr. John Edwards 

HQ SSD/DEV 

P.O. Box 92960 

Los Angeles( CA 90009-2960 

Dear Mr. Edwards, 

This letter represents a review of your Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for the construction and operation of Space 

Launch Complex 7 (SLC-7) at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB). 

The development of this site is not likely to affect the 

population of harbor seals or California sea lions in California 

adversely. However, this project has the potential to adversely 

affect the local stock of harbor seals and California sea lions 

that use the Channel Islands, the area from Pt. Conception to Pt. 

Arguello and in particular the seals occupying the area near 

Rocky Pt. 

General Comments: 

VAFB is located adjacent to the Channel Islands which support 

major populations of California sea lions, harbor seals, northern 

fur seals and elephant seals. Concerns relative to the impact of 

sonic booms on seals by the previously proposed space shuttle 

launches were thoroughly examined and indicated that only minor 

disturbances would be expected. Given that lower level sonic 

booms are estimated from the Titan vehicles we do not expect this 

type of noise to adversely affect the seals. However, in order 

11] to verify that no impact will occur an appropriate monitoring 

program should be instituted. 

South VAFB contains 12 of the 36 haulout sites located in Santa 

Barbara County but south VAFB comprises a much smaller proportion 

of the coastline in the county. The 533 seals counted at these 

sites in the 1988 survey account for approximately 42% of the 

seals observed in that county during the census. This situation 

probably exists at least in part because of the restricted nature 

of beach access on south VAFB which precludes human disturbance. 

It is of particular interest that the haulout use has expanded 

over the last few years, both in terms numbers of haulouts used 

and numbers of seals present, in the vicinity of Rocky Pt. This 

may be a result of disturbance at other mainland sites and or an 

increasing regional population. The fluctuating annual counts in 

the most recent years at these haulout sites suggest that 

movements between other mainland and island haulouts commonly 

occur. It is also important to note that at least one of the 
4] 

NRPPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JOFE 2015 • south VAFB haulouts is used for pupping. 

All four of the proposed SLC-7 sites are located within two miles 

of a least one of the haulouts areas. The proposed SLC sites are 

all closer to seal haulout areas than any of the other SLCs that 

are currently in operation. Because of this close proximity we 

agree that noise and air pollution from launch operations may 

potentially impact the seals and may constitute a take under the 

MAtine Mammal Protection Act. In order for this take to be 

legal, a small take permit needs to be obtained from NOAA 

Fisheries. It is possible that the existing small take permit 

issued for the space shuttle could be modified although there are 

some additional impacts under this project that need to be 

considered. 

The DEIS states that launch noise may result in a temporary 

hearing loss for terrestrial biota within a three to five mile 

radius of the launch facility. However, although the DEIS 

acknowledges that the long, loud noise of the launch may disturb 

animals, it does not identify the degree of disturbance launch 

noise may produce. It should be noted that for short, loud 

noises such as sonic booms, it has been found that disturbance of 

harbor seals may not occur unless there is an accompanying visual 

stimulus. Given that only three, well separated launches are 

scheduled per year we do not expect that hearing impairment or 

permanent displacement would occur. However, monitoring of seal 

hearing ability and behavioral responses to simulated levels of 

launch noise would prove valuable in evaluating these potential 

impacts. Further, monitoring of the seasonal occurrence of seals 

would identify the times of year when the fewest seals are 

present and thus when the lowest impact from launches on the 

regional stock would be expected. Finally, appropriate 

monitoring of the local harbor seals should be conducted during 

all actual launches after the SLC is constructed to ensure no 

short or long term effects exist. 

Impacts on air quality from launch gases were identified as a 

factor of concern for pinnipeds. However, despite the modeling 

of a Toxic Hazard Corridor which may result in launch 

postponement if it encompasses an unprotected human population, 

no similar consideration is given to wildlife. We feel that 

local pinniped haulout sites should be also be considered 

relative to this model and launch postponement occur if the seals 

would be exposed to levels of toxic gases that would adversely 

impact humans respiratory systems. Should it be necessary to 

determine toxic gas concentrations around a launch site, 

monitoring around SLC-4 at distances similar to that which seals 

would be found on haulouts from the proposed SLC sites should be 

initiated. 

Specific Comments: 

12] 

• 

13] 

I

p.1-10 section 1.5.1.2. This section should note that if a 

"take" is expected to occur that a small take permit is required. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-5 

• 

r6] p. 1.22 section 1.5.6. A "stall take permit" from NOAH Fisheries 

l ul ishculd be added to this list. 

[7] 

P.

2-59 section a,3,4, This section should Also include irpact 

information concerning seals which use mainland haulout sites. 

ip. 2-60 second paragraph, line 4. Delete "Guadalupe fur seal" 

[8] and insert "northern elephant seal" 

19

1 1p. 2-51 sixth paragraph line 3. The species of cetacean in this 

'sentence is not identified. 

1 . 3-64 Boathouse flats section. Due to this site's close 

110] proximity to the seal haulouts, seals should be discussed in this 

section. 

p. 4-40 first paragraph, line 7. There have been no direct 

01] studies to demonstrate that space shuttle generated sonic booms 

will not permanently damage hearing in marine mammals. 

p. 4-40 sixth paragraph, line 2. "only one launch would occur 

during the pupping season" - it should be noted that this is 

probably for harbor seals since the other species generally breed 

H2] at other times. However, because of the separation of pupping 

times it is more accurate to note that more than one launch may 

occur during seal or seA lion pupping seasons. 

0311p. 4-41 first paragraph, line 1. Insert "harbor seals" between 

120 pups.... 

04]1 p, 4-41 fourth paragraph, line 6. We are not aware of a small 

take permit being in process for SLC-4. 

PI 4-53 first paragraph. The analyses of effect of Titan IV 

programs have occurred at SLC-4 which is located several miles 

[Is] from the harbor seal haulouts. The 1988 report which cited does 

not state how the biota were monitored during launches. Thug it 

is inappropriate to state that there was no significant impact to 

marine biota. 

p, B-43. CallOrhinUs Urging, northern fur seal; depleted; none - 

should be added to the three columns in Table B.11 under mammals. 

We appreciate the opportunity to review the DEIS. If you have 

any questions about our comments please contact Mr. Brad Hanson 

of my staff at (213) 514-6666. 

Sincerely, 

EC.:442.6)4.tr31 

E. C. ullerton 
NROMPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNIIE12015 

• 

• 

RESPONSE TO LEI I ER 1 

Received From: U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

E. C. Fullerton, Regional Director 

Comment No. 1: Monitoring Program 

As discussed in Draft EIS Section 4.4.5, Mitigation Measures, a monitoring program with an 

emphasis on threatened and endangered species would be implemented to assess impacts to 

wildlife from noise and air emissions. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be consulted in the development of this 

program. The program will build on the ongoing efforts being undertaken by Sea World 

Research Institute (SWRI) to gather data on pinnipeds and seabird populations. The SWRI 

monitoring program is directed toward gathering the data necessary to determine population 

trends and to develop a model of pinniped and seabird population responses to space launch 

activities. 

Comment No. 2: Incidental Take Permit 

The potential need for an incidental take permit is discussed in Draft EIS Section 4.4.1, 

Regional Environment. Additional discussion regarding the need for an incidental take permit 

is contained in Appendix D.1, Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation with National 

Marine Fisheries Service, of this document. 

Comment No. 3: Monitoring Program 

As noted in response to Comment No. 1, a monitoring program would be developed in 

cooperation with NMFS and USFWS. The specific duration of the program and its content 

would be developed to ensure that regulatory requirements are met. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-7 

• Comment No. 4: Rocket Exhaust Impacts to Pinnipeds 

As indicated in Draft EIS Section 4.4.2.1, Cypress Ridge, best available scientific information 

indicates that impacts to local fauna including pinnipeds are not expected to be significant. 

Therefore, real-time modeling, such as for a toxic hazard corridor (THC), would not be 

necessary. In addition, launches would be monitored to minimize impacts to pinnipeds. 

• 

Comment No. 5: Incidental Take Permit 

The additional information to be added to Section 1.5.1.2, Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(page 1-10 of the Draft EIS), is contained in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-2). 

Comment No. 6: Incidental Take Permit 

The additional information to be added to Draft EIS Section 1.5.6, Federal Permit Compliance, 

is contained in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-6). 

Comment No. 7: Impacts to Seals at Haulout Sites 

The information summarizing impacts to seals which use mainland haulout sites is contained in 

Draft EIS Section 2.3.4, Wildlife, page 2-61. 

Comment No. 8: Northern Elephant Seal Identification 

The suggested changes to the text of Section 2.3.4 (page 2-60) are contained in Chapter 3.0 of 

the Final EIS (page 3-8). 

Comment No. 9: Cetacean Species 

The cetacean species referred to on page 3-53 of the Draft EIS is the gray whale. The revision 

to the text of the Draft EIS is contained in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-13). 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUIW 2015 

• 

• 

Comment No. 10: Seal Discussion 

There are several areas near the Boathouse Flats alternative site that are of importance to marine 

mammals. The pocket beach immediately north of the mouth of Oil Well Canyon is a hauling 

ground and rookery for the area. Additional haulout sites occur to the north toward Rocky 

Point and include the boathouse breakwater. The 1986 census produced a total of 500 seals for 

these sites (Han an et al. 1987). 

Comment No. 11: Sonic Boom Studies 

The Space Shuttle analysis referred to on page 4-40 of the Draft EIS is the collective body of 

work on the potential effects of Space Shuttle sonic booms on marine mammals located within 

the region of influence. While there have not been direct observations made of Space Shuttle 

impacts to marine mammals (since the Space Shuttle has not been launched from VAFB), the 

work undertaken in support of the Shuttle included using other sources of noise to simulate 

launch activities and observed the resulting animal behavior. In addition, extensive field 

observation of a wide variety of stimuli, including sonic booms from airplanes, and resultant 

animal behavior have been documented (Jehl and Cooper 1980). 

Comment No. 12: Pupping Season 

Pupping seasons for pinnipeds in the region are as follows: 

Pinniped Pupping Season 

California sea lion 

Northern fur seal 

Northern elephant seal 

Harbor seal 

mid-May to late June 

early June to late July 

mid-January to early February 

mid-February to mid-April 

The text on Draft EIS page 4-40 was written in reference to the harbor seal, which has a short 

pupping season. As indicated by the pupping seasons shown, pupping may occur almost 

continuously from January through July, a period long enough for two launches to occur if the 

timing were coincident with these periods. The revision to the text is contained in Chapter 3.0 

of the Final EIS (page 3-16). • 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

Comment No. 13: Harbor Seals 

The text on page 4-41 of the Draft EIS pertains to harbor seals. The appropriate revision to the 

text is contained in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-16). 

Comment No. 14: Incidental Take Permit for SLC-4 

The Incidental Take Permit for SLC-4 was submitted to NMFS on April 17, 1990. 

Comment No. 15: Impacts to Marine Biota 

• 

This text summarizes the results of conclusions drawn for the Biological Assessment for Titan 

II and IV operations at SLC-4 (Engineering Science and Sea World Research Institute 1988). 

On page 6-3 of the Titan II and IV biological assessment, the text notes that, "There would be 

no air-emission-related impact to marine biota or to Channel Islands biota from operation of the 

proposed Titan II and Titan IV programs." The report was written prior to launches and draws 

its conclusions from analysis, rather than monitoring. This information can be used to make 

preliminary conclusions about the potential for impacts from operations of the proposed action 

which would be rigorously tested through the proposed monitoring progam. 

Comment No. 16: Northern Fur Seal 

The revised Table B.11 to the recent status of the Northern fur seal is shown in Section 3.2 of 

the Final EIS. 

2-9 

• 
NRCMPPROVED FOR RELEASE LETTER 2 

1,319%2015 

ktMAI 

• ".L 

SEP 1989 

HQ Space Systems Division 

U.S. Air Force 

P.O. Box 92960 

ATTN: Mr. John Edwards 

Los Angeles AFB, California 90009-2960 

Dear Mr. Edwards: 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for CONSTRUCTION AND 

OPERATION OF SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 7, VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, 

Santa Barbara County, California. The proposed launch facility 

would provide for processing and launch of the Titan IV/Centaur, 

an unmanned space vehicle, for 10,000 pound Department of Defense 

payloads into high energy, near polar orbits. The proposed 

project will require a number of infrastructure facilities, 

including a launch support structure, launch mount and umbilical 

tower, mobile service tower, sewage treatment facilities, support 

buildings, propellant and gas holding areas, roads, and power and 

utility lines. The proposed Cypress Ridge site and three 

alternative sites (Boathouse Flats, Vina Terra and Space Launch 

Complex 6) are located within the same general area of south 

Vandenberg Air Force Base. The Space Launch Complex 6 site was 

previously developed for Space Shuttle activities but is 

now in an inactive status, while the other three sites are 

undeveloped. 

Our comments are provided pursuant to EPA's authorities under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 309 of the 

Clean Air Act, and the Council on Environmental Quality's 

Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA. 

We have classified this DEIS as Category EC-2, Environmental 

Concerns - Insufficient Information (please see "Summary of 

Rating Definitions and Follow-up Actions"). 

We have environmental concerns because the proposed project may 

have adverse impacts on waters of the United States, including 

wetlands and other "special aquatic sites" regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) will need to more fully discuss the proposed 

project's compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

215 Fremont Street 

San Francisco, Ca. 94105 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-11 

1 1 SEP ig89 • 

• 

We also request that the FEIS contain more information on 

existing air quality conditions in Santa Barbara County and air 

quality modeling; information on compliance with the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (particularly its corrective 

action, underground storage tank and waste minimization 

provisions); and a commitment that SLC-7 activities will not 

interfere with the assessment, identification and cleanup of 

hazardous substances if they are discoverd on the project site. 

Finally, we request that the U.S. Air Force work closely with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on potential impacts to 

threatened, endangered and candidate species. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. 

Please send us three copies of the FEIS at the same time it is 

officially filed with EPA's Washington, D.C. office. If you have 

any questions, please call me at 415-974-8083 (FTS 454-8083) or 

David Tomsovic at 415-974-7451 (FTS 454-7451). 

Sincer 

1v2 Cat 

Dea na M. Wieman, Director 

Office of External Affairs 

Enclosures: one page EIS rating sheet 

six pages of comments on DEIS 

cc: Robert B. Cameron, Air Force AFRCE, San Francisco 

District Engineer, Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles 

Nancy Kaufman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laguna Niguel 

Deborah Pontifex, Santa Barbara County APCD, Santa Barbara 

Jeffrey Harris, Santa Barbara County Resource Management 

Department, Santa Barbara 

William Leonard, Regional Water Quality Control Board, 

San Luis Obispo 

-2- • 
NR(;-APROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUICIPISTIrs BY U.S. EPA TO U.S. AIR FORCE (USAF) ON DRAFT EIS FOR 

SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 7 (SLC-7), VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, SANTA 

BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. SEPTEMBER 1989. 

1 1 SEP 1989 

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE COMMENTS 

1. The regulatory compliance section of the DEIS (page 1-21) 

states that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

incorporates special standards for wastewater treatment units. 

We recommend that the regulatory section of the FEIS note that 

other provisions of the RCRA may also be applicable, including 

those on corrective action, underground storage tanks, and waste 

minimization. 

2. The regulatory compliance section (DEIS, page 1-20) on the 

Clean Water Act should be amended to discuss Section 313. 

Section 313 requires that each department or agency of the 

Federal Government engaged in an activity that may result in the 

discharge or runoff of pollutants must comply with all Federal, 

State and local requirements respecting the control and abatement 

of water pollution to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity. 

3. We recommend that two Executive Orders (EO) be included in the 

FEIS's regulatory compliance section. They are: (1) Executive 

Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands," May 24, 1977; and 

(2) Executive Order 12088, "Federal Compliance with Pollution 

Control Standards," October 13, 1978. 

E0 11990 provides that, "Each agency...shall take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to 

preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of 

wetlands..." and that no new construction shall occur in wetlands 

unless the agency finds that there is "no practicable alternative 

to such construction and that the proposed action includes all 

practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may 

result from such use." 

• 

[17] 

[181 

• 

[19] 

EO 12088 provides that each Federal agency shall cooperate and 

consult with the EPA and State/local agencies on the prevention, 

control and abatement of environmental pollution. The EO is currently being revised and its provisions may significantly change. 

We recommend that the FEIS discuss compliance with the revised EO 

if it is signed by the President before the FEIS is issued. 

WETLANDS COMMENTS - CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) 

We commend the U.S. Air Force for developing alternatives that 

avoid the placement of fill or project features in wetlands. For 

example, the DEIS (pages 4-32 and 4-33) states that power lines 

will be placed to avoid wetlands. However, as the DEIS states on 

page 1-23, a Section 404 permit may be required from the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, depending upon final project design and 

operational procedures. Section 404 governs the placement of 

dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, 

-3- 
2-13 

1 1 SEP 1989 • 

• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 including wetlands and other "special aquatic sites." 

We request that the FEIS discuss the proposed project's consistency with Federal Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites 

for Dredged or Fill Materials [the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, found at 

40 CFR Part 230]. We recommend that the U.S. Air Force work 

closely with EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers' Los Angeles 

District should Section 404 prove applicable. In order to 

demonstrate compliance with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the 

proposed project must meet the following criteria. 

1. The proposed discharge must be the practicable alternative 

which would have the least adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem [40 CFR 230.10(a)]. 

2. The proposed project must not cause or contribute to 

significant degradation of waters of the United States, including 

wetlands and other special aquatic sites [40 CFR 230.10(c)]. 

Significant degradation includes the loss of fish and wildlife 

habitat and the loss of other wetland habitat values and functions. Significant degradation also includes cumulative impacts. 

3. The proposed project does not violate State-adopted, EPAapproved water quality standards or jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species listed as threatened or endangered under 

the Endangered Species Act [40 CFR 230.10(b)]. 

4. All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken to 

minimize adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem (i.e., mitigation) [40 CFR 230.10(d)]. It is essential that the Air Force 

undertake every practicable effort to first avoid and then reduce 

the amount of fill placed into waters of the United States. The 

FEIS's alternatives analysis should fully document the avoidance 

and minimization of adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems. 

Finally, the FEIS must describe appropriate and practicable 

measures to compensate for the unavoidable loss of wetlands and 

other waters of the United States. 

120] 

In order to assist EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service 

and the California Department of Fish and Game in evaluating the 

proposed project's consistency with the 404(b(1) Guidelines, we 

recommend that the FEIS contain the following information. 

[2 1* the number of acres subject to Section 404 jurisdiction that 

illwould be filled, 

[22]1

* a brief assessment of the historic cumulative loss or degradation of waters of the United States on Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

* the types and quantities of fill material that would be 

123] discharged into waters of the United States, including wetlands 

I and other special aquatic sites, 

* the number of acres subject to Section 404 jurisdiction that 

• 

124] would be permanently lost or degraded due to impacts other than 

the placement of fill (e.g., the impacts of erosion, sedimenta- 

-4- 
NR(3-4PROVFD FOR REI EASE 1 JuMN

a runoff of pollutants on wetland habitats; accidental 

ge of fuels or other toxic substances into wetland 1 1 SEP 1989 

habitats; diversion of water from wetland habitats), 

* the habitat value and location of habitats permanently lost or 41Io PflIdegraded, 

* a specific mitigation proposal to fully compensate for the loss 

or degradation of wetland habitats, including the proposed 

[26] mitigation replacement ratio, the habitat value and proposed 

location of replacement habitats, specific grading and revegetation plans, and a biological maintenance and monitoring program, 

,,,,* clear mitigation goals and objective, quantifiable criteria by I 

I`'iwhich to judge the success or failure of mitigation, and 

* firm commitments by the U.S. Air Force to ensure the restora- 

[28] tion or creation of wetland habitats of equal or greater resource 

value, and commitments to ensure their protection for the life of 

the project. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE COMMENTS 

• 

The proposed project may have an adverse impact on a plant, 

Monardella undulate var. frutescens, listed as a candidate 

species under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The 

development of the Cypress Ridge site (the preferred alternative 

in the DEIS) would involve the loss of 800-1,000 mature 

individuals. The DEIS notes that this significant impact "could 

be minimized by revegetation." 

[29] 

We encourage the U.S. Air Force to work closely with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service on ESA concerns. The FEIS should 

document any ESA Section 7 consultation which has been performed. 

The vegetation section of "Summary of Mitigation Measures" in the 

FEIS should be amended to include Section 7 consultation information and any recommendations made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

HAZARDOUS WASTE/UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SYSTEM COMMENTS -

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT - (RCRA) 

The DEIS's discussion on the hazardous materials and hazardous 

waste associated with the proposed project is comprehensive. 

It provides an excellent overview of the types and volumes of 

hazardous and toxic materials associated with the construction 

and operation of a space launch facility. For clarification, we 

recommend that the FEIS discuss the following RCRA issues in 

greater detail. 

• [30] 

1. The FEIS should discuss the applicability of any RCRA corrective action requirements which may be necessary at the 

four alternative sites. The FEIS should also discuss the 

applicability of State laws/rules governing the identification, 

assessment and cleanup of hazardous substances or hazardous 

waste, as it relates to the four alternative sites. 

-5- 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-15 

1 JUNE 2015 1 1 SEP 1989 

2. In 1984 Congress amended the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act by adding Subtitle I, which required the EPA to 

develop regulations to protect ground water resources and public 

health from leaks from underground storage tank (UST) systems 

containing petroleum products or hazardous chemicals. 

An UST is defined as any tank, including underground piping 

connected to the tank, that has at least ten percent of its 

volume underground. Certain types of tanks are not covered by 

EPA's UST regulations (e.g., tanks holding 110 gallons or less; 

emergency spill and overfill tanks; surface impoundments and 

pits; septic tanks and systems to collect storm water and 

wastewater). 

The FEIS should assess whether any RCRA-regulated UST systems 

exist on sites proposed for SLC-7 activities. If there are any 

[31] UST systems on the proposed sites, we recommend that the FEIS 

assess the potential for contamination of soil or ground water 

resources due to leaks or discharges. 

The FEIS should discuss RCRA requirements for existing and 

proposed UST systems. It should also discuss the applicability of 

any State or local laws/rules concerning UST systems since 

Congress has given States the authority to adopt UST laws that 

are more stringent than Federal RCRA requirements. 

3. The 1984 RCRA amendments mandate waste minimization in order 

to protect public health and the environment. Waste minimization 

means the reduction, to the extent feasible, of any solid or hazardous waste that is generated, treated, disposed of, or stored. 

We commend the U.S. Air Force for proposing actions that would 

reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated by the proposed 

project (e.g., using paints and primers with low contents of metals such as lead, zinc and cadmium, DEIS, page 4-94). 

• 

• 

[32] 

We strongly encourage the adoption of "fullscale waste minimization" as a waste management mitigation measure. As the DEIS 

notes on page 3-83, "alternatives should be considered before 

designating wastes for landfill disposal. One alternative is 

waste minimization by onsite/offsite recycling." 

We suggest that the FEIS identify the array of methods that will 

be used to achieve waste minimization. They may include the following approaches and techniques: 

* purchase fewer toxic and more nontoxic production materials; 

* inventory and trace all raw materials; 

* install equipment that produces minimal or no waste; 

* modify equipment to enhance recovery or recycling options; 

* substitute nonhazardous for hazardous raw materials; 

* segregate wastes by type for recovery; 

* eliminate sources of leaks and spills; 

* separate hazardous from nonhazardous wastes; and 

* recycle onsite and offsite for reuse. 

[33] 

• 

-6- 
• 

• 

NRO-MPPROVED FOR RELEASE 1 1 SEP 1989 1JUMEMMOUS SUBSTANCE COMMENTS - COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESPONSE, COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT, AS AMENDED BY SUPERFUND 

AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT (CERCLA/SARA) 

The DEIS states (pages 3-90 to 3-92) that, according to the 

Department of Defense's Installation Restoration Program, none of 

the four alternative sites contain any hazardous waste locations 

and do not come under the jurisdiction of either the Comprehen- 

[34] sive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act or 

the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (CERCLA-SARA). 

However, we request that the FEIS contain a commitment to ensure 

the following, if hazardous substances are located at any of the 

four alternative sites. 

1. If the U.S. Air Force discovers evidence of hazardous substances contamination in the future, it will promptly notify the 

EPA and comply with all applicable requirements of CERCLA/SARA 

and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 

2. The FEIS should also contain a commitment that if CERCLA hazardous substances are discovered at the proposed project sites, 

no construction will occur until the requirements of CERCLA/SARA 

and the NCP have been fully satisfied. CERCLA/SARA/NCP 

activities would take priority over new construction at any contaminated sites until CERCLA/SARA compliance has been achieved. 

3. The U.S. Air Force will coordinate with appropriate State and 

local regulatory agencies (e.g.,. Regional Water Quality Control 

Board; California Department of Health Services; city and county 

health departments) to determine their concerns on the 

identification, assessment or cleanup of hazardous substances or 

hazardous waste. 

AIR QUALITY COMMENTS - CLEAN AIR ACT 

1. The FEIS should note the EPA's May 1988 State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Call for Santa Barbara County. This SIP Call 

requires the County to prepare a new Plan to meet the ozone 

standard. The Plan will control emissions for the entire county. 

2. The FEIS should contain a more detailed discussion of how the 

U.S. Air Force modeled potential air quality impacts and the 

potential for violation of air quality standards. The FEIS 

[36] should provide more detailed information to justify the conclusion that there would be no violations of Federal or State air 

quality standards. The FEIS should address the increments for 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, including the new 

nitrogen dioxide increment. 

We understand that the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control 

District (SBCAPCD) may have concerns regarding the appropriate- 

[37] ness of the model used in the DEIS. Although we have not 

received a copy of the SBCAPCD's comment letter on the SLC-7 

DEIS, we strongly recommend that the U.S. Air Force fully 

[35] 

• -7- 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-17 

• 

coordinate air quality modeling and compliance with Federal/State 

air quality standards with the SBCAPCD. This is critical because 

the SBCAPCD must issue an Authority to Construct (ATC) permit to 

the U.S. Air Force, and has been delegated compliance and 

enforcement authorities under the Federal Clean Air Act. 

3. The DEIS notes (page 2-81, 4-64/4-66) that scheduling of 

launches will help to minimize adverse air quality impacts. In 

light of the 1987 determination by the SBCAPCD that north Santa 

Barbara County is a nonattainment area for ozone and its precursor pollutants, we recommend that the U.S. Air Force coordinate 

[38] its launch schedule with the SBCAPCD, unless precluded by 

national security considerations. We recommend that the air 

resources section of the "Summary of Mitigation Measures" be 

amended to include coordination of launch schedules with the 

SBCAPCD to help protect air quality and to prevent violations of 

Federal/State air quality standards. 

4. The DEIS states that the U.S. Air Force will use, where 

feasible, chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs) that are not as 

destructive of the stratosphere as products that have been used 

in past decades. We commend the efforts of the U.S. Air Force to 

protect the stratosphere, and urge that every effort be made to 

not use CFC products which are destructive of the stratosphere. 

• 

139] 

-8- 
NRO APPROVED EIVIRRAWENA;iING DEFINITIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTION* 

1 RW:82015 1 1 SEP 1969 

Environmental Impact of the Action 

111/1 

 10--Lack of Objections 

The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring 

substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for 

application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor 

changes to the proposal. 

EC--Environmental Concerns 

The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to 

fully protect the environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred 

alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce the environmental impact. 

EPA would like to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. 

EO--Environmental Objections 

The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in 

order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require 

substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project 

alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to 

work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. 

EU--Environmentally Unsatisfactory 

The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of enviroluuental quality, public 

health or welfare. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If 

the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS stage, this 

proposal will be recommended for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 

Adequacy of the Impact Statement 

Category 1--Adequate 

EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environs ntal impact(s) of the 

preferred alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or 

action. No further analysis or data collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest 

the addition of clarifying language or information. 

Category 2—Insufficient Information 

The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmenta 

impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA 

reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectrum 

of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of 

the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should b_ 

included in the final EIS. 

Category 3--Inadequate 

EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant 

environmental impacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably 

available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the 

draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or 

discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft 

stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the NEPA 

and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for publi, 

comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. Ch the basis of the potential significant 

impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ. 

*Ftom: EPA Manual 1640, "Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting 

the Environment." 

-9- 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-19 

• 

• 

RESPONSE TO LEI I ER 2 

Received From: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 

Deanna Wieman, Director, Office of External Affairs 

Comment No. 17: Discussion of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

USAF concurs that other sections of RCRA may be applicable to the proposed action. The 

additional text is contained in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-5). 

Comment No. 18: Discussion of Clean Water Act 

A discussion of Section 313 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC Part 1251, et seq.), Federal 

Facilities Pollution Control, is contained in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-4). 

Comment No. 19: Discussion of Executive Orders 11990, Protection of Wetlands. and 

12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards. 

Discussion of Executive Orders 11990 and 12088 is contained in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS 

(pages 3-5 and 3-6). 

Comment No. 20: Discussion of Project Consistency with Clean Water Act 

Section 404 (Federal Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites 

for Dredged or Fill Materials) 

A Section 404 permit or modification to the current permit (88-201-KK) may be required to 

perform maintenance dredging at Harbor V-33 if project materials are brought to VAFB by 

water transport. It is not known at this time if this maintenance dredging would be required, 

since project materials may be delivered to VAFB by land. Permit 88-201-KK allows 

maintenance dredging to a depth of 12.4 feet below mean sea level to accommodate barge 

usage until 1991. Disposal of dredged material would be at the abandoned borrow site located 

along the coastal bluffs at Point Pedernales (as per Permit 88-201-KK) or at another, 

approved site. 

As noted in Section 2.1.4.1 and depicted on Figure 2.1.11, unused cut (or fill) material would • be removed from the project area and transferred to a spoil site located about three miles north 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JuNE2go15 • of Cypress Ridge, near Point Arguello. The site is neither on nor in any waters or wetlands. 

Further, as discussed in Section 2.3.3, impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat would be 

avoided. In Section 3.4.2.1, Wildlife of Riparian Woodland/Wetland Habitats, it is noted that 

there are no threatened or endangered species expected to occur in these habitats in the study 

area. 

• 

Comment No. 21: Number of Acres Subject to Section 404 Jurisdiction That Would Be Filled 

This information would be provided should a Section 404 permit become necessary. 

Comment No. 22: Historic Cumulative Loss or Degradation of Waters on 

Vandenberg Air Force Base 

See response to Comment 21. 

Comment No. 23: Types and Quantities of Fill Material 

See response to Comment 21. 

Comment No. 24: Number of Acres Subject to Section 404 Jurisdiction that Would Be 

Permanently Lost or Degraded 

See response to Comment 21. 

Comment No. 25: Value and Location of Habitat That Would Be Permanently Lost or Degraded 

See response to Comment 21. 

Comment No. 26: Specific Mitigation Proposal for Loss or Degradation of Wetlands 

See response to Comment No. 21. Mitigation measures are not necessary since loss or 

degradation of wetlands is not expected to occur. 

Comment No. 27: Wetlands Mitigation Goals, Objectives. and Criteria 

See response to Comment Nos. 21 and 26. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-21 

• Comment No. 28: U.S. Air Force Commitments to Ensure Restoration or Creation of 

Wetlands to Offset Impacts 

See response to Comment No. 26. Since impacts to wetlands are not anticipated, there are no 

requirements for restoration or creation of wetlands. 

Comment No. 29: Include Section 7 Consultation and Recommendations as Mitigation 

for Vegetation 

Section 7 consultation information regarding vegetation is included in Draft EIS Section 1.5.1, 

Endangered Species, and Appendix D.2, Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, of this document. Specific mitigation measures will be 

developed in cooperation with USFWS and formally adopted in the ROD. 

Comment No. 30: Applicability of RCRA Corrective Action Requirements at Proposed 

and Alternative Sites 

If underground storage tanks (USTs) are discovered at the site selected for development, 

corrective actions required by Santa Barbara County Ordinance No. 3421 (An Urgency 

Ordinance to Add Article III to Chapter 18 of the Santa Barbara Code Requiring Permits for the 

Underground Storage of Hazardous Materials and Providing for the Application of Fees), as 

administered by Santa Barbara County Health Care Services, would apply. Corrective 

measures would be taken or a variance would be obtained from Santa Barbara County. These 

requirements are at least as stringent, as those levied by the RCRA. 

Comment No. 31: Discussion of RCRA-Regulated Underground Storage Tanks 

at Proposed and Alternative Sites 

There have been no indications of USTs noted at the undeveloped project sites considered. 

However, SLC-6 has the following USTs that are subject to RCRA regulations: 

• 

Location Size(1) Ouantity Product 

Payload Preparation Room 27,054 1 No. 2 Fuel Oil 

Ice Suppression System 20,000 JP-4 Aviation Fuel 

Security Entry Control Building 550 1 No. 2 Fuel Oil 

North Security Entry Control Building 550 1 No. 2 Fuel Oil 

Fuel Unloading Area 3,000 1 Propane 

(1 ) Gallons 
NROP2rROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

The payload preparation room tanks are currently full of No. 2 Fuel Oil and are regularly used 

to fire boilers in that building. This tank is regularly monitored for leaks. The ice suppression 

system tanks are full of JP-4 aviation fuel and are monitored on a quarterly basis since the 

facility is in mothball status. The tanks at the security entry control buildings are kept full of 

No. 2 Fuel Oil and are used regularly to fire a small diesel generator (north security entry 

control building) and boilers (main security entry control building). The tank at the fuel 

unloading area is kept full of propane and monitored on a quarterly basis. 

Should SLC-6 be selected for development of the proposed action, these tanks would either be 

brought to compliance standards, as noted in response to Comment No. 32, or a variance 

would be obtained. 

Based on current usage, monitoring, and compliance requirements, the potential for 

contamination of ground water is low. 

Comment No. 32: Discussion of RCRA Requirements for Existing and Proposed 

Underground Storage Tanks 

There are no USTs included in the proposed action at this time. However, should there be a 

need for USTs, the minimum RCRA requirements for all new USTs (including underground 

pipes connected thereto) would be met. These requirements are: 

• The owner or operator must certify that the UST is installed properly. 

• The UST must be protected from corrosion. A steel UST must be 

cathodically protected and sealed with a corrosion-resistant coating. Other 

USTs must be made of noncorrodible material or of a composite of steel 

and noncorrodible material. 

• The UST must be equipped with devices that prevent spills and overfills. 

Correct tank filling procedures must be followed. 

• The UST must have a leak detection method that provides monitoring for 

leaks at least every 30 days. 

Additionally, all new chemical USTs must have secondary containment equipped with an 

interstitial leak detection system in the confined area between the primary and secondary walls. 

All pressurized piping not provided with interstitial or continuous monitoring must have an 

emergency cutoff pressure monitor. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-23 

At the end of 10 years, all USTs currently in the ground now will be required to meet the same 

requirements that presently apply to new USTs. During this 10-year time period, specific leak 

detection methods, designated by EPA, must be implemented within given time limits, 

dependent upon tank type and chemical content. An alternative method allows a combination 

of daily inventory control and periodic tank tightness testing. 

Response to a leak or spill from a UST would be in two stages: immediate and long-term. 

The regulatory authority must be notified within 24 hours of a leak or spill, unless it is smaller 

than the reportable quantity identified under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and is immediately contained and cleaned up. 

Owners and operators of USTs are financially responsible for leaks, including the costs of 

cleanup, bodily injury, and property damage. 

The applicability of local regulations is discussed in response to Comment No. 30. 

• Comment No. 33: Methods That Will Be Used for Waste Minimization 

Consistent with AFR 19-1, USAF will avoid or minimize the creation of wastes throughout the 

complete cycle of operations of the proposed action. Wastes that are created will be disposed 

of by reprocessing, recycling, and reusing when possible. 

• 

Waste from the proposed action would be consolidated through utilization of the existing. 

VAFB hazardous waste accumulation system. As documented in the Titan IV/Centaur Waste 

Assessment (Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1990a), the following specific mitigation 

measures would be implemented: 

• Launch wastewater would be recycled after being treated. 

• Low metallic content paint would be used on surfaces that come into 

contact with launch wastewater. 

• Hypergolic fuels and oxidizer residue would be separated from launch 

wastewater so that wastes are not mixed. 

• Hypergolic fuels would be handled as follows: 

- Operational television coverage will be used to monitor propellant 

transfer activities. 

- Redundancy will be used wherever possible in order to provide a 

high level of system safety. 

Proper training and frequent briefings will be provided to employees 

before they handle hypergolic fuels and oxidizers. 

Engineering design will be used wherever possible to reduce the 

likelihood of a spill. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

Facility engineering that would support the development of additional, process-specific 

mitigation measures has not yet occurred . However, in accordance with the DOD established 

goal of 50 percent reduction of hazardous waste by 1992, USAF will: 

• Purchase fewer toxic and more nontoxic production materials; 

• Inventory and trace all raw materials; 

• Install equipment that produces minimal or no waste; 

• Modify equipment to enhance recovery or recycling operations; 

• Substitute nonhazardous for hazardous raw materials; 

• Segregate wastes by type for recovery; 

• Eliminate sources of leaks and spills; 

• Separate hazardous from nonhazardous waste; and 

• Recycle onsite and offsite. 

Comment No. 34: Commitment to Ensure Compliance With CERCLA/SARA (Superfund 

Amendment and Reauthorization Act) if Hazardous Substances 

Are Found at the Proposed or Alternative Sites 

As per the requirements of CERCLA/SARA, should hazardous substances be located at any of 

the four alternative sites the USAF will: 

Promptly notify EPA and comply with all applicable requirements of CERCLA/SARA 

and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 

• Not begin construction until the requirements of CERCLA/SARA and NCP have been 

fully satisfied. 

• Coordinate with appropriate state and local agencies to determine their concerns on the 

identification, assessment, or cleanup of hazardous substances or hazardous waste. 

These compliance procedures also are noted in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-9). 

Comment No. 35: EPA's State Implementation Plan (SIP) Call for Santa Barbara County 

A discussion of the EPA's May 1988 SIP Call for Santa Barbara County is contained in 

Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-4). 

Comment No. 36: Discussion of Air Quality Impacts 

See response to Comment No. 86. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-25 • Comment No. 37: Coordination of Air Quality Modeling with Santa Barbara County 

Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) 

Compliance with SBCAPCD specifications is addressed in Draft EIS Section 4.5.2.1, 

Cypress Ridge. Also, see response to Comment No. 86. 

Comment No. 38: Coordination of Launch Schedule with Santa Barbara County 

Air Pollution Control District 

As noted in Draft EIS Section 4.5.2.1, Cypress Ridge, USAF utilizes the THC forecast to 

ensure that launch emissions do not pose unacceptable risks to human health and safety. 

Potential launch opportunities are limited in number due to the necessity to meet satellite 

positioning requirements. Other launch constraints, such as those suggested, would impact the 

potential to meet mission requirements and, in turn, adversely impact national security. 

Comment No. 39: Use of Chlorinated Fluorocarbons 

• As described in Draft EIS Section 3.5.3.2, Regulatory Environment, and directed by 

Engineering Technical Letter 88-8, USAF will utilize environmentally preferable 

chlorofluorocarbons wherever possible. This is consistent with EPA's "protection of 

stratospheric ozone" rule (40 CFR Part 82). 

• 
NRC2416PROVED FOR RELEASE LETTER 3 

1 J 5 

United States Department of the Interior 

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT REVIEW 

BOX 36098, 450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 

ER 89/646 SEP 1 5 1989 

• 

Mr. John Edwards 

HO Space Systems Division 

Post Office Box 92960 

Worldways Postal Center 

Los Angeles, California 90009-2960 

Dear Mr. Edwards: 

This is in response to the request for the Department of the Interior's comments on 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Space Launch Complex 7, 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County, California. We have the 

following comments to offer: 

The DEIS is in fact one of the best we have reviewed in its treatment of cultural 

properties and the federal procedures for dealing with them. 

We are concerned about the extent of impacts to cultural resources on Vandenberg 

in the selection of a construction site for the Titan IV/Centaur space launch vehicle 

and urge consideration of an alternative that will preserve in situ as many sites as 

possible. Many years ago we recommended that a National Register District be 

created that would include all of Vandenberg Air Force Base and still feel this would 

be a more practical solution to dealing with the cultural resources there than your 

proposal (page 4-120) to create a district for South Vandenberg. We also concur 

that a top cultural resources priority at the Base is the preparation of a Historic 

Preservation Plan. 

The following comments have been prepared under the authority of the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. et seq.), and other 

authorities mandating Department of the Interior concerns for environmental values. 

Since the Air Force is currently preparing a Biological Assessment in anticipation of 

formal Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act, we have focused 

our review on non-endangered fish and wildlife resources. 

The proposed action is the construction and operation of a Titan IV/Centaur space 

launch complex on Cypress Ridge, south Vandenberg Air Force Base. In addition 

to the proposed site on Cypress Ridge, three alternative sites have also been 

considered (SLC-6, Vina Terrace, and Eoathouse Flats). The project is designed for 

a minimum of 25 years, with construction planned to begin in 1990, followed by 

operations in 1994. 

• 

[401 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-27 • 2 

• 

• 

Based on the extensive evaluation in the DEIS, the Fish and Wildlife Service concurs 

that there would be fewer impacts to fish and wildlife resources associated with the 

reconfiguration of SLC-6 than with the development of either the proposed Cypress 

Ridge site or the Boathouse Flats or Vina Terrace alternatives. Since no additional 

ground disturbance would be required with the use of the SLC-6 facility, impacts to 

vegetation and wildlife habitat from construction on the Base are not expected. On 

the other hand, selection of either of the other alternatives would result in the loss of 

185 to 280 acres. Development of the proposed Cypress Ridge site would also 

result in the loss of about 800 to 1,000 mature individuals of the federal candidate 

species curly-leaved monardella (Monardella undulata var. frutescens), plus many 

more seedlings. Development at the Boathouse Flats location would result in the 

loss of approximately six acres of wetlands and 40 to 50 mature individuals of curlyleaved monardella plus seedlings. 

Selection of any of the alternatives other than reconfiguration of SLC-6, including the 

proposed Cypress Ridge site, should include mitigation for losses of riparian 

wetlands and coastal scrub habitats. Mitigation plans should include creation of new 

wetland habitat for habitat lost, restoration and revegetation of disturbed coastal 

scrub habitats for habitat lost, and long-term monitoring of revegetation efforts. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service will be happy to coordinate with your staff in developing 

these plans. 

The DEIS has not considered the frequency of launches from the proposed facility in 

the analysis of impacts to vegetation and fish and wildlife resources. Estimates of 

the types and number of launches per year, and the cumulative effect of associated 

noise and disturbance and acidic deposition on fish and wildlife should also be 

included. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has commented previously on the need for a 

comprehensive cumulative impact analysis from space launch programs on 

Vandenberg Air Force Base. There are several different programs on Vandenberg 

which involve launches of various space launch vehicles. The cumulative impacts of 

these various programs to fish and wildlife resources both on Vandenberg and within 

their zone of influence (i.e., Channel Islands) need to be addressed. Baseline 

impacts from existing space launch programs must be established before any 

additional impacts due to this project can be adequately addressed as required by 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

Specific Comments on the DEIS for Space Launch Complex 7 

Page 2-25 - More information is needed on the locations of the proposed borrow 

and spoil pits indicated in Figure 2.1.11. Borrow areas adjacent to the Santa Ynez 

River may contain riparian/wetland resources which could be impacted by borrow 

activity. This needs clarification. 

i4511 Page 3-45 - How were wetlands delineated for this analysis? Methods for 

delineation should be described. 

[41] 

[42] 

[43] 

[44] 
NROARPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 3 

[46]I

Page 3-49 - The Fish and Wildlife Service did not receive a biological assessment 

concurrent with release of the DEIS. 

[47] 

Page 3-51 - Information on use of rocky and sandy shorelines by marine birds 

should be updated. 

riQii Page 3-130 - Details of any spill prevention and cleanup plans for responding to 

L'u'i accidents along the propellant transport route should be presented. 

[49]1Page 3-136 - What assumptions were made in generating ground level HCL 

I concentrations? 

[5111 

[50]1

Page 4-24 - The Fish and Wildlife Service encourages the proposed design to avoid 

impacts to small wetlands along utility corridors. 

Page 4-24 - Population estimates for Monardella undulata var. frutescens need to 

updated. 

[52]1 Page 4-25 - Potential invasion of disturbed areas by exotic plants should be 

II vigorously monitored and weeded as appropriate. • 

[53] 

Page 4-27 - More information is needed on what kinds of impacts to vegetation (i.e., 

damage or loss) from the acidic deposition of HCL and also AL203. If this 

information is not available, the Fish and Wildlife Service suggests that a monitoring 

plan be implemented to document these affects. This plan should be coordinated 

with monitoring plans being devised for other space launch programs. 

[541! Page 4-27 - Will seedlings be affected by this deposition? 

ei I Page 4-29 - How does fog and/or rainfall interact with acid which has been 

E5°J deposited on soils and vegetation? How long may any affects persist? 

[56]I Page 4-30 - Define temporary disturbance. 

, Page 4-33 - The mitigation measures identified will require much elaboration. The 

[57i Fish and Wildlife Service will be happy to assist the Air Force in developing specific 

mitigation plans. 

• 

[58] 

Pages 4-35 through 4-47 - This discussion needs more elaboration and justification 

for the conclusions stated within. Among other things, estimates of the frequency of 

impacts (i.e., noise and disturbances from launches, and repeated acidic deposition) 

need to be incorporated into the analysis. Also, the individual sensitivity of various 

species affected should be analyzed. Since the opening remarks in this section 

state that impacts from launch noise and focused sonic booms and their short- and 

long- term impacts on marine birds and mammals are studied in detail in the 

Biological Assessment for this project, we will defer any detailed comments to our 

review of the Assessment. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-29 • 

[59i1Page 4-43 - What is meant by a "short" time? 

[60]1 Page 4-45 - The tidewater goby is not proposed for listing. 

[61]I

Page 4-54 - Cumulative impacts include other space launch programs operating at 

Vandenberg. This discussion needs quite a bit more elaboration. 

Page 4-55 - The monitoring plans discussed need to be elaborated quite a bit. 

[62] 

Specific plans for each resource impacted should be developed. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service will be happy to coordinate with the Air Force in developing such 

plans. 

[63] Page 4-173 - Unavoidable adverse effects to vegetation and wildlife should be 

described in more detail. 

If you have any questions regarding cultural resources, please contact Holly Dunbar, 

National Park Service, at (415) 556-5190. For questions regarding fish and wildlife 

resources, please contact Ms. Donna Brewer, Fish and Wildlife Service, at (714) 643-

4270. 

Thank you for affording us an opportunity to comment on this document. 

Sincerely, 

-._-Patricia Sanderson Port 

' Regional Environmental Officer 

cc: 

Director, OEPR 

Regional Director, NPS 

Regional Director, FWS 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 Jurgavi5 

RESPONSE TO LE11ER 3 

Received From: United States Department of the Interior 

Patricia Sanderson Port, Regional Environmental Officer 

Comment No. 40: Avoidance of Cultural Resources 

As noted in the Summary of this document, the conversion of SLC-6 is one of USAF's 

preferred alternatives. This alternative would minimize disturbance of cultural resources 

(Section 4.9.2.2, SLC-6). The appropriateness of a National Register District or its area will 

be determined as a result of Section 106 consultations with the California State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP). 

Comment No. 41: Mitigation Measures for Loss of Habitat 

• The mitigation measures suggested for revegetation of the proposed and alternative sites 

are contained in Draft EIS Section 4.3.4, Mitigation Measures. Since wetlands are not 

expected to be impacted, mitigation measures are not anticipated for that resource. One of the 

primary planning tools for establishing mitigation measures for vegetation would be an erosion 

control and restoration plan. Participation of USFWS in the development of this plan is 

desirable and would be coordinated as appropriate. 

Comment No. 42: Effects of Multiple Launches on Fish and Wildlife Resources 

The analysis of impacts to fish and wildlife resources contained in the Draft EIS is structured 

around a targeted launch rate of three Titan IV/ Centaur vehicles per year (Section 2.1.5, 

Launch Preparation and Operation, and Section 2.1.6, Overall Project Schedule and 

Personnel, establish the baseline launch rate of three per year for the life of the project). The 

analyses of potential impacts from the proposed action address the effects of multiple launches 

in the following manner: 

• Vegetation. The operations subsections contained in Section 4.3, Vegetation, address the 

potential effects of multiple launches by drawing on information generated by analyses 

undertaken at John F. Kennedy Space Center (Schmalzer et al. 1986). Schmalzer et al. 

observed changes in species composition 30 months after the first Space Shuttle launch from 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-31 • 

• 

Kennedy Space Center. During this time period, there were nine Space Shuttle launches from 

Pad 39A. It is from this analysis that the Draft EIS concludes that impacts to vegetation could 

result in damage to sensitive species and changes in vegetation cover type. 

Wildlife - Acidic Deposition. The analyses contained in Section 4.4.2, Local Terrestrial and 

Aquatic Environment, also base impact conclusions on a launch rate of three vehicles per year. 

As noted on page 4-43, impacts to terrestrial fauna are expected to be short term and 

insignificant, based on previous analyses of rocket operations from SLC-4 (Engineering 

Science 1987; Engineering Science and Sea World Research Institute 1988). The conclusions 

reached regarding Titan operations from SLC-4 were based on a total launch rate of seven 

vehicles per year (four Titan IV and three Titan II vehicles). It was concluded that, as a result 

of launches from SLC-4, there would be only short-term and localized impacts to terrestrial and 

aquatic fauna. It was also concluded that there would be no air emission-related impacts to 

marine mammals located on the Channel Islands. In addition, an analysis of launch-related 

acidic deposition from TCLC launches into Honda Creek was performed. This analysis 

showed that Honda Creek has buffering capacity in excess of the amount needed to neutralize 

HCI deposition resulting from launches and protect the unarmored three-spine stickleback. 

Since the pH and, therefore, the buffering capacity of Honda Creek would not be changed as a 

result of a launch occurrence, multiple launches would not create additional adverse impacts. 

• 

Marine Birds - Noise. Section 4.4.1, Regional Environment, contains a discussion of potential 

impacts to marine birds and mammals from noise associated with multiple launches. As cited 

in Section 4.4.1, Bowles and Stewart (1980) and Schreiber and Schreiber (1980) have studied 

the potential noise-related effects to marine birds from multiple launches of the Space Shuttle, 

which were expected to reach as high as 20 per year, with operations lasting for nine years. It 

is expected that launch noise associated with the Titan IV would be equal to or less than that 

associated with the Space Shuttle. Bowles and Stewart monitored marine bird populations on 

San Miguel and Prince Islands from 1979 to 1980 and concluded that the level of disturbance at 

that time did not have a measurable effect on marine bird populations on San Miguel Island and 

that there is no evidence that the increased rate of startle (from proposed Space Shuttle 

operations) would have any perceptible effect on the avifauna of San Miguel or Prince Islands. 

Schreiber and Schreiber note that the only risk from single or multiple launches is a minimal 

risk of nest collapse for Cassion's anklet. They concluded that they do not expect more than 

 annual fluctuations in critical factors such as changes in population levels, shifts in 

seasonal timing, and nesting success due to anticipated Space Shuttle operations. Therefore, 
NRO 2PROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• 

based on the Titan IV/Centaur being launched fewer times per year (three) and producing less 

noise per launch than the Space Shuttle, the Draft EIS concluded that noise from the proposed 

action would have an insignificant effect on marine birds. 

Marine Mammals - Noise. Potential noise impacts to marine mammals from multiple launches 

are addressed in Section 4.4.1 of the Draft EIS, Regional Environment. As cited in Section 

4.4.1, the analysis that Chappell (1980) undertook for the Space Shuttle program at VAFB 

showed that hearing loss in marine mammals would be expected to be short-term (as much as 

several days) following each shuttle launch, but with no cumulative effects to auditory 

systems. Bowles and Stewart (1980) analyzed the potential for startle responses in pinnipeds 

based on their observations from 1979 to 1980 and found that there was no evidence of 

permanent haul-out or rookery abandonment from isolated stimuli, including sonic booms from 

rocket launches. In addition, because the stimulus from a sonic boom is short and not 

localized, few relocations would be expected from the high level of Space Shuttle activity. In 

addition, the analysis presented in Section 4.4.1 discussed the frequency of planned launches 

with regard to the potential for impacts during pupping season and found that the risks of 

mother-pup separation are small based on a rate of three launches per year from the proposed 

action. 

Comment No. 43: Comprehensive Cumulative Impact Analysis 

Consistent with NEPA, the Draft EIS includes analyses of cumulative impacts. Other activities 

at VAFB are discussed to establish existing conditions and to determine cumulative impacts, as 

appropriate. As described in response to Comment No. 42, the analysis is based on a launch 

rate of three vehicles per year. This may be compared to the higher launch rate of 20 per year 

for the Space Shuttle from VAFB which resulted in an acceptable level of impacts. 

In the Draft EIS, other activities at VAFB are considered in the description of the existing 

environment and in the determination of impacts where they are related to the proposed action. 

An example of this approach is for vegetation, where Section 3.3.1, Regional Environment, 

broadly discusses influences on vegetation and provides baseline acreage for each vegetation 

type that takes into consideration the lands required for other launch and support facilities. 

When cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 4.3.3, Cumulative Impacts, the impacts 

to vegetation from the existing South VAFB launch complexes (SLC-3, -4, -5, and -6) are 

considered in light of the additional increment of impact posed by the proposed action. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-33 

• The best available source of information regarding impacts to wildlife resources on the Channel 

Islands is the work associated with the launch of the Space Shuttle from VAFB (see response 

to Comment No. 42). These analyses include such diverse influences on existing animal 

behavior as airplane and helicopter overflights, missile operations, human intrusion, boat 

noise, and others. This body of knowledge provides much of the background for the 

conclusions drawn about cumulative impacts to wildlife in the Draft EIS (Section 4.4.4, 

Cumulative Impacts) and, with the analysis of the proposed action, is sufficient to address 

potential impacts. Additional information regarding cumulative impacts from VAFB operations 

may result from the launch monitoring program described in the Draft EIS. If future adverse 

impacts were found to be greater than expected, an analysis would be performed to determine 

the need to supplement this EIS, develop mitigation measures, determine their potential 

effectiveness, and decide if they would be implemented. 

Comment No. 44: Borrow and Spoil Pits 

The potential borrow pits adjacent to the Santa Ynez River are no longer being considered as 

areas that would be utilized as a source of construction material for the proposed action. A 

revised Figure 2.1.11 is provided in Section 3.3 of the Final EIS. 

Comment No. 45: Delineation of Wetlands 

The small wetlands west of Building 330 were delineated based on the boundary between 

the area supporting Carex praegracilis, Juncus balticus, Juncus effusus, and other hydrophytic 

plants, and the area dominated by upland plants. Wetlands in the project area were delineated 

using vegetation as an indicator. Delineation according to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands 

Delineation Manual or its successor the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating 

Jurisdictional Wetlands was deemed unnecessary since all areas possibly subject to Corps of 

Engineers jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would be avoided during 

construction of the overhead power line. Power poles would be placed away from riparian 

corridors and the small wetlands west of Building 330. 
NRWRPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• 

Comment No. 46: Biological Assessment 

The Biological Assessment was not released to the USFWS and NMFS as indicated in the 

Draft EIS. The Biological Assessment was provided to these agencies on March 16, 1990. 

The Section 7 consultation process is for the SLC-6 alternative documented in Appendix D, 

Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation. The change to the text is noted in Chapter 

3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-2). 

Comment No. 47: Marine Bird Information 

In July 1989, the USFWS performed a sea bird survey, updating the information contained in 

the Draft EIS in marine bird use of rocky and sandy shorelines in the South VAFB area. The 

results of this survey have not been made available by USFWS to the public or other agencies 

at this time. When available, this information will be evaluated to determine whether the 

proposed action would have any potentially significant adverse impacts. If so, USAF will 

consider if the EIS would be supplemented. 

Comment No. 48: Transport Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan 

Transportation of hypergolic propellants between the manufacturers and VAFB is currently 

regulated under Department of Transportation (DOT) exemption E-3121 (for nitrogen ten-oxide 

[N204]) and under DOT special approval number SA-860506 (for hydrazines). The N204 

exemption requires the preparation of an emergency response plan (Emergency Response Plan 

for Nitrogen Tetroxide: Highway Transportation Routes, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, 

1 July, 1988) since it is a Class A poison (poisonous gases or liquids of such a nature that a 

very small amount of the gas, or vapor of the liquid, mixed with air is dangerous to life). The 

response plan for N204 specifies measures for protection of human health and safety and 

environmental resources and is coordinated with other federal, state, and local agencies. The 

DOT special approval for hydrazines contains no such requirement. 

• 

Response to spills of hydrazines that occur during transport would be in a manner consistent 

with procedures established by the NCP (40 CFR Part 300), as well as applicable state and 

local laws and regulations. The purpose of the NCP is to effectuate the response process and 

responsibilities created by CERCLA (Public Law 96-510) and the authorities established by 

Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. Response actions undertaken would be by DOD and other 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-35 

• federal, state, and local agencies, consistent with the appropriate federal regional contingency 

plan for reporting (including a report to the National Response Center [NRC]), response, and 

cleanup. 

Response to spills of hypergolic propellants occurring on VAFB would be consistent with the 

base Spill Prevention and Response (SPR) Plan (1st Strategic Aerospace Division OPlan 

234-89, Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures [SPCC]/Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Contingency Plan [OHSCP], Spill Prevention Response [SPR] Plan (USAF 1989b)). This 

plan fulfills the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 27, 110, 112.7, 264, 265, and Air Force 

Regulation AFR 19-5. 

The SPR Plan contains five sections: 

• SPCC Plan; 

• VAFB Spill Log; 

• OHSCP Plan; 

• Special Actions Required by the EPA Regional Administrator, and 

• Plan Approval. • The purpose of the SPCC Plan is to address the storage and management of oils, fuels, and 

hazardous substances/materials. The plan describes procedures, structures, and equipment 

utilized to prevent oil and hazardous substances/materials spills with the potential of 

discharging_ to navigable waters of the United States as defined in 40 CFR Part 112, and to 

mitigate impacts to the environment from such spills. 

Specific controls and countermeasures addressed in the SPCC Plan include: 

Materials compatibility; 

• Integrity testing; 

• Secondary containment; 

• Drainage control; 

• Corrosion protection; 

• Overfill protection; 

• Traffic collision protection; 

• Security, and 

• Marking and labeling. 

The objective of the OHSCP is to provide coordinated, effective, and efficient procedures to 

minimize damages from accidental discharges of oil or hazardous materials. The OHSCP 

includes emergency response procedures, an emergency notification list, responsibilities and 

actions of response personnel, a listing of emergency response equipment, and mechanisms for 

OHSCP-related training. 
NRO2PAPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• Comment No. 49: HC1 Concentration Assumptions 

Draft EIS Figure 3.11.2, Titan IV/Centaur Normal Launch HCl Isopleths (p. 3-136), is shown 

for illustrative purposes only; it applies to assumed conditions at a future, unspecified launch. 

The HCl isopleths shown are the output of the Rocket Exhaust Effluent Dispersion Model 

(REEDM) computer air dispersion model which is run in a real-time mode prior to launches 

from VAFB. REEDM utilizes launch-specific meteorological data as inputs for model runs 

rather than assumptions about ambient conditions. REEDM combines known information 

about HC1 output from normal launches and launch anomalies with real meteorological 

conditions to predict ground-level HCl concentrations. Figure 3.11.2 as modified to reflect its 

hypothetical nature is provided in Section 3.3 of the Final EIS. 

Comment No. 50: Avoidance of Wetlands 

Wetlands along utility corridors will be avoided by placing power poles so that they do not , 

impinge upon or cause indirect impacts to the wetlands areas in the utility corridors (see 

response to Comment No. 45). An engineering survey has been made of this area, and it has 

been determined that small adjustments in pole spacing would be feasible and sufficient to 

avoid impacts to wetlands. 

Comment No. 51: Monardella undulata var. frutescens Populations 

The only additional information on population estimates of Monardella undulata var. frutescens 

since the development of the Draft EIS is an estimate of the total number of individuals of this 

taxon destroyed by construction of the Peacekeeper in Rail Garrison project (November 1987) 

on the San Antonio Terrace of North VAFB. The Environmental Assessment for the Rail 

Garrison project estimated that 14,339 plants would be destroyed. This approximation was 

based on estimates presented in the Biological Assessment for the proposed MX Flight Test 

Program (HDR 1980). There were no actual counts made of the number of plants lost during 

the Rail Garrison project construction, nor is there any information at this time regarding the 

success of revegetation efforts involving this plant (Tetra Tech 1989). The Nature 

Conservancy, which is studying populations of Monardella and several other plants on VAFB, 

does not have population information on this plant (The Nature Conservancy 1989). • 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-37 • 

• 

Comment No. 52: Exotic Plant Invasion 

As noted in the Draft EIS, page 4-33, the Erosion Control and Restoration Plan (ECRP) would 

specify measures to control the invasion of exotic plants from construction disturbance. 

Development of the ECRP would be coordinated with the USFWS. 

Comment No. 53: Impacts to Vegetation from HCl and AI-203 

Information regarding the impacts to vegetation from acidic deposition and aluminum oxide 

(A1203) from Titan IV launches is sparse since only one launch has occurred. Some 

preliminary additional information about potential impacts to vegetation from Titan IV launchrelated acidic deposition was collected at the first Titan IV launch from CCAFS (USAF 1989a). 

The launch report notes that a field investigation of the area under and around the predicted 

exhaust cloud path (predictions taken from the REEDM model) did not note any acidic 

deposition in either the near- or far-field regions. In addition, none of the acid spotting or 

aroma characteristics of Space Shuttle launches were noted by pad area workers. It appears 

that the Titan IV deluge system does not use water in quantities large enough to generate 

a ground cloud of the size generated by a Space Shuttle launch. Due to similarities in the 

amounts of water used at CCAFS and VAI-B for Titan IV launches, the analysis undertaken 

in the Draft EIS may overstate potential impacts since it assumes them to be on the magnitude 

of Space Shuttle launches. 

Additional information about launch impacts to vegetation from acidic deposition and A1203 

would be gathered in accordance with the launch monitoring plan discussed in Draft EIS 

Section 4.3.4, Mitigation Measures (page 4-33). Development of this plan would be 

coordinated with the USFWS. 

Comment No. 54: Impacts to Vegetation Seedlings from HCl and Al',03 

Both mature individuals and the seedlings which surround Monardella undulata var. frutescens 

would be affected by deposition, should it occur. For additional information on acidic 

deposition, see response to Comment No. 53. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNIE32015 • Comment No. 55: Fn and/or Rainfall with Interaction Acid 

Changes in impacts to vegetation due to meteorological conditions would depend on the types 

of condition and their timing relative to acidic deposition. 

Schmaltzer et al. (1986) indicates that high relative humidity or misting of plants prior to 

exposure to HCl resulted in increased plant damage compared to dry exposure. If rain or high 

humidity were to occur following exposure to HCI gas, presumably some dilution effect would 

be noted and impacts might abate. However, most of the impacts discussed in Draft EIS 

Section 4.3, Vegetation, would be from wet acidic deposition near the launch pad and would 

not depend upon the presence of moisture for activation and subsequent plant damage. If rain 

were to occur following such deposition, some dilution may occur. 

Additional information regarding these types of impacts may be generated through the launch 

monitoring program (see response to Comment No. 53). 

• Comment No. 56: Temporary Disturbance 

The text of Draft EIS page 4-30 should read "Temporary disturbance to habitat for 50 to 100 

mature individuals." Temporary disturbance refers to the project construction period. The 

plants themselves could be avoided altogether with careful planning of power line pole 

locations and with monitoring. The appropriate change to the Draft EIS, page 4-30 of the text 

is noted in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-15). 

Comment No. 57: Mitigation Measures 

See response to Comment No. 53. 

Comment No. 58: Impacts to Wildlife 

See response to Comment No. 42 for information on multiple launch effects. The information 

presented in Draft EIS Sections 4.4.1, Regional Environment, and 4.4.2, Local Terrestrial and 

Aquatic Environment, is summarized from the Biological Assessment. • 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-39 

• Comment No. 59: Definition of Short Time 

It is expected that terrestrial biota exposed to the air pollutants present in the Titan IV/Centaur 

exhaust plume would be subject to irritation of exposed areas that would last a matter of hours. 

Additional information about these types of effects may be generated as a result of the proposed 

operations monitoring. See response to Comment No. 41. 

Comment No. 60: Status of Tidewater Gobv 

The change which deletes reference to the tidewater goby as a candidate for federal listing is in 

Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-16). 

Comment No. 61: Cumulative Impacts 

See response to Comment No. 42. 

Comment No. 62: Monitoring Plan 

See response to Comment No. 53. Development of this plan would be coordinated with the 

USFWS. 

Comment No. 63: Unavoidable Adverse Effects to Vegetation and Wildlife 

Unavoidable adverse effects to vegetation and wildlife that were not identified as significant are 

discussed briefly in Draft EIS Section 4.17.2, Other Unavoidable Adverse Effects. Additional 

discussion of impacts to vegetation are contained in Section 4.17.1, Significant Unavoidable 

Adverse Effects, which summarizes the impacts to Monardella undulata var. frutescens, a 

Category 2 species. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JOTig 2015 LETTER 4 • MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION 

1625 EYE STREET, N W 

WASHINGTON, DC 20006 

11 September 1989 

• 

Mr. John Edwards 

HQ Space Systems Division 

P.O. Box 92960 

Worldways Postal Center 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 

Dear Mr. Edwards: 

The Marine Mammal Commission, in consultation with its 

Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals, has reviewed 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the 

Construction and Operation of Space Launch Complex 7 at Vandenberg 

Air Force Base, California. We offer the following comments and 

recommendations concerning the assessment of the possible effects 

of the proposed action on marine mammals. 

General Comments 

The DEIS indicates (pp. 3-51 through 3-54) that six species 

of pinnipeds, 25 to 30 or more species of cetaceans, and the 

southern sea otter occur in or near areas that could be affected 

by construction and operation of Space Launch Complex 7. It notes 

(pp. 4-52 and 4-53) that marine mammals could be disturbed or 

otherwise affected by construction activities, by vessels carrying 

construction supplies (if supplies are transported over ocean 

rather than land routes), by fuel and chemical spills, by noise 

from rocket launches and subsequent sonic booms, by exhaust gases 

emitted by the rockets, and by falling bits of metal and fuel in 

the event that a rocket has to be destroyed during or soon after 

launch. It concludes on p. 4-41 that some marine mammals could be 

affected, particularly by loud sonic booms, and that a "small 

incidental take permit" may be required. It does not indicate the 

number of the various species of marine mammals that might be 

affected, what proportion of local and/or regional marine mammal 

populations might be affected, whether any of the potentially 

affected species or populations are being affected by other human 

[64] 

activities (e.g., being caught and killed during commercial 

fishing operations, or being disturbed by offshore oil and gas 

exploration and development), and what if any steps will be taken 

to verify the predicted effects, detect possible unforeseen 

effects, and avoid or minimize the possible adverse effects of 

both construction and operation of the facility on marine 

mammals. • 
Disturbance and injury of harbor seals, sea lions, sea 

otters, or other marine mammals would constitute taking which is 

prohibited by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Section 101(a)(5) 

of the Act provides that the Secretaries of the Interior and 

Commerce may authorize the taking of small numbers of marine 

mammals as described in the DEIS if, after notice and opportunity 

for public comment, the Secretary finds that the take would have a 

negligible impact on the affected species or population stock(s) 

and prescribes regulations setting forth, among other things, 

requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such 

taking. Thus, without reliable information on the number as well 

as the species of marine mammals that might be affected, and how 

those species or population stocks are being affected by other 

human activities, it will not be possible to make the findings 

necessary to obtain a "small take" exemption. 

Specific Comments 

P. 1-10 (Marine Mammal Protection Act): This section should 

be expanded to note that the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

established a moratorium on the taking of marine mammals and that, 

if it is deteLmined that the proposed action could result in the 

taking of marine mammals, the Air Force will be required to seek a 

waiver of the moratorium on taking, or a "small take" exemption as 

provided for by Section 101(a)(5) of the Act. 

P. 2-60, par. 1: This paragraph states that "[t]he primary 

effects on marine mammals are anticipated to be minor, short-term 

hearing loss and/or startle responses that could result in the 

mammals running to water..." and "[a]mong the four pinniped 

species that breed on San Miguel Island (California sea lion, 

harbor seal, northern fur seal, and Guadalupe fur seal), the 

nature of the startle response would probably differ among each of 

the species." The rationale for the statement that the primary 

effect would be minor, short-term hearing loss and/or startle 

responses is not self-evident from information presented in the 

DEIS. That is, while the DEIS cites references which support and 

justify concluding that launch noise and sonic booms could result 

in short-term hearing loss and/or startle responses, neither the 

cited references nor information provided in the DEIS appear to 

justify the conclusion that these would be the primary effects 

and that the effects likely would be minor (e.g., the DEIS does 

not provide convincing evidence that noise fi-om launches would not 

cause harbor seals to abandon haul-out and pupping sites along the 

shoreline of Vandenberg Air Force Base, or that fuel spills or 

exhaust gas emissions would not be toxic and adversely affect the 

food webs of which harbor seals and other marine mammals are a 

part.). In addition, of the four pinniped species mentioned, only 

the California sea lion, the harbor seal, and the northern fur 

seal commonly breed (or pup) on San Miguel Island. Conversely, 

the northern elephant seal, a species not mentioned, is known to 

breed and pup on San Miguel Island. 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-41 

2 

[65] 

[66] 

• 

[67] 

• 
NROZkiPPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 3 

• 

Pp. 2-73 to 2-78 (Summary of Cumulative Impacts): As 

currently drafted, this and other sections of the DEIS dealing 

with cumulative impacts do not appear to consider or take into 

account the full range of human activities that may be affecting 

marine mammals and other ecosystem components that could be 

[68] affected by the proposed activity. There is no mention or 

discussion, for example, of how pinniped populations in the area 

have been or are being affected by other military activities in 

the area, by commercial fisheries, by offshore oil and gas 

exploration and development, etc. 

P. 2-81 (Item 2.5.4.6): This entry in the table appears to 

indicate that a monitoring program will be established to assess 

the impacts of operational noise and air emissions on wildlife. 

The DEIS does not provide a clear description of the nature, 

scale, or length of monitoring programs planned or being 

considered. Because of the uncertainty concerning both the 

immediate and the long-term effects of the proposed action on 

marine mammals, it would be desirable and appropriate to include a 

marine mammal monitoring program as part of the proposed action. 

Therefore, if it has not already been done, the Marine Mammal 

Commission recommends that the Air Force consult the. National 

Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

determine the immediate and long-term monitoring programs that 

would be required to verify the predicted effects and to detect 

the possible unforeseen effects of the proposed action on marine 

mammals, particularly harbor seals, California sea lions, and 

elephant seals that pup and breed in areas that could be affected 

by the proposed action. 

Pp. 3-51 to 3-54 (Marine Mammals): This section, in concert 

with Appendix B, identifies the species of marine mammals that 

could be affected by the proposed action. As noted earlier, 

neither it nor other sections of the DEIS indicate the numbers of 

various species of marine mammals that might be affected by the 

proposed action. Consequently, there is insufficient information 

to judge the likely significance of possible effects. 

This section should be expanded to indicate, among other 

things, the pupping seasons of pinnipeds known to pup in areas 

that could be affected by the proposed action. To avoid or 

minimize possible adverse effects, launch operations should be 

scheduled, as possible, to avoid periods when pupping or breeding 

could be affected. 

[69] 

[70] 

[71] 

This and other relevant sections of the DEIS also should be 

expanded to note and take into consideration that, during sea 

[72] otter surveys conducted in the spring of 1989 by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, 

20 sea otters, including females with pups, were seen betwen Pt. 

San Luis and Pt. Conception. 

• 
• 

• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-43 

4 

P. 3-63, pars. 2 and 3 (Marine Mammals): This section notes 

that there are several sizeanle harbor seal haul-out and breeding 

sites along the shoreline near the proposed Cypress Ridge site. 

The DEIS does not, but should, provide . an assessment of the 

possibility that construction and operation of the proposed 

Cypress Ridge launch complex would cause seals to temporarily or 

permanently abandon or avoid these haul-out sites and the effects 

that such a response might have on population size and 

[73] productivity. In this context, it is important to consider that 

there may be a number of more or less discrete populations or 

subpopulations or harbor seals along the California coast, that 

some or all of the populations or subpopulations may be at or near 

carrying capacity, and that seals that leave or are forced out of 

their home areas may move to nearby sites already occupied, cause 

densities at these sites to exceed carrying capacity, and cause 

even more animals to be affected. 

P. 4-35 last paragraph: Among other things, this paragraph 

notes that tie short- and long-term impacts of launch noise and 

focused sonic booms are described in the SLC-7 Biological 

Assessment (Environmental Solutions Inc. 1989b). Many of the 

conclusions set forth in the DEIS appear to be based on this 

document. I would be grateful, therefore, if you could send us a 

copy 

Pp. 4-52 to 4-54 (Marine Mammals): For the reasons noted 

[751 earlier, this section and other sections of the DEIS should be 

expanded to indicate the numbers as well as species of marine 

mammals that possibly could be affected. 

P. 4-173, par. 2(Unavoidable Adverse Effects on Wildlife): 

The first sentence in this section states that: "[t]he noise and 

sonic boom resulting from a launch event would be expected to 

adversely affect marine birds, pinnipeds, and terrestrial 

wildlife." This statement does not appear to be fully consistent 

with other statements in the DEIS which, as noted above, indicate 

that effects on pinnipeds and other marine mammals are not 

expected to be significant. 

Summary 

In summary, the DEIS does not provide a complete assessment 

of the possible impacts of the proposed action on marine mammals. 

Among other things, it does not provide an assessment of the 

numbers of various marine mammal species that possibly could be 

affected, or how the effects might be compounded by such things as 

offshore oil and gas exploration and development, and incidental 

take during commercial fishing operations. In addition, it does 

not provide a clear indication of the uncertainties concerning the 

possible effects of construction and operation of the proposed 

launch complex or the monitoring program that would be conducted 

to verify the predicted effects and detect any possible unforeseen 

effects on marine mammals. 

[74] 

[76] 
NRO RROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • Because of the uncertainties concerning the possible effects 

of the proposed actions on marine mammals, it would be desirable 

and appropriate to expand the proposed action to include both 

short- and long-term monitoring programs designed to verify the 

predicted effects and detect the possible unforeseen effects of 

the proposed action on marine mammals. Consequently, if it has 

not already been done, the Commission recommends that the Air 

Force consult the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service to determine how to most cost-effectively 

monitor marine mammal distribution, densities, productivity and 

behavior, in concert with construction and operation of the 

proposed launch facilities, to verify the predicted effects and 

detect the possible unforeseen effects of the proposed action on 

marine mammals. 

• 

If you or your staff have questions about our comments or 

recommendation, please let me know. 

Sincerely, 

R. Twiss, Jr. 

Executive Director 

cc: Nancy Foster, Ph.D. 

Mr. Jeffrey D. Opdycke 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-45 

RESPONSE TO LEI 1ER 4 

Received From: Marine Mammal Commission - John R. Twiss, Jr., Executive Director 

Comment No. 64: Impacts to Marine Mammal Populations From the Proposed Action and Other 

Human Activities 

• 

The species of marine mammals that may be impacted by the proposed project are shown in 

Table B.10 of Volume II (Appendices) of the Draft EIS. The proportion of local and/or 

redonal marine mammal populations that might be affected is expected to be small, as 

described in Draft EIS Sections 4.4.1, Regional Environment, and 4.4.3, Local Marine 

Environment. To quantitatively estimate the proportions of populations that may be impacted is 

difficult due to the dynamics of marine mammal behavior. Populations of marine mammals 

fluctuate every year by virtue of activities like pupping and breeding on a rookery, moulting on 

a beach, or migrating through an area. In addition, some of the populations change on a 

secular time scale. Examples of this are the logarithmic growth of California sea lions and 

elephant seals over the past several decades, and the influx of heretofore exotic populations like 

the bottlenose dolphin as a result of meso-scale changes in oceanography. 

The effect of other human activities on marine mammal populations in the region is difficult to 

assess and there is no comprehensive measure available to determine this effect. Information 

on the effects of human activities might be gleaned from records of beach-cast animals 

maintained by a few museums in California and possibly from records in marine mammal 

rehabilitation centers. There are isolated studies of particular species where coastal fisheries 

seem to have had an impact on population numbers (e.g., sea otter and harbor porpoise). 

Causes of population change cannot be correlated specifically to any single set of factors such 

as human impact or food supply/productivity. For example, in recent years, the Steller sea lion 

population has dwindled, while California sea lions and elephant seal populations have grown 

abundantly. Gray whales have increased in number, and there has been a consistent seasonal 

presence of humpback and blue whales. 

The steps that will be taken to verify and minimize predicted impacts are described in Draft EIS 

Section 4.4.5, Mitigation Measures. These steps include construction and operations 

monitoring and restriction of offsite activity by construction and operations personnel. The • monitoring plans would be developed in coordination with USFWS and NMFS to minimize 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 Jt.Ag62015 • the impacts from the monitoring itself. In addition, an incidental take permit would be 

necessary for marine mammals (see Appendix D). The conditions specified in this permit 

would ensure that impacts to marine mammals would be minimized. 

Comment No. 65: Information Necessary for "Small Take" Exemption 

See Appendix D for information regarding an incidental take permit for marine mammals. 

Comment No. 66: Marine Mammal Protection Act 

See response to Comment No. 5. 

Comment No. 67: Impacts to Marine Mammals 

• 

The conclusions drawn in the comparative analysis summary of impacts at the proposed and 

alternative sites (Draft EIS Section 2.3.4, Wildlife) indicate that the primary effects on marine 

mammals would be minor, short-term hearing loss and/or startle responses that could result 

in the mammals running to water (see response to Comment No. 42). These impacts are 

characterized as minor since they are below the significance levels described in Section 4.4, 

Wildlife. The conclusion that the primary effects would be short-term hearing loss and/or 

startle responses is based on the analyses undertaken in support of Space Shuttle operations 

from VAFB, which provide the best scientific infoiivation available at this time. 

Potential noise impacts to harbor seals are addressed in Draft EIS Section 4.4.2.1, Cypress 

Ridge, where it is noted that the maximum A-weighted sound level expected from a Titan 

IV/Centaur launch is 110 dBA outside of the launch complex, a level well below that analyzed 

for noise impacts to pinnipeds on the Channel Islands. As noted in Section 4.4.1, Regional 

Environment, the expected impacts to pinnipeds on the Channel Islands are short-term hearing 

loss and/or startle responses. Studies of pinnipeds on the Channel Islands in support of the 

Space Shuttle found no evidence of dangerous leaping, self-damage, crushing, or breeding 

colony abandonment as a result of sonic booms or loud overflights. Since noise levels from 

sonic booms would be much lower along the VAFB shoreline, it would be expected that 

impacts to pinnipeds would be no greater than those noted for the Channel Islands. • Potential impacts to marine mammals due to fuel spills and exhaust gas emissions are discussed 

in Section 4.4.3.2, Marine Mammals. Potential impacts were determined not to be significant. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-47 

In addition, as discussed in Section 4.4.5, Mitigation Measures, should the External Tank 

Landing Facility become a major point for delivery of equipment, material, or supplies. spill 

containment and cleanup facilities would be made available to contain and remove spilled 

substances. 

The northern elephant seal is discussed in terms of existing environment and potential impacts 

in Draft EIS Sections 3.4.1.3, Marine Mammals, and 4.4.1.3, Marine Mammals. Naming the 

Guadalupe fur seal in 2.3.4, Wildlife, as a pinnipecl species breeding on San Miguel Island 

is an error. The text should instead name the northern elephant seal as a species that breeds 

on San Miguel Island. The appropriate change to the text of page 2-60 is noted in Chapter 3.0 

of the Final EIS (page 3-8). 

Comment No. 68: Cumulative Impacts to Marine Mammals 

• See responses to Comment Nos. 64 and 42. There are no additional data available to 

characterize potential effects by industries such as commercial fisheries and off-shore oil and 

gas exploration and development. 

Comment No. 69: Marine Mammal Monitoring Program 

As noted in responses to Comment Nos. 1, 3, and 15, and in Draft EIS Section 4.4.5, 

Mitigation Measures, an operations monitoring program, which would include marine 

mammals, would be developed in consultation with NMFS and USFWS. In addition to the 

harbor seal, California sea lion, and northern elephant seal, the monitoring program would 

include the northern fur seal and sea otter. 

Comment No. 70: Marine Mammal Population Information 

• 

As described in response to Comment No. 64, the number of marine mammals that may be 

impacted fluctuates widely by time of year and, in addition, is likely to change from current 

population levels by the time the project is operational. The significance of the potential effects 

is determined based on scientific information that indicates that the effects to individuals would 

be temporary and that the viability of marine mammal populations would not change. In 

addition, USAF compliance with the Threatened and Endangered Species Section 7 

consultation process ensures that the potential impacts would not affect species viability. 
NROMADROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• Comment No. 71: Pinniped Pupping Seasons 

See response to Comment No. 12 for information regarding pinniped pupping and breeding 

seasons. Adverse effects would be minimized through the mitigation measures indicated in 

Draft EIS Section 4.4.5, Mitigation Measures, and through the proposed monitoring program. 

Comment No. 72: Sea Otters 

Draft EIS Section 3.4.1.3 discusses the sea otter's presence in the region. In addition to the 20 

animals seen in the spring of 1989, sea otters have been regularly seen along this stretch of 

coast for a decade or longer. Additional text for Draft EIS page 3-53 is contained in Chapter 

3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-13). 

Comment No. 73: Harbor Seal Haul-Out Site Abandonment 

The potential construction-related impacts to harbor seals are discussed in Draft EIS Section 

4.4.3.2, Marine Mammals. There is no published evidence that suggests there is either a single 

continuous population or a number of discreet sub-populations of harbor seals along this part 

of the California coast. In addition, the home area of a harbor seal is not known. The only 

information on these populations is contained in the California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG)/NMFS census data. There is some indication that the seals may move from one site to 

another along the coast. If this occurs naturally, then the idea of seals moving to nearby 

sites and thereby upsetting the capacity of an area to support a population is moot. The present 

tagging work of CDFG/NMFS may provide insight regarding movements of seals in the Point 

Conception/ Point Arguello area. 

Comment No. 74: Copy of Biological Assessment 

A copy of the Biological Assessment has been provided to the Marine Mammal Commission. 

Comment No. 75: Marine Mammal Population 

See response to Comment No 64. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-49 • Comment No. 76: Consistency of Marine Mammal Impact Conclusions 

As discussed in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Unavoidable Adverse Effects, and response to 

Comment No. 67, adverse effects such as short-term hearing loss and startle responses are 

expected to occur. Review of these impacts against the criteria for significance (Section 4.4, 

Wildlife) shows that, although adverse, the expected impacts are not considered significant. 

• 
Sincerely, 

Barry S. Brayer 

Manager, Planning & Inter tional Aviation Staff, AWP-4 

• 

NROMITROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE/215 

rap" 

USDepartment 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

LETTER 5 

V.:■!S:U'r.•PdL•!,': P.O Gox 92007 

WOrldway POSia■ C. 

Los Angeles. CA 90009 

September 7, 1989 

Department of the Air Force 

HO Space Systems Division 

P.O. Box 92960 

Worldway Postal Center 

Los Angeles, CA., 90009-2960 

Attention: Mr. John Edwards 

Dear Mr. Edwards: 

We have coordinated the review of the Draft Environmental Impact 

[77] Statement for Space launch Complex 7 at Vandenberg AFB, California, 

within our regional office, and have not received any adverse comments. • We appreciate the opportunity afforded us for reviewing the subject 

Draft EIS. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-51 

RESPONSE TO LE!'ll✓R 5 

Received From: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration 

Barry S. Brayer, Manager, Planning and International Aviation Staff, AWP-4 

Comment No. 77: Review of Draft EIS 

Comment noted. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE LETTER 6 

1 JuRig22015 

State of (1a1ifurnia 

GOVERNOR'S OFFICE 

OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 

1400 TENTH STREET 

SACRAMENTO 95814 

GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN 

GOVERNOR (916) 323-7480 

DATE: September 11, 1989 

TO: Department of the Air Force 

HQ Space Systems Division 

P. O. Box 92960 

Worldways Postal Center 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 

ATTN: Mr. John Edwards 

FROM: Office of Planning and Research 

State Clearinghouse 

RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Construction and Operation of Space 

Launch Complex 7, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County (SCH 8907280 

• 

As the designated California Single Point of Contact, pursuant to Executive 

Order 12372, the Office of Planning and Research transmits attached comments 

as the State Process Recommendation. 

This recommendation is a consensus; no opposing comments have been received. 

[78] Initiation of the "accommodate or explain" response by your agency is, 

therefore, in effect. 

Sincerely, 

• 

Robert P. Martinez 

Director 

Attachment 

cc: Applicant 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-53 

RESPONSE TO T 1 I ER 6 

Received From: State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research 

Robert P. Martinez, Director 

Comment No. 78: Single State Agency Point of Contact Comments 

The consensus recommendation of no opposing comments is noted. 

• 

• 
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN 

GOVERNOR OF • CALIFORNIA 

THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 

Air Resources Board 

California Coastal Commission 

California Tahoe Conservancy 

California Waste Management 

Board 

Colorado River Board 

Energy Resources Conservation 

And Development Commission 

San Francisco Bay Conservation 

and Development Commission 

State Coastal Conservancy 

State Lands Division 

State Reclamation Board 

State Water Resources Control 

Board 

Regional Water Quality 

Control Boards 

Resources Building 

1416 Ninth Street 

95814 

(916) 445-5656 

TDD (916) 324-0804 

California Conservation Corps 

Department of Boating and Waterways 

Department of Conservation 

Department of Fish and Game 

Department of Forestry 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

Department of Water Resources 

NROIPPROVED 54 FOR RELEASE 

1 JU 2015 

LETTER 7 

Department of the Air Force 

HQ Space Systems Division 

P. O. Box 92960 

Worldways Postal Center 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 

ATTN: Mr. John Edwards 

Dear Mr. Edwards: 

September 11, 1989 

• The State has reviewed the Draft Enviornmental Impact Statement, Construction 

and Operation of Space Launch Complex 7, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa 

Barbara County, submitted through the Office of Planning and Research. 

We coordinated review of this document with the California Highway Patrol, the 

California Coastal Commission, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control 

Board, and the Departments of Fish and Game, Health Services, Parks and 

Recreation, and Transportation. 

The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board replied directly in 

[79] correspondence dated August 9, 1989. The California Coastal Commission will 

require a consistency determination. 

Thank you for providing an opportunity to review this project. 

Sincerely, 

Gordon F. Snow, Ph.D 

for Assistant Secretary for Resources 

cc: Office of Planning and Research 

1400 Tenth Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 • (SCH 89072807) 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-55 

RESPONSE TO LEITER 7 

Received From: The Resources Agency of California 

Gordon F. Snow, Ph.D. 

Comment No. 79: California Coastal Commission (CGS} Consistency Determination 

As noted in Draft EIS Section 1.5.3.2, a Federal Consistency Determination for the TCLC has 

been prepared and submitted to the CCC. 

• 

• 
2-56 LETTER 8 

sTANRigAEIRROVED FOR RELEASE 

CALiFtifikik fieGIDNAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD —

CENTRAL COAST REGION 

1102 A LAUREL LANE 

AN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 

805) 549-3147 

GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor 

August 9, 1989 

Mr. John Edwards 

HQSSD/DEV 

P.O. Box 92960 

Los Angles, CA 90009-2960 

Dear Mr. Edwards: 

SUBJECT: VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, PROPOSED SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 

7, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 

We reviewed the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 

subject project dated July 20, 1989. The specific plan as 

proposed, involves either modification of Space Launch Complex 6 

(SLC-6) or construction and operation of (SLC-7), to accommodate 

launches for the Titan IV/Centaur. Either alternative to the 

proposed plan would occur on South Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

Lompoc, California. 

The main aspects requested to be addressed in the EIS were 

presented in our letter to Mr. Robert Mason, dated May 23, 1988. 

This letter summarized that our major regulatory responsibilities 

included discharges to land or surface waters which may affect 

ground or surface water quality. Our recommendation was that the 

EIS address all potential ground or surface water quality concerns. 

Our comments on the EIS are as follows: 

1. Page 4-81. It is stated that the RWQCB requires an 

investigation of the preferred location for the domestic 

wastewater ponds to ensure compliance with Resolution No. 83- 

12. It should be brought to your attention that this 

resolution pertains only to septic tanks and subsurface 

disposal systems and not evaporation/percolation ponds. 

Instead, the disposal system should be designed to comply with 

waste discharge requirements adopted by the Regional Board. 

A report of waste discharge should be submitted and existing 

waste discharge requirements revised to include the proposed 

domestic waste discharge. 

2 Page 4-82. The City of Lompoc's landfill is classified as a 

[81] Class III landfill. References in the EIS to "Lompoc Class 

II Landfill" should be changed accordingly. 

[80] 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-57 • Mr. John Edwards -2- August 9, 1989 

• 

3. Regarding the potential impacts to water quality from launch 

exhaust ground clouds, we found that potential acid deposition 

on the evaporation/percolation ponds was not addressed. The 

EIS estimates that acid deposition of 7.89 gal/acre near the 

launch area could be expected from the exhaust cloud. The 

problem of acidifying these ponds during the launchings and 

the long term affect from percolation into the soil should be 

considered. 

Methods described for the disposal of•industrial wastewaters were 

well outlined. Either of the options considered are acceptable, 

whether it be transportation to the existing SLC-6 site in tanker 

trucks, or the construction of a waste treatment system at SLC-7. 

It is expected that after launch an estimated 106,000 gallons of 

water could be recovered for storage/reuse. Because of ground 

water overdraft conditions in the Lompoc Basin and, due to the low 

average precipitation of the area, it is highly encouraged that the 

industrial waste treatment process be extended to include recycling 

of treated water. This would allow for the maximum in water 

resource conservation. 

Should you have any further comments or questions, please refer 

them to Mr. Bill Meece or Mr. Jay Cano at this office. 

Very truly yours, 

[82] 

[83] 

LLIAM R. LEONARD 

Executive Officer 

EIR/VAFB0727 

GDM:sm 

cc: Colonel Morris, Environmental Task Force, 1 STRAD/ET, 

Vandenberg AFB, CA 93437-5000 

Peggy O'Halloran, Santa Barbara County Environmental Health 

Services 

State Clearinghouse 
NRO,,APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUIVe`n15 

• RESPONSE TO LEI 1ER 8 

Received From: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region 

William R. Leonard, Executive Officer 

Comment No. 80: Interpretation of Resolution No. 83-12 (Subsurface Disposal Systems) 

The interpretation of Resolution No. 83-12 as contained in Draft EIS Section 4.6.2, Local 

Impacts (pages 1-19, 1-20, and 4-81), is incorrect, since the resolution applies only to septic 

tanks and subsurface disposal systems, not to evaporation/percolation ponds. The discussion 

of the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Section 1.5.5.3, California PorterCologne Water Quality Act) will be revised to include the requirement for a report of waste 

discharite. These changes to the Draft EIS are noted in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (pages 

3-4, 3-5, and 3-18). 

Comment No. 81: Classification of City of Lompoc Landfill 

• The City of Lompoc's landfill should be identified as a Class III facility (Draft EIS pages 3-85, 

4-82, and 4-90). These changes to the Draft EIS are noted in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS 

(pages 3-14 and 3-18). 

Comment No. 82: Acidification of Evaporation/Percolation Ponds 

Acidification of the facility's evaporation/percolation ponds would occur as a result of the 

acidic deposition associated with Titan IV/ Centaur launches. To address this issue, USAF 

will analyze methods of siting or designing the ponds or structures associated with the ponds 

so that pH is maintained at an acceptable level (as outlined in California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board [RWQCB], Central Coast Region Order No. 89-88 or other agreement and as 

per RCRA requirements). This analysis will be coordinated with RWQCB and the Report of 

Waste Discharge permit process. 

Comment No. 83: Recycling Treated Launch Waste Water 

In response to concerns regarding regional water supplies, additional mitigation measures for 

water use have been developed. In preliminary analyses of water use and potential supplies for • operations of the proposed action, it has been determined that deluge water (approximately 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-59 • 146,000 gallons per launch) can be obtained from recycled water supplies. To provide the 

TCLC with sufficient recycled launch deluge water, waste waters would be collected from 

other locations on VAFB, treated by utilizing the SLC-6 waste water treatment plant, and held 

at the water storage tank(s) shown in Draft EIS Figure 2.1.7 (Preliminary Utility Corridors and 

Construction Areas: Proposed Alignment) until needed for launches. This water would be 

used during construction for dust control and other non-potable purposes, thereby reducing 

ground water demand. This action would decrease operational demand for water from the 

Lompoc Terrace ground water basin by approximately 1.3 acre-feet per year. 

• 

The additional potential demand for water from the Lompoc Terrace would be for sanitary and 

other uses for personnel stationed at the facility throughout the year. This estimate for potential 

additional demand was generated by utilizing a consumption rate of 40 gallons per person per 

day. As noted in the Draft EIS (Section 4.2.4, Mitigation Measures), USAF would utilize low 

water use fixtures to reduce water demands. In addition, USAF would analyze alternative 

methods of enhancing water supplies, such as desalinization of sea water and utilizing recycled 

water for non-potable uses such as toilets and other fixtures. USAF would undertake the 

appropriate measures recommended in the analysis. 

• 
2-60 LETTER 9 

trieor • OVED FOR RELEASE 

County of Santa Barbara 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

5540 EKWILL, SUITE B, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93111 

PHONE: (805) 681-5325 FAX (805) 967-4872 

JAMES M. RYERSON WILLIAM A. MASTER 

Air Pollution Control Officer Assistant Director 

• 

August 31, 1989 

John Edwards 

HQ SSD/DEV 

PO Box 92960 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 

RE: Draft EIS on VAFB's SLC-7 (7/20/89) 

Dear Mr. Edwards: 

Thank you for giving the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution 

Control District an opportunity to review the EIS for VAFB's 

Space Launch Complex 7 (SLC-7). Our comments are grouped below 

into General Comments and Specific Comments. We also provide 

comments on the EIS's adequacy in addressing our 5/17/88 scoping 

comments. 

GENERAL COMMENTS 

01. The overall format of the document is very confusing to the 

reader. The current format does not allow for a specific 

issue area to be reviewed in depth without searching through 

the entire document. Each issue area (e.g., air quality) 

should be addressed entirely within one section. The Air 

Quality Section should cover each of the following topics: 

[84] 

1. Environmental setting; 

2. Description of proposed project and alternatives; 

3. Emissions of criteria and toxic/non-criteria 

pollutants; 

4. Impacts of: 

- Inert pollutants, 

- Reactive pollutants, 

- Toxic pollutants, 

- Odor, and 

- Visibility; 

5. Mitigation measures; 

6. AQAP consistency; and 

7. Stratospheric air quality. 

The discussion of impacts should include both the proposed 

project and all applicable alternatives. 

• [85] 

G2. Throughout the document, there are many impacts which are 

claimed to be insignificant without adequate reference or 

discussion of the basis for this determination. Blanket 

1 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-61 

• statements of insignificance have little meaning without 

supporting information to allow verification. As the 

document stands, the reader is not able to verify the claims 

made regarding the impacts from the proposed project and 

alternatives. Further information is needed to create a 

full disclosure document, as required by NEPA. 

G3. There is a major problem with the value quoted in the EIS 

for 1-hour NO2impacts. Further, there is no quantitative 

basis from which to compare the impacts between the proposed 

project and alternatives since no air quality modeling was 

performed in the EIS. 

The NO2 value cited in the EIS (354 ug/m3) is from a report 

titled Evaluation of Existing Meteorological Data in Support 

of SLC-7 Authority to Construct Pre-Construction Monitoring 

(PCM) Data Requirements. This report was conducted 

independently of the EIS solely for the purpose of 

evaluating PCM sites in conjunction with the District's 

ambient air monitoring requirements for the Authority To 

Construct (ATC) permit. The report does not meet the 

requirements of an Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) and 

therefore is not acceptable for assessing the significance 

of air quality impacts. Three major requirements were not 

met: 

1. The modeling in the report did not assess all 

pollutants and averaging periods of concern. 

2. The report did not compare the highest modeled NO2 

concentration to the appropriate air quality standard. 

(The NO2concentration cited in the EIS [354 ug/m3] 

represents the highest mean value of the high five 1-

hour NO2concentrations). 

3. The ozone limiting methodology in the report 

(calculating NO2 impacts from hourly values of ozone 

and NO2) only applies when assessing PCM data 

requirements. For AQIA purposes, the highest 

monitored values for ozone and NO2should be used to 

determine the NO2impact from the proposed project. 

A valid AQIA should be performed for both the proposed 

project and each alternative. Without this modeling, there 

is insufficient data to determine potential air quality 

impacts, and to compare alternatives. 

G4. The Impact Summary Tables (pp. 2-73 through 2-78) should be 

revised to include Class I, II, III, and IV impact 

classifications. For each issue area, impacts for the 

proposed project and all alternative scenarios should be 

grouped by impact classification as follows: 

- Class I: Significant, cannot be mitigated to a level 

where they are not significant. 

[87] 

2 
NRO.a2PROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JU 2015 

• 

• 

- Class II: Significant, can be mitigated to a level 

where they are not significant. 

- Class III: Adverse but not significant. 

- Class IV: Beneficial impacts. 

A suggested format for the tables would be to include the 

following information (listed from left to right in the 

table): 

1. A description of the impact; 

2. The location and scope of the impact; 

3. The appropriate mitigation measure to be implemented 

(including reference to where the measure is detailed 

in the EIS); 

4. The government agency responsible for the mitigation; 

and 

5. The residual impact after mitigation. 

The proposed project and each alternative should be listed 

vertically under each issue area. This type of format would 

allow for a clear and concise summary of the impacts and 

mitigation measures associated with the proposed project and 

alternatives. 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS (Volume I) 

Section 1: Introduction 

Section 1.5.4: Air Quality 

1. Page 1-14, last para. 

1. Next to last sentence. The EIS states that there are 

no deadlines to attain the California Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (CAAQS). This is not true. The 

California Clean Air Act (CCAA), adopted in 1988, 

requires that nonattainment areas reduce nonattainment 

pollutants or their precursors by 5% per year until 

attainment is met. The CCAA thus requires documented 

progress toward attainment of the CAAQS. 

2. Last sentence. The EIS states that the District has 

not adopted AAQS more stringent than the CAAQS. This 

is not true. District Rule 310 prohibits emissions of 

H2S that result in a 3-minute average ambient 

concentration greater than 0.06 ppm of H2S. 

[88] 

[89] 

2. Page 1-15, Table 1.5.1 (Ambient Air Quality Standards). The 

footnotes for this table are missing. 

3. Page 1-16, 2nd para, 2nd sentence. The EIS states that 

northern Santa Barbara County has historically been in 

[90] 

• [91] 
[92] 

• 

[93] 

[94] 

[95] 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-63 • attainment of both the NAAQS and the CAAQS. In checking 

records since 1983, the VAFB Watt Road station has recorded 

a minimum of 1 state violation every year. In the North 

County, between 1986 through 1988, the state ozone standard 

was exceeded on 73 days and the federal ozone standard was 

exceeded on 8 days. In addition, during April and May 1989, 

the federal ozone standard was exceeded on at least 3 days 

in the Lompoc/Vandenberg area. 

The District's PSD monitoring stations measured 22 

exceedances of the state 24-hour PM10 standard in North 

County from 1986 through 1988. Prior to 1986, PM10 was not 

monitored much in this area. 

4. Page 1-16, 2nd para., last sentence. The EIS states that 

North County will continue to be a federal attainment area 

for ozone and PM10 until the EPA redesignates it 

nonattainment. EPA has recently stated its intent to expand 

the nonattainment area for ozone to include the entire 

county. In addition, the Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc 

area was recently included in EPA's press release of areas 

failing to meet the federal ozone standard. 

Furthermore, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) has 

formally designated the entire county nonattainment for both 

ozone and PM10. They have also designated a portion of 

North County as nonattainment for H2S. 

5. Page 1-16, 3rd para., 4th sentence. The EIS states that the 

District will soon declare North County nonattainment for 

PM10, due to violations of the CAAQS for this pollutant. 

The District already has recognized that PM10is 

nonattainment in North County. In 1988, a review of the 

preceding 3 years of monitoring data revealed that the state 

PM10standard had been exceeded 107 times; this included 

exceedances in North County. With this information, the 

District initiated preparation of a State Implementation 

Plan for PM", and began to regulate PM10and its precursors 

as a nonattainment pollutant. (Letter dated 4/19/88 to the 

APCD Board of Directors) 

6. Page 1-16, last para., 1st sentence. The EIS should reflect 

that the District is empowered to enforce not only the 

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) per the 

federal Clean Air Act, but also the California AAQS per the 

recently enacted California Clean Air Act. 

7. Page 1-16, last partial sentence. In this sentence, the EIS 

describes the measures the District could take to improve 

air quality. This description should be reworded to reflect 

the following phased approach the District normally follows 

in implementing new emission control rules. 

1. Retrofit existing sources with new controls. 

4 
NRO ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNt 2015 

• 2. Tighten the New Source Review (NSR) rule: 

- Make smaller sources subject to it. 

- Require more stringent control beyond Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT). 

3. Implement technology-forcing rules. 

8. Page 1-17, 2nd full para., 1st sentence. This sentence 

should be modified to state that all new or modified 

stationary sources which emit or may emit nonattainment 

pollutants are subject to the NSR rule. 

9. Page 1-17, 2nd full para., last sentence. The document 

states that "once a unit has been constructed and verified 

to be in compliance with SBCAPCD regulations, a PTO is 

issued". Issuance of a PTO (Permit to Operate) is not 

automatic: an application for a PTO must first be submitted 

to the District. 

10. Page 1-17, last para., 3rd sentence. This sentence should 

be corrected to state that the required input to air quality 

[98] models includes 1 year of representative ambient air quality 

and meteorological data. The 4th sentence in this paragraph 

should be deleted. 

11. Page 1-19, 2nd para. The EIS states that the 1 year of 

preconstruction monitoring data must be "descriptive" of the 

proposed project location. In fact, this monitoring data 

must be representative. This term is defined in the 

District's Air Quality and Meteorological Monitoring 

Protocol. 

In January 1989, the District determined that the locations 

of the Pt. Arguello and Jalama Beach monitoring stations 

would provide suitable meteorological data for the Air 

Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA). At that time, the District 

also determined that the maximum air quality values measured 

at any of the 3 stations mentioned in the EIS (Pt. Arguello, 

Jalama Beach, and SLC-6) over the previous 3 years could be 

used for background air quality. It has not been determined 

whether the preconstruction monitoring requirements of data 

recovery and representativeness (collected in the 3 years 

prior to ATC approval) have been met. It is VAFB's 

responsibility to supply data that meet these 

specifications. 

12. Page 1-19, 3rd para. The EIS states that "VAFB has a large 

inventory of emission offset credits 'banked' with SBCAPCD 

which, if available, could be applied against any emissions 

increases attributable to operation of SLC-7". VAFB's 1984 

Emissions Offset and Banking Agreement states (p. 3) that 

"if banked emissions are not used within 6 months, they 

shall expire". Furthermore, within the last year the 

• 

[99] 

[100] 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-65 

banking provision in District Rules was deleted. The 

document should be revised accordingly. 

13 Page 1-19, 4th para., 2nd sentence. The EIS states that the 

individual sources and characteristics of emissions from 

SLC-7 would not vary in relation to the site which is 

eventually chosen. While this may be true, the site chosen 

does affect the selection of a location for preconstruction 

monitoring. The preconstruction monitoring locations were 

chosen based on a particular source (project) location. If 

this source location is changed, the project would need to 

be remodeled using the new location. The proposed location 

for preconstruction monitoring would then be re-evaluated 

based on the results of this modeling. 

Section 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Section 2.1.3.5: Safety Systems 

14. Page 2-22, last para., RE: Quantity-Distance Criteria. The 

"safety clear zones" referred to here do not appear to be 

shown in Figure 2.1.2 (Proposed Cypress Ridge Site and 

Alternatives) for existing space launch complexes. 

• 

[101] 

[102] 

603] 

Section 2.3.5: Air Quality 

15. Page 2-62, 1st para, last sentence. Please provide 

references for the "previous studies" mentioned in this 

paragraph. 

16. Page 2-62, 2nd para. In the discussion at the bottom of the 

[104] paragraph, please provide reference to where the 

calculations of construction emissions are provided. 

17. Page 2-63, 1st full sentence. Again, please provide 

reference to where more detailed information on the 

"operational control procedures" are documented. 

Section 2.3.11: Health and Safety 

[106] 18. Page 2-65, 2nd para. The "1981 Study" referred to here 

should be fully referenced. 

19. Page 2-69, 3rd para. Following the phrase "Toxic Hazard 

[107] Corridor" there should be a reference to p. 3-128 where this 

teim is explained. 

Section 2.4: Summary of Cumulative Impacts 

20. Page 2-74, Section 2.4.5 (Air Resources). This table does 

not adequately summarize all the impacts from the proposed 

project and alternatives. 

1. Without air quality modeling, it is impossible to 

compare impacts (NO2, CO, SO2, P1110) between the 

proposed project and alternatives. 

[109]1 2. A comparison of emissions is not an adequate substitute 

for the results of a site-specific AQIA. 

[105] 

108] 
[113] 

[115] 

[116] 

[117] 

NROWPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

3. The operational NOxand ROC emissions from the proposed 

project and alternatives may contribute to existing 

ozone standard exceedances and should be documented as 

such. 

4. This table should present Class I, II, III, and IV 

impacts as stated in comment G4. 

Section 2.5: Summary of Mitigation Measures 

21. Page 2-81, Section 2.5.5 (Air Resources). This table should 

be deleted and combined with the impact summary tables per 

comments G4 and 20. 

Section 3: Affected Environment 

Section 3.5: Air Quality and Meteorology 

22. Page 3-67. The EIS should note that there is a substantial 

climatic difference between the coastal areas of south and 

north Santa Barbara County (divided by Point Conception). 

For example, the climate at Point Arguello is substantially 

different than the climate at Santa Barbara Harbor. 

23. Page 3-67, 2nd para, last sentence. High ozone values have 

been measured in Santa Barbara County primarily during postSanta Ana conditions. However, this is not the only 

circumstance when high ozone values have been recorded 

locally. The reference USAF 1988b, Environmental Assessment 

for the Titan IV Space Launch Vehicle Modifications and 

Operations, is cited here. Does this assessment document 

high ozone occurrences in Santa Barbara County? 

24. Page 3-71, 3rd para, last sentence. Inland sources are not 

the only sources of pollutants in the area. There are 

substantial sources along the coastal areas, offshore, and 

at VAFB. Also, the District is currently studying PMN 

occurrence in the County to determine the actual source 

contributions. 

25. Page 3-71, last para. The EIS discusses attainment only 

with respect to the federal standards. Please discuss the 

area's attainment in relation to state standards, too. 

26. Page 3-71, last para., 2nd sentence. This sentence should 

read: In the past, air quality monitoring stations in 

northern Santa Barbara County have measured exceedances of 

the federal ozone and PMNstandards. Southern Santa 

Barbara County has been officially designated by the EPA as 

nonattainment for ozone. See also comment 4. 

27. Page 3-71, last para., last sentence. The EIS states that 

recently North County exceeded the NAAQS for ozone. The 

federal ozone standard was exceeded in North County on 8 

days from 1986 through 1988, with violations occurring in 

all years during that period. 

7 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-67 

28. Page 3-72, 1st 2 paras. The document discusses only federal 

designations of nonattainment status. Consideration should 

also be given to state nonattainment designations (i.e., the 

[119] California Clean Air Act designations of July 1989). 

Ambient ozone and PM10values should also be discussed in 

relation to the CCAA regulations. 

29. Page 3-73, Table 3.5.1 (Measured Air Quality Data Summary). 

[120]1 Data presented in this table are not current. Data through 

mid-1989 are available and should be used in this table. 

• 

30 Page 3-76, 3rd para., last 2 sentences. The EIS states that 

localized pollutant concentrations can exceed recorded 

levels at the SLC-6 site due to the cumulative effect of 

other sources during the night when wind speeds are low. It 

continues to say that "these conditions would not be 

expected to persist due to higher wind speeds during daytime 

hours". This statement is misleading. There is no 

guarantee that wind speeds will be higher during the day 

than at night. Furthermore, such stable conditions need to 

persist for only one hour for a 1-hour standard (e.g., NO2) 

to be exceeded. 

Section 3.11: Health and Safety 

31. Page 3-125, RE: Regional Environment. The EIS should 

include a clear explanation of how county and city emergency 

response agencies will be notified of any aborted flights, 

as well as all incidents likely to affect the general 

public's safety. The EIS should also explain how 1STRAD and 

WSMC will cooperate with these agencies in handling such 

incidents. 

32. Page 3-128, RE: Special Safety Procedures. This section 

should state what criteria are used to define the "Toxic 

Hazard Corridors". Are the concentrations used the 

"Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health" (IDLH) values, 

"Threshold Limit Values" (TLVs), Time Weighted Averages" 

(TWA), or are they other criteria? 

33. Page 3-129, RE: Hypergolic Transportation Safety, 2nd para. 

This paragraph indicates SLC-4 West and SLC-4 East 

requirements for fuel and oxidizer. It should also include: 

the projected number of shipments for SLC-7, and the truck 

vessel size, or quantity of fuel in each shipment. 

34. Page 3-134, RE: WSMC Range Safety Procedures. The model 

output from the REEDM model should be provided to the county 

emergency response agencies following any aborted launches. 

(See p. 3-135, Meteorological Restrictions.) 

Section 4: Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 

[121] 

• 

[122] 

[123] 

[124] 

[125] • 

8 
NROPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

35. Page 4-63, 4th para. Please refer to comment G3 which 

0[126] discusses the problems with the statements in this paragraph 

and the modeling analysis. 

36. Page 4-69, 1st partial para. The EIS states that since the 

emission rates of several pollutants (CO, S0x, PM10, and ROC) 

would be lower relative to their state standards (the CAAQS, 

California Ambient Air Quality Standards) than those for 

NOx, their contribution to cumulative impacts would 

therefore be insignificant. This reasoning is not 

technically sound. 

[127] As mentioned in comment G3, the modeling (for evaluation of 

PCM stations) cited in the EIS is not appropriate for 

evaluation of the proposed project (SLC-7). Therefore, any 

comparisons to this modeling are not valid. To properly 

quantify the impacts associated with the proposed project 

and alternatives, site-specific air quality modeling should 

be perfoimed for all pollutants and averaging times of 

concern. 

• 

[128] 

EIS'S ADEQUACY IN ADDRESSING APCD SCOPING COMMENTS 

The following comments address the EIS' adequacy in responding to 

the District's 5/17/88 scoping comments. The comment numbers 

identified below correspond to the comments in our original 

letter (attached). 

37. Comment 1.0 (emission impacts should be modeled). The EIS 

did not model emission impacts for either the proposed 

project or the alternatives. This point is also noted 

above. 

38. Comment 2 (emission offsets should be clearly identified). [1291 The EIS' treatment of the offset issue is far too general. 

39. Comment 3 (an air quality analysis for the proposed project 

should be done). An air quality analysis (i.e., modeling) 

for the proposed project was not done in the EIS. 

[131] 

40. Comment 5 (cumulative impacts should address the expected 

number of launches per year at VAFB, characterizing both the 

launch location and type of space launch vehicle). The 

expected number of launches per year at VAFB was not 

characterized either in terms of the launch location or the 

type of space launch vehicle. The EIS presents only a 

summary of total VAFB emissions relative to those from 

SLC-7. 

41. Comment 6 (offsite impacts, such as those from transporting 

fuel for the Titan Centaur to VAFB, should be addressed). 

The EIS does not appear to address the impact of 

transporting fuel to the base for the Titan Centaur. • 132] 

[130] 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-69 

• 

42. Comment 7 (the need for SLC-7 in light of potential 

Congressional action to put VAFB's existing launch 

facilities in "caretaker" status should be discussed). This 

point was not discussed in the EIS. 

If you have any questions on these comments, please contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Deborah S. Pontifex 

Responsible Agency Review 

AQPLAN\IARCORR\VAFB2.WP5 

Attachment: APCD 5/17/88 scoping comments on EIS 

cc: David Tomsovic, EPA/Region IX, w/ attachment 

Morris Gary, APCD 

Ivor John, APCD 

Tom Murphy, APCD 

Duane Sikorski, APCD 

Jean Thomson, APCD 

VAFB SLC-7 EIS file, w/ attachment 

PLNG Chron file 

01331 
'OVER .7 0 FOR 

County of Santa Barbara 

15 RAgFOLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

5540 EKWILL, SUITE B, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93111 

PHONE: (805) 964.8111 FAX (805) 967-4872 

JAMES M. RYERSON WILLIAM A. MASTER 

Air Pollution Control Officer Assistant Director 

May 17, 1988 

Department of the Air Force 

HQ Space Division/DEV 

PO Box 92960 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 

ATTENTION: Mr. Robert Mason 

REGARDING: Scoping Comments on the EIS for Titan Centaur SLC-7 

Dear Mr. Mason: 

The District is pleased to respond to your request for comments on 

the scope of the EIS for the construction and operation of the space 

launch complex 7 (SLC-7) for the Titan Centaur space launch 

vehicle. Our comments on the proposed project are presented below. 

1. Emissions. 

A. The EIS should discuss emissions separately for each of the 

three phases of the project: construction, "activation", 

and operations, as defined in the project description. 

B. The EIS should quantify all emissions associated with each 

phase of the project by specific emission source. 

C. Emissions should be presented for both peak-hour and for 

short-term average conditions. Emission impacts should be 

modeled and compared with the national, state and District 

ambient air quality standards and allowable air quality 

increments. 

D. Emissions of toxic air pollutants, as identified by the Air 

Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency, 

should be clearly identified and auantified. Some of these 

toxic compounds may require a risk assessment. 

2. Offsets. 

Proposed sources of emission offsets, and the corresponding 

level of emission reduction as required by District Rules and 

Regulations, should be clearly identified in the EIS. 

• 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-71 

3. Status of Criteria Pollutants. 

The EIS should present the air quality analysis for the proposed 

project in the context of the following pollutants being 

regulated under New Source Review by District rules: ozone, 

PH1g (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than or 

equal to 10 microns), and their precursors. 

4. Emergency Response Planning Associated With Hazardous and Toxic 

Materials. 

A. The storage and handling procedures for all hazardous and 

toxic materials associated with the project should be 

discussed in detail, particularly in light of the recent 

(5/4/88) explosion of a space shuttle fuel plant in 

Henderson, Nevada. 

B. Emergency response procedures in the event of an accident 

on the ground or immediately after liftoff of the Titan 

Centaur should also be discussed in detail. (VAFB has 

experienced an- explosion of its Titan series rocket on at 

least one occasion in the recent past.) 

The EIS should propose appropriate mitigation measures for items 

(A) and (B), where necessary to protect the health and welfare 

of the residents of Santa Barbara County and adjoining areas. 

Additional safety-related concerns to be addressed in the EIS 

include: 

o The proposed route to VAFB for transporting fuels for the 

Titan Centaur, and safety procedures associated with this 

transport; and 

o Safety procedures to protect personnel aboard offshore 

platforms in the Titan Centaur's flight path, as well as 

contingency plans should an accident occur in flight. 

5. Cumulative Impacts. 

The EIS should address the cumulative air quality impact of 

launches from SLC-7 in combination with launches from other 

existing launch facilities at VAFB. The expected number of 

launches per year at VAFB should be characterized in terms of 

both the launch location and type of space launch vehicle. 

6. Offsite Impacts. 

Potential impacts associated with the project that may occur 

outside VAFB's borders (e.g., transportation of the fuel for the 

Titan Centaur) should be discussed with respect to location and • 

magnitude of impact. 
NRO i\_FifROVED FOR RELEASE 

17JUnapfor the Project. 

The need for a new space launch complex at VAFB at this time 

should be discussed in light of a potential Congressional 

decision to put existing space launch facilities at VAFB in 

"caretaker" status. 

The District appreciates this opportunity to comment on the scope of 

the EIS. We would like to continue to be involved at regular and 

frequent intervals during preparation of the EIS. We can offer the 

Air Force significant personnel expertise on air quality issues 

specific to this project which would improve the quality of the 

environmental analysis. To this end, we would like to develop a 

funding mechanism with VAFB to ensure our continued participation. 

Sincerely, 

c[dio -ztetsTo\-kfQc. 

Deborah S. Pontifex 

Interagency Liaison 

• 

JMR/kj 

4429C 

cc: Jeffrey Harris, RMD 

Susan Strachan, County Office of Disaster Preparedness 

VAFB'SLC-7 File 

Responsible Agency Review File 

MSED Chron File 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-73 

• 

RESPONSE TO LE11ER 9 

Received From: County of Santa Barbara, Air Pollution Control District, 

Deborah S. Pontifex, Responsible Agency Review 

Comment No. 84: Environmental Impact Statement Format 

The format of the Draft EIS was developed to be consistent with the CEQ Regulations, Section 

1502.10, Recommended Format. The recommended format and corresponding chapters in the 

Draft EIS are as follows: 

CEO Format Draft EIS Section 

• Cover Sheet Cover Sheet 

• Summary Summary 

• Table of Contents Table of Contents 

• Alternatives Including the Proposed Action The Proposed Action and Alternatives 

(Chapter 2.0) 

• Affected Environment Affected Environment (Chapter 3.0) 

• Environmental Consequences Environmental Consequences and 

Mitigation Measures (Chapter 4.0) 

• List of Preparers List of Preparers (Chapter 5.0) 

• List of Agencies, Organizations, and List of Recipients of Draft EIS 

Persons to Whom Copies of the Statement (Chapter 7.0) 

Are Sent 

Comment No. 85: Significance of Impacts 

The Draft EIS is more than a full disclosure document; it is designed to be used by Federal 

officials in conjunction with other material to plan actions and make decisions (40 CFR Part 

1502.1). Per requirements of the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500.1, 1500.2, 1500.4, 

1501.7, 1502.1, and 1508.26), the Draft EIS builds on the identification of significant issues 

through the scoping process, analyzes those and other issues, and discusses them in proportion 

to their significance. The Draft EIS is analytic rather than encyclopedic and emphasizes issues 

that are useful to decision makers and the public. Additional technical information is available 

from the supporting documents, such as the Risk Assessment, which are referenced 

throughout the Draft EIS. 

• Conclusions about the significance of an impact are based on the context and intensity of the 

impact (40 CFR Part 1508.26). Among other things, conclusions take into consideration the 

unique characteristics of the area (such as threatened or endangered species of plants and 
NROA7PrROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• animals), controversy (such as concerns regarding water resources), uncertainty or risks (such 

as impacts to human health and safety), cumulative impacts, and others, consistent with CEQ 

Regulations, Part 1508.26. Where previous analyses in other reports have covered the same 

issues, these analyses have been referenced and briefly summarized. The criteria by which the 

significance of impacts to each resource are evaluated are discussed in Chapter 4.0 of the Draft 

EIS. 

Comment No. 86: Air Quality Modeling 

• 

USAF recognizes SBCAPCD's desire to review detailed air quality modeling results for 

each of the alternative sites. However, the evaluations of air contaminant emission sources 

discussed in the Draft EIS have been performed as consistent with NEPA and the CEQ 

guidelines to determine if there is the potential for significant environmental impacts to result 

from construction and operation of the proposed action. Proposed sources of air contaminant 

emissions (hydrogen flares, hypergolic vapor control systems, and emergency electrical power 

generator) are minor, have been permitted by SBCAPCD at other VAFB SLCs, and have been 

demonstrated by SBCAPCD-approved source testing to operate within specifications dictated 

by SBCAPCD. 

In addition, impacts would be minimized since SBCAPCD regulations require that best 

available control technology (BACT) be applied to all proposed sources of air contaminant 

emissions. Furthermore, no permits to construct or operate the facility will be issued by 

SBCAPCD unless all emission increases due to construction and operation can be 

demonstrated to be offset, resulting in a net benefit to air quality. 

Detailed air quality modeling of the type requested is required to be performed as part of an Air 

Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) in support of an Authority to Construct (ATC) permit 

application submitted to SBCAPCD. Permits to construct or operate will not be issued unless 

results of the AQIA demonstrate that air contaminant emissions resulting from construction and 

operation will not contribute to the violation of any ambient air quality standards in the region. 

With respect to comparison of the proposed alternatives on the basis of potential air quality 

impacts, the four alternatives considered are situated in the same general vicinity (separated by 

approximately one mile). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that potential impacts to 

regional air quality will be similar, regardless of the alternative selected. The alternative sites 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-75 

are all within 2,000 feet of terrain features that are in excess of the tallest stack heights currently 

anticipated for construction at the proposed facility. Therefore, localized air quality impacts 

would be similar for each of the proposed alternatives. 

In summary, NEPA guidelines require that the level of analysis be consistent with the 

magnitude of the environmental impacts anticipated. The sources of air contaminant emissions 

associated with the proposed action are minor and would be constructed and operated in full 

compliance with SBCAPCD requirements. The detailed air quality modeling requested 

by SBCAPCD will be performed in support of project permit applications. No significant 

differences in potential local or regional air quality impacts are expected relative to the proposed 

siting alternatives. 

Comment No. 87: Cumulative Impact Summary Table 

• 

Section 2.4 of the Draft EIS is intended to provide decision makers and the public with a 

concise summary of the cumulative impacts that would result if the project were implemented 

at each of the alternative sites. The table is structured by resource, consistent with the format 

of the Draft EIS, so that sections of the document may be easily referred to for additional detail 

regarding impacts. In addition, the table is designed to compare cumulative impacts to each 

resource across the alternatives. 

The impact classification system suggested is not a requirement of NEPA or the CEQ 

Regulations, and need not be included in the Draft EIS. However, the information requested 

is contained in the document in both the Summary and Chapter 4.0 (Environmental 

Consequences and Mitigation Measures). 

Comment No. 88: Deadlines for Attainment of California Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Text for the air quality portions of the Draft EIS were prepared prior to passage of the 

California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The CCAA mandates that nonattainment areas reduce 

nonattainment pollutants or their precursors by five percent per year until attainment is 

achieved. The amended text that discusses the CCAA is contained in Section 3.0 of the 

Final EIS (pages 3-2 and 3-3). • 
NROlk".FPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUME22015 • 

• 

Comment No. 89: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Rule 310 

SBCAPCD Rule 310, which prohibits emissions of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) that result in a 

three-minute average ambient concentration greater than 0.6 ppm, is more restrictive than the 

California Ambient Air Quality Standard for H2S (0.3 ppm, one-hour average concentration). 

Page 1-14 of the Draft EIS has been amended as suggested and is included in Chapter 3.0 of 

the Final EIS (page 3-2). 

Comment No. 90: Footnotes for Table 1.5.1 

The footnotes to amend Table 1.5.1 are included in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-3). 

Comment No. 91: Historical Attainment Status of Northern Santa Barbara County 

The discussion on page 1-16 of the Draft EIS was prepared in mid-1988 on the basis of 

information supplied by SBCAPCD. The conclusions derived in Draft EIS Section 1.5.4.1 

regarding the attainment status of North Santa Barbara County with respect to ozone, PM to, 

and their precursors are in full agreement with SBCAPCD's description of present attainment 

status. All air quality evaluations performed in support of the Draft EIS assumed that ozone, 

PM10, and their precursors are nonattainment pollutants. 

Comment No. 92: Federal Attainment Status for Northern Santa Barbara County 

See response to Comment No. 91. 

Comment No. 93: PK() Attainment Status for Northern Santa Barbara County 

See response to Comment No. 91. 

Comment No. 94: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Enforcement of 

California Ambient Air Quality Standards 

See response to Comment No. 88. Amended text for Draft EIS page 1-14 that discusses the 

CCAA is included in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (pages 3-2 and 3-3). • 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-77 

• Comment No. 95: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Implementation of 

New Emission Control Rules 

The potential corrective measures listed in Section 1.5.4.2 of the Draft EIS were presented 

as USAF's best interpretation of steps which SBCAPCD may take to improve air quality. Per 

SBCAPCD regulations, a more encompassing description of potential corrective measures 

would include: 

• Retrofit existing sources with new controls. 

• Tighten the New Source Review (NSR) rule: 

- Make smaller sources subject to it. 

- Require more stringent control beyond BACT. 

Implement technology-forcing, rules. 

Comment No. 96: New Source Review Applicability 

Amended text for Draft EIS page 1-17 that discusses new source review requirements is 

included in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-4). 

Comment No. 97: Issuance of Permit to Operate 

Amended text for Draft EIS page 1-17 that discusses the issuance of a permit to operate is 

included in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-4). 

Comment No. 98: Data Input to Air Quality Models 

Amended text for Draft EIS page 1-17 that discusses input to air quality models is included in 

Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-4). 

Comment No. 99: Description of Preconstruction Monitoring_Data 

Amended text for Draft EIS page 1-19 responding to SBCAPCD's interpretation of a disparity 

between the terms "descriptive" and "representative" is included in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS 

• 
NR0184TROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNEN15 

• 

(page 3-3). SBCAPCD has indicated that data collected at either the Point Arguello or Jalama 

Beach station are representative. A letter dated January 27, 1989, from SBCAPCD to VAFB 

regarding this subject states: 

The District has determined that meteorological data collected at either the Point 

Arguello or the Jalama Beach monitoring station locations can provide data 

representative of the reasonable worst-case meteorological conditions at the 

proposed project site for use in the Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) 

(SBCAPCD 1989). 

USAF has previously acknowledged that it will accept responsibility for ensuring that data 

required for use in the AQIA satisfy SBCAPCD's standards for acceptance and data recovery. 

Comment No. 100: Emissions Offset and Banking Agreement 

It is USAFs understanding that emissions offset credits enumerated in VAl-B's 1984 

"Emissions Offset and Banking Agreement" are valid and fully available for use to offset 

emissions from the proposed action and other VAFB activities. The Banking Agreement was 

signed and executed as a binding legal agreement between SBCAPCD and VAFB and was 

adopted by SBCAPCD's Board of Directors on November 5, 1984. The agreement predates 

SBCAPCD's 1988 deletion of the banking provision in their regulations. Discussions 

regarding emissions offset credits necessary for the proposed action would be conducted prior 

to submittal of an ATC application to SBCAPCD. 

Comment No. 101: Preconstruction Monitoring for Alternative Sites 

As noted in the response to Comment No. 86, the alternative project sites are in the same 

vicinity and have common critical terrain features. If one of the alternatives is selected for 

project construction, USAF agrees that modeling analyses would be required to determine 

whether the existing data sets for Point Arguello and Jalama Beach are representative of each of 

the alternative sites. The USAF believes that these analyses would demonstrate that data exists 

that is representative of reasonable worst-case meteorological conditions at each of the 

alternative sites. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-79 

• Comment No. 102: Safety Zones for Figure 2.1.2 (Proposed Cypress Ridge Site 

and Alternatives) 

This figure has been revised to delete the safety clear zone. The revised figure is provided in 

Section 3.3 of the Final EIS. 

Comment No. 103: Previous Air Quality Studies 

Table 4.5.2 of the Draft EIS demonstrates that, at most, project operational emissions 

are expected to be one percent of current annual VAFB emissions. Information cited in "Final 

Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Commercial Expendable Launch Vehicle 

Programs" (US DOT 1988) indicates that VAFB contributes one to two percent of recorded 

regional emissions. 

Comment No. 104: Calculation of Construction Emissions 

The discussion of fugitive dust emissions from construction activities in Section 2.3.5 and 

4.5.2.1 of the Draft EIS is in error. Modifications to Draft EIS pages 2-62, 4-60, and 4-67 

appear in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (pages 3-9 and 3-17). In addition, a revised Table 4.5.3 

is provided in Section 3.2 of the Final EIS. Estimates of construction emissions at the SLC-6, 

Boathouse Flats, and Vina Terrace sites are also provided in Section 3.2 of the Final EIS. 

The revised estimated fugitive dust emissions from construction activities were calculated on 

the basis of the EPA emission factor for heavy duty construction operations, 1.2 tons of 

particulate matter per acre per month of activity. It was assumed that, during a worst-case 

construction year, 34 acres would be disturbed, and approximately 50 percent of the total 

particulate emissions would be controlled by watering. Furthermore, it was assumed that 

50 percent of the total suspended particulate matter is less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). 

Comment No. 105: Information on Operational Control Procedures 

• 

As cited on Draft EIS page 2-20, safety systems and procedures are defined in a number of 

documents. The following specifically address meteorological restrictions on launches: 

USAF. 1985. Western Space and Missile Center (Air Force Systems Command) 

Regulation 127-1, Range Safety Requirements, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. 

May. 
NRCIAPPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

USAF. 1976. 1st Strategic Aerospace Division (Strategic Air Command) Regulation 

127-200, Missile Mishap Prevention, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. October. 

Comment No. 106: 1981 Study 

As shown on Draft EIS page 3-129, the 1981 study cited is: 

Madrone Associates. 1981. Environmental assessment for a new hypergolic propellant 

storage facility, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. June. 

The requested reference for the 1981 study has been added to Draft EIS page 2-69. The 

amended text is shown in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-9). 

Comment No. 107: Toxic Hazard Corridor Explanation 

The requested reference to the location of the discussion of the TI-IC procedure has been added 

to Draft EIS page 2-69. The amended text is shown in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS 

(patae 3-9). 

Comment No. 108: Comparison of Air Ouality Impacts at Proposed and Alternative Sites 

See response to Comment No. 86. 

Comment No. 109: Necessity for Site-Specific Air Quality Impact Analysis 

See response to Comment No. 86. 

Comment No. 110: Relationship Between Operational NacciRan Compounds 

(ROC) Emissions and Ozone Standard Exceedances 

The SBCAPCD new source review guidelines require that operational NOxand ROC 

emissions must be offset at a ratio of 1.2 to 1, such that a net benefit to air quality results. 

Therefore, it is not anticipated that operational NQ and ROC emissions from the proposed 

project would contribute to existing ozone standard exceedances. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-81 • Comment No. 111: Cumulative Impacts Summary Table 

See response to Comment No. 87. 

Comment No. 112: Mitigation Measures Summary Table 

See response to Comment No. 87. 

Comment No. 113: Climatic Description 

The USAF agrees that there is a substantial climatic difference between the coastal areas of 

south and north Santa Barbara County. However, this is not pertinent to the evaluation of 

potential air contaminant impacts from the proposed action. 

Comment No. 114: High Ozone Value Occurrences 

• The reference mentioned in this comment was incorrectly cited in the Draft EIS. The correct 

document is Draft EIR/EIS, Proposed ARCO Coal Oil Point Project (Chambers Group, Inc. 

1986). Revisions to page 3-67 and Chapter 8.0 of the Draft EIS are included in Chapter 3.0 of 

the Final EIS (pages 3-14 and 3-22). 

Comment No. 115: Area Pollutant Sources 

Amended text for Draft EIS page 3-71 that discusses sources of air pollutants is included in 

Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-14). 

Comment No. 116: Attainment of State Air Quality Standards 

Amended text for Draft EIS page 3-71 that discusses attainment of state air quality standards is 

included in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-14). 

Comment No. 117: Northern and Southern Santa Barbara County Attainment Status 

• As stated in the last paragraph on page 3-71 of the Draft EIS, southern Santa Barbara County is 

in nonattainment for ozone, and exceedances of the national ambient air quality standards for 

ozone have been recently recorded in northern Santa Barbara County. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUR022015 

• Comment No. 118: Northern Santa Barbara County Exceedance of National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard for Ozone 

As stated in the last paragraph on page 3-71 of the Draft EIS, exceedances of the national 

ambient air quality standards for ozone have been recently recorded in northern Santa Barbara 

County. 

Comment No. 119: Consideration of State Nonattainment Designations 

See response to Comment 116. 

Comment No. 120: Data Used in Table 3.5.1 (Measured Air Quality Data Summary) 

• 

The purpose of the information presented in Draft EIS Table 3.5.1 and the related discussion is 

to illustrate that north Santa Barbara County is not in attainment of the California Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone and PM10 and the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. As a result, air quality analyses presented in the Draft EIS were 

performed on the basis that ozone, PM10, and their precursors are nonattainment pollutants. 

Inclusion of additional air quality monitoring data into Table 3.5.1 would not alter the 

assumptions upon which air quality analyses were performed. 

Comment No. 121: Wind Speeds 

Amended text for Draft EIS page 3-76 that discusses changes in wind speeds is included in 

Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-14). 

Comment No. 122: Explanation of Emergency Response Agency Notification and Coordination 

As described in Draft EIS Section 3.11.1, Regional Environment (pages 3-125, 3-126), the 

emergency response protocol is set out in the Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Area 

Plan (see response to Comment No. 159). The plan is briefly summarized on Draft EIS page 

3-126 and includes participating agencies and the responsibility of the Santa Barbara County 

Hazardous Materials Coordinator to coordinate emergency response activities. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-83 • Comment No. 123: Definition of Toxic Hazard Corridors 

The limits applied to protect the public should an emergency situation occur are short-term 

public emergency guidance levels (SPEGL), established by the National Research Council in 

1989. The SPEGLs, in parts per million, are as follows: 

Duration Hydrazine UDMH NO?(a) 

30 min NL NL 2 

1 hour 2 24 1 

2 hours 1 48 0.5 

24 hours 0.08 1 NL 

NL = No Limit. 

(a)N204 limits are the same as for NO2 since there is rapid dissociation from N204 to NO2. 

Comment No. 124: Hvpergolic Transportation Safety 

Draft EIS Section 3.11.2, Local Environment, is part of the description of the existing 

environment. As such, it is appropriate to include a discussion of existing transportation of 

hypergolic materials (i.e., shipments for operations at SLC-4 East and West), but inappropriate 

to include the potential shipments that would result from the proposed action. Information 

about projected hypergolic propellant shipment requirements to support proposed project 

activities is included in Draft EIS Section 4.11.1, Regional Impacts. 

Comment No. 125: Range Safety Procedures 

The flow of emergency information between USAF and other government agencies is 

defined in the Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Area Plan (see response to 

Comment No. 122) and in a mutual aid agreement between USAF and the City of Lompoc 

(Draft EIS Section 3.11.1, Regional Environment). 

Comment No. 126: Nitrogen Dioxide Impact Value 

See response to Comment No. 86. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUR1 42015 • 

• 

Comment No. 127: Significance of Impacts 

See response to Comment No. 86. 

Comment No. 128: Draft EIS Adequacy in AddressingSanta Barbara County Air Pollution 

Control District Scoping Comment 1.0 (Emission Impacts Should Be 

Modeled) 

See response to Comment No. 86. 

Comment No. 129: Draft EIS Adequacy in Addressing Santa Barbara County Air Pollution 

Control District Scoping Comment 2 (Emission Offsets Should Be Clearly 

Identified) 

See response to Comment No. 100. 

Comment No. 130: Draft EIS Adequacy in Addressing Santa Barbara County Air Pollution 

Control District Scoping Comment 3 (An Air Ouality Analysis for the 

Proposed Project Should Be Done) 

See response to Comment No. 86. 

• 

Comment No. 131: Draft EIS Adequacy in Addressing Santa Barbara County Air Pollution 

Control District Scoping Comment 5 (cumulative Impacts Should Address 

Expected Number of Launches per Year at VAFB, Characterizing Both the 

Launch Location and Type of Space Launch Vehiclel 

As noted in Draft EIS Section 4.5.1, Regional Impacts, it is expected that launches from other 

SLCs would produce emissions that are intermittent, of short duration, and would not produce 

regionally significant impacts to air quality. 

Since other launch activities are not regionally significant air contaminant emitters, it was 

determined in consultation with SBCAPCD and as indicated in an October 4, 1988 letter, that 

only major regional emitters (the Space Transportation System Power Plant and three offshore 

oil platforms) would be considered in the cumulative analysis undertaken for the project 

preconstruction monitoring modeling. The Draft EIS uses this logic in its analysis of 

cumulative impacts (Section 4.5.3, Cumulative Impacts). Emissions from other sources (such 

as other VAFB launches) would be included as baseline air quality conditions for the analysis 

of potential violations of the CAAQS. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-85 • 

• 

Comment No. 132: Draft EIS Adequacy in Addressing Santa Barbara County Air Pollution 

Control District Scoping Comment 6 (Offsite Impacts, Such as Those From 

Transporting Fuel for the Titan Centaur to VAFB, Should Be Addressed) 

Draft EIS Section 4.0, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, addresses 

impacts to areas outside of VAFB, including the location and potential magnitude of impact. 

Some of these are: 

• Section 4.2, Water Resources, discusses regional impacts to water 

resources (the Lompoc Plain and Lompoc Upland ground water basins) that 

are clearly outside of VAFB. 

• Section 4.4, Wildlife, discusses potential impacts to wildlife in a region that 

includes areas outside of VAI-B, such as the Channel Islands. 

• Section 4.5, Air Quality and Meteorology, analyzes impacts to air quality on 

a county-wide basis and impacts to stratospheric ozone on a world-wide 

basis. 

• Section 4.7, Noise, analyzes impacts to areas outside of VAFB, such as 

Lompoc and Santa Maria. 

• Section 4.10, Transportation, discusses impacts to highways in the region 

and the City of Lompoc. 

• Section 4.11, Health and Safety, discusses off base hypemolic propellant 

transportation, in a probabilistic fashion. 

• Section 4.12, Socioeconomics, discusses impacts to local communities. 

Comment No. 133: Draft EIS Adequacy in Addressing Santa Barbara County Air Pollution 

Control District Scoping Comment 7 (The Need for SLC-7 in Light of 

Potential Congressional Action to Put VAFB's Existing Launch Facilities in 

"Caretaker" Status Should Be Discussed) 

The need for the proposed action is discussed in Draft EIS Section 1.3, Purpose and Need for 

the Proposed Action. In addition, SLC-6 (the only launch facility currently in mothball status) 

is analyzed throughout the Draft EIS as an alternative and has been identified by USAF as a 

preferred alternative. SLCs 3, 4, and 5 were also considered as alternatives and eliminated 

from further consideration for various reasons, including Titan IV/Centaur incompatibility with 

scheduled missions, vehicle sizes, and configurations of these launch complexes. 

• 
NRapTAPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUN2015 

• The Final EIS identifies the conversion of SLC-6 as a preferred alternative, as indicated in the 

Summary. The decision to identify the conversion of SLC-6 as a preferred alternative is the 

result of the analysis of environmental impacts contained in the Draft EIS, comments on the 

Draft EIS from government agencies, private groups, and individuals, and recent 

Congressional action. 

• 
OVED FOR RELEASE LETTER 10 2-87 

Santa Barbara County Park Department 

610 Mission Canyon Rd.. (Santa Barbara. Ca. 93105 (805) 568-2461 

"At Rocky Nook Park" 

MICHAEL H. PAHOS 

Director of Parks 

FRANK LAURAN 

Deputy 

Director of Parks 

September 6, 1989 

• 

HQ Space Systems Division 

P.O. Box 92960 

Worldway Postal Center 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 

Attn: Mr. John Edwards 

Re: Draft EIS for the Construction and Operation of the Space Launch 

Complex 7 at Vandenburg Air Force Base, California 

Dear Mr. Edwards, 

The Santa Barbara County Park Department has the following comments 

to the above referenced document: 

Page 2-9: 

The document lists several sizes and weights of expended and 

jettisoned material that falls into the ocean and not recovered. The 

document does not address the potential "scatter pattern" of the 

debris, the possibility of greater danger to the public and 

surrounding vicinity or the length of evacuation necessary during 

this type of emergency. 

Page 2-23: 

Facility Construction - The document does not address the impacts 

from air quality, traffic, wildlife disturbance, recreation use, 

noise and construction disturbance due to the proposed borrow pit 

along Highway 246. 

Page 2-71: 

Land Use - The document states that there would be a maximum of three 

launches per year from SLC-7 and six per year from other space launch 

complexes beginning in 1994. Does this mean that there will be nine 

(9) additional launches in 1994? Nine new launches in addition to 

those presently occurring every year is not an insignificant impact 

[134] 

[135] 

[136] 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-88 

to the parks and recreational systems within the area and she 

addressed within the document. 

The document does not address any vibration or sonic boom 

overpressure to existing aquifer(s), underground waterlines o l 

ground storage tanks within close proximity of the project (w 

miles). The long term contamination and draft on the existin• 1 

aquifer and the effects on other common users must be addressi 

Page 2-71: 

Recreation - The document does not address the impact to the El 

during delayed launches. Park personnel have reported delays 

to 7 days where, during this period, the park remained evacuate 

There has been no willingness, on the part of VAFB in the past 

consider the public need for recreation in the scheduling of 

launches. From a park operational standpoint, the document do( 

address the impacts of any launch schedule occurring during peil 

season use or the impact to public recreation during this peak 

due to the dependency of public use. 

The criteria for developing launch schedules or launch windows 

include the impacts to public recreational use. There is a lac 

sensitivity to the recreation needs that the Santa Barbara Coun 

Park Department serves. The launch program needs to incorporate 

demand of dependable public recreational use. 

It is absurd to list 'no mitigation measures' to the impacts on 

recreational use . Those impacts listed in this correspondence 

to be evaluated and addressed. The Santa Barbara County Park 

Department cannot justly represent itself and give adequate 

recreation availability to the public recreation users with a pr 

and its mitigations or lack thereof as this document exists. 

Your cooperation and attention to the concerns and comments of t 

Park Department is appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

Michael . Pahos 

Park Dir ctor 

cc: Weldon Hobbs, Park Superintendent 

Resource Management Department 

[137] 

• 

[138] 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-89 

RESPONSE TO LE It ER 10 

Received From: Santa Barbara County Park Department 

Michael H. Pahos, Park Director 

Comment No. 134: Debris Scatter 

The weights referred to in Draft EIS Section 2.1.3.1 and Figure 2.1.6 are for the maximum 

size satellite, threat capability, and fuel. Although the overall lengths of both the Titan 

IV/Centaur and Titan IV/NUS are given, as is the size of the payload faring, neither sizes nor 

weights were provided for the individual expended SRIvIUs and stages. 

For further information regarding potential debris scatter and risks to the public, see responses 

to Comment Nos. 200 and 201. Delayed launches are discussed in the response to Comment 

No. 137. 

• Comment No. 135: Impacts Due to Proposed Borrow Pit Along Highway 246 

The potential borrow pits adjacent to the Santa Ynez River are no longer being considered as 

areas that would be utilized as a source of construction material for the proposed action. A 

revised Draft EIS Figure 2.1.11 is provided in Section 3.3 of the Final EIS. 

• 

Comment No. 136: Increases in Number of Launches and Effects of Sonic Boom/Vibration 

on Aquifer(s), Underground Water Lines, and Aboveground Storage 

Tanks 

The annual launch rates from 1986 projected through 1995 are represented in Draft EIS Table 

4.13.1. As shown, six launches per year are projected for the years 1990 through 1994. In 

1995 the proposed action would add three launches per year for a total of nine stated on Draft 

EIS page 2-71. 

The sonic boom focal range is shown in Draft EIS Figure 4.4.1 and discussed in Section 

4.4.1.1. The area of greatest potential effect would be San Miguel Island, where there are no 

aboveground storage tanks. Aquifers and underground water lines would not be affected by 

sonic boom overpressures, even if they were present. 
LETTER 11 APPROVED FnP—PELEASE 2 91 

5 County of Santa Barbara 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTME\ T 

John Patton, Director 

September 7, 1989 

Mr. John Edwards 

HQ Space Systems Division 

PO Box 92960 

Worldways Postal Center 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 

RE: Comments on the SLC 7 EIS 

Dear Mr. Edwards: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the SLC 7 EIR. Our detailed comments 

are attached and include three major concerns that I would like to emphasize 

here. 

III/1 

.301 I First, the alternative of upgrading the SLC 6 site to accommodate this project 

'Ils clearly far superior environmentally to the other alternatives. The SLC 6 

alternative would entirely avoid earthmoving activities and loss of native 

vegetation, reducing the risk of erosion, air quality impacts, and biological 

impacts. The SLC 6 alternative would also avoid significant visual impacts 

and would have smaller growth inducing effects. Minimization of water use and 

attendant impacts on the Lompoc Terrace groundwater basin would also result 

from the SLC 6 alternative. For all of these reasons, this debarment feels 

that the SLC 6 alternative should be chosen to implement the Titan IV/Centaur 

launch program. 

Second, the growth inducing impacts of the SLC 7 project clearly have 

potentially significant environmental implications for Santa Barbara County. 

Increased demand for housing and public services would exacerbate existing 

regional and local groundwater overdraft, air quality problems, and traffic 

constraints. The increased demand for government services such as police and 

fire protection would pose a substantial burden on local governments which are 

already fiscally constrained. Furthermore, the increased need for housing 

would increase pressure to convert the County's prime agricultural land or 

significant biological communities to urban use. The significance of these 

issues should be strongly stated in the Final EIS. 

Thirdly, to decrease the extent to which the project would reduce 

stratospheric ozone, the use of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) 22 as refrigerant 

instead of CFC 12 is strongly recamended. The potential for the project to 

result in a 0.01 percent depletion of stratospheric ozone and as many as an 

additional 25,000 carcinomas and 1,000 new melanomas worldwide must be 

acknowledged to be a highly significant impact. 

123 E. Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 

PHONE (805) 568-2000 FAX (805) 568-2030 

[140] 
NRO,ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUI\tr015 

111/1 Mr. John Edwards; SLC 7 EIS 

September 7, 1989 

Page 2 

This department appreciates having had an opportunity to comment on this EIS. 

Please feel free to contact Alice McCurdy at (805) 568-2006 if you have 

questions about our concerns. 

Sincerely, 

Jeffrey T. Harris, Deputy Director 

Division of Environmental Review & Compliance 

JTH:AKM:jms:6674A 

Attachment 

cc: John Patton, RMD 

Doug Anthony, RMD 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-93 

1 JUNE 2015 

• Santa Barbara County Comments on SLC 7 EIS 

p. S-4 The comment stating that the northern Channel Islands have "a poorly 

developed animal population" should be re-worded to acknowledge the 

extreme biological significance of these islands, especially for 

marine mammals and birds. 

p. S-9 The generation of 119 tons of hazardous waste/year must be 

acknowledged as a cumulatively significant contribution to the 

state's hazardous waste load. It is unacceptable not to propose 

mitigation for waste management. 

What is the basis for the finding of no significant impact regarding 

the effects of fuel transport and use on human health and safety? 

The County would consider safety impacts significant if the 

potential for a fatal accident exceeds one chance in a million per 

year. 

S-10 As explained in comments that follow, this department does not 

[1451p concur with the EIS' conclusion that most environmental impacts 

would not be considered sicnificant after implementation of 

[14611 

mitigation measures. This finding is also inconsistent with the 

section dealing with significant unavoidable adverse effects (p. 

4-171: geo/soils, water use, veg., air quality, health and safety). 

71 p. 2-57 The estimate of the project's contribution to groundwater overdraft 

11111/4 should include the secondary water demand from induced growth. 

[142] 

[143] 

[144] 

[148)1P. 2-60 

[149)1 

[150] I 

[151]1P 2-63 

[152]I 

[153] 

p. 2-66 

The document should state whether any egg losses are expected for 

the California least tern. If so, any such losses should be 

considered significant. Please provide a reference for the comment 

that no mother-pup separation would be expected. It is incorrect to 

state that grey whales occur infrequently in the project area. To 

avoid impacting this sensitive mammal, launches should be timed to 

avoid the peak migration season through the channel. 

A 0.01% depletion of stratospheric ozone should be identified as a 

highly significant project impact. The cumulative impacts worldwide 

of ozone depletion must be generically addressed; this is not 

accomplished on p. 2-74. 

Implementing the project at the undeveloped sites would create a 

significant intrusion into expansive, higly scenic coastal views 

from the County's Jalama Park. 

p. 2-70 Given the total world population, what would be the expected number 

of lethal and non lethal cancers attributable to the project? 

i.e.; 2/10 mil x 5 bil. people = 1,000 new melanomas 

5/mil x 5 bil. people = 25,000 new carcinomas (worst case) 

[1541 

• -1- 
NRO WIROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

p. 2-70 It seems likely that growth impacts would be experienced in the 

Santa Ynez valley, especially the community of Buellton. The 

justification for stating that the project's growth effects would be 

largely beneficial is unclear. 

p. 2-71 The potential health and safety effects to the proposed Bixby 

[156] housing referred to here must be addressed, at least briefly. 

p. 2-79 Mitigation for vegetation loss should include compensation through 

offsite habitat restoration and preservation of offsite habitat in 

perpetuity. 

p. 3-58 The local form of Anniella pulchra is a regionally declining, 

sensitive species which has been classified as a "species of 

concern" by the California Department of Fish & Game. 

[159] p. 3-125 The status of the Hazardous Materials Response Plan should be 

updated. 

[160]1p. 3-129 The document should note that one accident would be expected every 

5+ years. 

[16111 p. 3-139 Please provide a reference to the comment that VAFB activities have 

a minor economic impact on the Santa Ynez Valley. 

p. 4-16 The increases in overdraft attributable to direct and indirect 

4062] project water uses (380 AFY construction, 305 AFY operation) are not 

"small" and should be acknowledged to be substantial. 

p. 4-24 The loss of 90 acres of central coastal scrub and Venturan coastal 

sage scrub would clearly be significant under County standards. It 

is meaningless to call the loss insignificant because it represents 

[163] a loss of less than 1 percent of that community; would the authors 

judge the loss of 1.0% of Amazonian rainforest to be an 

insignificant loss? 

00 4-32 Similarly, the cumulative loss of central coastal scrub habitat [164] should be identified as significant. 

p. 4-32 Mitigation for the loss of up to 100 mature and at lease as many 

seedlings of the candidate plant Monardella undulata var. frutescens 

should be insured by the project proponent, and not left up to the 

volunteer efforts of the botanical community. Also, mitigation for 

habitat loss should include compensation through offsite habitat 

restoration and preservation of comparable habitat offsite in 

perpetuity. 

[166] p. 4-39 The potential for any egg loss in the California least tern nesting 

colonies should be identified as a potentially significant and 

unavoidable impact. 

p. 4-39 The potential for permanent hearing loss in sea otters and pinnipeds 

must be identified as a potentially significant, unavoidable project 

effect. 

[157] 

[158] 

[165] 

-2- 
p. 4-40 

68] 

p. 4-48 

[169] 

[170] 

[171] 

p. 4-51 

p. 4-53 

[172T" 4-55 

p. 4-57 

et seq. 

[173] 

• 

p. 4-69 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-95 

Unless the SLC-7 launches are timed to avoid the 75 day breeding 

period on San Miguel Island, it appears that impacts to pinniped 

populations would be significant due to the potential for some 

mortality from pup abandonment, etc. 

Due to the rarity of the burrowing owl in Santa Barbara County, loss 

of habitat for this species from the Boathouse Flats alternative 

should be considered significant. 

The temporary loss of the Boathouse area as a roosting area for 

brown pelicans should be classified as significant but short-term 

due to the sensitivity of this species. 

Similarly, the Boathouse Flats alternative should be identified as 

causing a potentially significant disruption to pinnipeds' use of 

the shoreline immediately fronting the site. 

Mitigation should include prohibiting launches during the 75 day 

breeding period for pinnipeds on San Miguel Island. 

It is unclear what standards have been used to assess the 

significance of the projects' air quality impacts. Use of the 

County's thresholds of significance are recommended. The County's 

threshold for long term emissions is 2.5 lbs/hr. for non-attainment 

pollutants and 5.0 lbs/hr. for attainment pollutants. The County's 

short term threshold is the generation of 2.5 tons of pollutants per 

three month period. 

The County strongly supports the use of CFC 22 instead of CFC 12 to 

[174] reduce damage to stratospheric ozone. 

p. 4-75 The 0.01 percent reduction in stratospheric ozone and the resultant 

increase in the incidence of cancer must be identified as a 

significant impact on air quality and public health. The potential 

for increased cancers worldwide must be noted. Due to the global 

nature of the health-related impacts, it is unreasonable to limit 

the impact assessment to the statistic of 5 cancers per 100 million 

persons. 

[175] 

p. 4-90 The analysis of cumulative effects should include a discussion of 

the status and problems encountered at the Class I hazardous waste 

site at Casmalia. 

[176] 

p. 4-102 

et seq. The visual impacts of the Cypress Ridge, Boathouse Flats, and Vina 

Terrace alternatives should be identified as significant and 

unavoidable due to the project's intrusion into expansive, highly 

scenic coastal views from the south. 

[177] 

p. 4-110 This appears to be the first reference to the Manzanita Road borrow 

site. Any other environmental effects (erosion, loss of vegetation, 

impacts to wildlife, aesthetics, etc.) associated with use of this 

borrow site must be analyzed. 

08] 

-3- 
NRO ,9,PROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUN 2015 

III/ 791Ip. 4-127 The last sentence on this page is not meaningful. 

)p. 4-133, 

[180] -4 The document should state clearly that statistically, a hypergolic 

propellant accident would be expected every 2 years (1.56 accidents/ 

3 years = 1 accident/2 years). 

p. 4-134 The number here for the excess cancer rate for melanomas differs 

[181] from the estimate on p. 2-70; the numbers should be reconciled. 

p. 4-134 The risk assessment must be described here in enough detail to 

indicate the likelihood of hazards occurring and the severity of 

hazards when they do occur. Project effects should be identified as 

significant since the project has the potential to increase the 

incidence of cancer; other safety hazards posed by the project may 

also be significant. 

p. 4-140 

et seq. The County conducted a study of the regional impacts of growth and 

found that, for every new direct job, 1.182 indirect jobs are 

created (REGIS, 1980). This higher multiplier should be used to 

analyze population growth and impacts. Using the 1.182 figure, 473 

indirect jobs would result from project operations. 

p. 4-141 The housing impacts should be evaluated in terms of percent change 

184] in vacancy rates, rather than relative to the absolute number of 

vacant housing units. 

p. 4-142 Construction phase and long term effects on public services would 

appear to be significant for more issues than increased overdraft 

alone; the need for additional firefighters and police should be 

expected to have a significant impact on fiscally-constrained local 

governments. 

p. 4-153 The potential for the SLC-7 operations work force to increase 

pressures to rezone non-urban land in the Lompoc Valley must be 

identified as a significant environmental impact; the bulk of Lompoc 

Valley's non-urban land is either prime agricultural land or 

biologically significant native habitat (most notably Burton Mesa 

chaparral). 

p. 4-165 As described in the preceeding comments, we do not concur either 

that short term effects can be mitigated to a level of 

insignificance or that there are few significant long term effects. 

p. 4-166 Given the limited recharge potential of the Lompoc Terrace 

groundwater basin (250 AFY, p. 3-22), an overdraft of 45 AFY should 

be identified as environmentally significant. 

p. 4-166 

et seq. Again, the potential for project-induced growth must be considered 

potentially significant environmentally due to the likely pressure 

to convert prime farmland and/or biologically sensitive habitat to 

urban use. 

089] 

[182] 

[183] 

[185] 

[186] 

[187] 

1188] 

-4- 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-97 

11111 p. 4-171 The preceding comment regarding p. 4-165 also applies here. 

p. 4-172 The 0.01 percent depletion of stratospheric ozone must be identified 

[190] as highly significant due to the potential for large numbers of 

additional cases of cancer worldwide. 

p. 4-173 As stated in our previous comments, impacts to wildlife would appear 

[191] to include significant, unavoidable impacts. 

AKM:jms:6674A 

• 

• 

-5- 
NRO WROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

RESPONSE TO LEI 1ER 11 • 

• 

Received From: County of Santa Barbara, Resource Management Department 

Jeffrey T. Harris, Deputy Director 

Comment No. 139: Selection of SLC-6 Conversion 

The Draft EIS Summary concludes that there would be fewer environmental impacts associated 

with the conversion of SLC-6 than with development at the Cypress Ridge, Boathouse Flats, 

or Vina Terrace sites. NEPA does not require the selection of the environmentally preferred 

alternative, but rather consideration of environmental values in the decision-making process. 

However, SLC-6 has been identified by USAF as the alternative preferred for project 

implementation as indicated in the Summary of this document. The decision to identify the 

conversion of SLC-6 as the preferred alternative is a result of the analysis of environmental 

impacts contained in the Draft EIS, comments on the Draft EIS from federal, state, and local 

agencies, elected officials, the public (individuals and organizations), and recent Congressional 

action. The decision of whether or not to proceed with the project and the selection of its 

location will be documented in the Record of Decision (ROD), expected in 1990. 

Comment No. 140: Growth-Inducing Impacts 

Potential growth-inducing impacts associated with the proposed action are addressed in the 

Draft EIS under Water Resources (Section 4.2), Air Quality and Meteorology (Section 4.5), 

Waste Management (4.6), Transportation (Section 4.10), Socioeconomics (Section 4.12), 

Land Use Impacts and Relationship to Plans (Section 4.13), and Recreation (Section 4.14). 

The criteria for evaluation of the potential significance of impacts are described in each of those 

sections. Where these criteria are exceeded, the impact is denoted as significant (as with water 

resources). See responses to Comment Nos. 155, 184, and 185 for discussion of fiscal and 

land use issues. 

Comment No. 141: Significance of Stratospheric Ozone Depletion 

• 

The Draft EIS Section 4.5.4, Stratospheric Ozone, states that the air conditioning systems for 

the proposed action must utilize environmentally preferred chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as 

refrigerants, where feasible. In addition, it is noted that USAF is recommending the use of 

CFC-22 as a replacement for CFC-12 since it is environmentally preferable. Draft EIS 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-99 • Section 4.5.4.4, Environmental Consequences of Stratospheric Effects, notes that the risk 

level of additional melanomas is calculated to be 5 per 100 million persons, a level that is 

considerably below the commonly acceptable level of one excess cancer per one million 

persons used for environmental risk analyses. Therefore, the potential impact is not considered 

significant 

Comment No. 142: Description of Channel Islands Animal Population 

The northern Channel Islands are important sites for populations of marine mammals and 

birds, as discussed in Draft EIS Section 3.4.1.4, Channel Islands Wildlife. The summary is 

broadly written to indicate that the land mammal fauna of the northern Channel Islands is 

depauperate, with only 16 native and 19 introduced species recorded. The language contained 

in the Draft EIS is not meant to imply that the northern Channel Islands wildlife is not of 

ecological or scientific interest. 

Comment No. 143: Significance of Hazardous Waste Impacts • The expected 119 tons of hazardous waste that the proposed action would generate in one 

year is less than 0.02 percent of the hazardous waste disposed of in California in 1987. As 

such, it would contribute a very small share to hazardous waste disposal and is not considered 

cumulatively significant. This waste would be disposed of in a manner that is consistent with 

federal, state, and local laws and regulations. A discussion of mitigation measures is contained 

in response to Comment No. 33. 

Comment No. 144: Significance of Impacts to Human Health and Safety From Hypergolic Fuel 

Transport 

• 

The basis for the finding of no significant impact to human health and safety from fuel 

transport is contained in Draft EIS Section 4.11.1.2, Normal Operations. The expression of 

the hypergolic fuels transportation accident rate as a function of time and mileage is correct as 

shown in the Draft EIS. An additional method of presenting this information is in terms of the 

accident risk per year. At the hypergolic propellant shipment rate needed for the proposed 

action only, an accident may occur every 4.5 years. This is based on the historic accident rate 

of about 1.56 accidents per one million round-trip vehicle miles between the points of 

manufacture (Mississippi and Alabama) and VAFB and the fact that it would take more than 

seven years to travel one million round-trip vehicle miles. The current risks for VAFB 
0 4000 

EXTERNAL TANK 

TOW ROUTE 8000 FEET 

POINT 

PEDERNALES VANUENBERG 

( 

YNEZ MOUNT 

BOATHOUSE AREA 

SLC-5 SOUTH 

( 

2-5 

UNE 2015 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1-i%04.to,v 

-0 A/t3. 

0 cp,NY00--‹ 

—T1 

POINT 

ARGUELLO 

BASE., 

1 CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

SCALE 

FIGURE 2.1.2 

ALTERNATIVE SITES 

SOURCE: USAF 1986. SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

AIR FORCE 
2-6 

NR APPR VC 

1 JUNE 2015 

BOUNDARY 

\ _

■•• 

~s i ~ 

T•-•-• 

,Sc 

S SWAG 

EVAPORATION/ 

PERCOLATION 

- PONDS._ 

183, 

I. 

I/ 

0 500 1,000 FEET 

SCALE 

CONTOUR INTERVAL: 10 FEET 

FIGURE 2.1.3 

NOTE: ACTUAL PLACEMENT OF FACIUT1ES 

SUBJECT TO USAF CRITERIA AND 

FINAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS. CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT 

CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

TOPO. MAPPING DONE BY INTERNATIONAL MAPPING 

CORPORATION, LOS ANGELES. CALIF. 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
co 

12 

0 

17 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-15 

3 

COAST 

ROAD 

NOTE: UTILITY CORRIDORS ARE 

DRAWN RELATIVE TO 

THE SIDE OF COAST ROAD 

THEY FOLLOW AND ARE NOT 

NECESSARILY TO SCALE. 

JUNE 2(Ylb 

z 

W 

0 

POINT 

PEDERNALES 

7 POINT 

ARGUELLO 

LEGEND 

1. oss2PLANT 

STS POWER PLANT 

3. GN2 AND NATURAL GAS LINES 

4. ELECTRICAL POWER 

S. FIBER-OPTIC CABLE 

6_ EASEMENT FOR POTENTIAL RECYCLED 

INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER LINE 

7. EXISTING WATER STORAGE TANK 

8. POTENTIAL RECYCLE WATER TANK 

9. WATER DISTRIBUTION UNE 

10. BATCH PLANT 

11. TRUCK WASHDOWN 

12 SPACE SHUTTLE EXTERNAL TANK STORAGE 

AND CHECKOUT FACILITY 

13. WATER DISTRIBUTION UNE 

14. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND 

LAYDOWN AREAS 

15. REROUTED POWER LINE 

16. CONTRACTOR VILLAGE (FUTURE POV PARKING) 

17. LAYDOWN AREA (UT. MST) 

• 

8 

0 0 

FIGURE 2.1.7 

PRELIMINARY 

UTILITY CORRIDORS 

AND CONSTRUCTION AREAS 

PROPOSED ALIGNMENT 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

CYPRESS RIDGE 

SITE 

2000 4000 FEET 

SCALE 

SOURCE. USAF 19881. 
CYPRESS RIDGE 

SITE 

17 

2-16 

NRO APPROVED 

1 JUNE 2015 

REL§§■ E 

COAST 

ROAD 

NOTE: UTILITY CORRIDORS ARE 

DRAWN RELATIVE TO 

THE SIDE OF COAST ROAD 

THEY FOLLOW AND ARE NOT 

NECESSARILY TO SCALE. 

POINT 

PEDERNALES 

POINT 

ARGUELLO 

• LEGEND 

1. GN2 PLANT 

2. STS POWER PLANT 

GN2 AND NATURAL GAS LINES 

4. ELECTRICAL POWER 

5. FIBE A-OPTIC CABLE 

6. EASEMENT FOR POTENTIAL RECYCLED 

INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER LINE 

7. EXISTING WATER STORAGE TANK 

8. POTENTIAL RECYCLE WATER TANK 

9. WATER DISTRIBUTION LINE 

10. BATCH PLANT 

11. TRUCK WASHDOWN 

12 SPACE SHUTTLE EXTERNAL TANK STORAGE 

ANO CHECKOUT FACILITY 

13. WATER DISTRIBUTION LINE 

14. CONSTRUCTICN EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND 

LAYDOWN AREAS 

15. REROUTED POWER LINE 

16. CONTRACTOR VILLAGE (FUTURE POV PARKNG) 

17. LAYDOWN AREA (UT, MST) 

18. G142 ALTERNATIVE 

0 2000 4000 FEET 

SCALE 

SOURCE: USAF 19881. 

• 

0 0 

a 

8 

9 

FIGURE 2.1.8 

PRELIMINARY 

UTILITY CORRIDORS 

AND CONSTRUCTION AREAS 

ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT STATEMENT 
w 

CC 

CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

POINT 

ARGUELLO 

NRO APPR 

JUNE 201 

VEQ FOR 'ELEASE 2-19 

VANDENBERG 

VILLAGE 

• 

CO 

MISSION 

HILLS 

POINT 

PEDERNALES 

LOMPOC 

Ap "UV 

SLC-6 SITE 

VINA TERRACE SITE 

BOATHOUSE FLATS SITE 

FACILITY BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

BOOSTER VEHICLE RECEIPT AND PROCESSING -16401 

STS POWER PLANT 

WATER STORAGE 

SRMU RECEIPT, INSPECTION AND STORAGE - 1398 

PAYLOAD FAIRING RECEIPT AND PROCESSING - 15337 

SLC-6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - SLC-6 SITE 

LAUNCH CONTROL CENTER - #857 0 

HYPERGOLIC PROPELLANT STOCKPILE FACILITIES 

#975 ANO #977 

2 4 MILES 

SCALE 

FIGURE 2.1.9 

TITAN PROGRAM 

EXISTING VAFB FACILITIES 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
ROME n EORREJ EASE -PROJECT PHASE 

FACILITY DESIGN 

MENTAND 

z 

O 

P-7 

E-- 

z 

GROUND SUPPORT SYSTEMS 

C 

CC 

0 

U 

o 

a LI) 

L 

< 

CT 

ACTIVATION/OPERATIONS 

tN 

0 

2-24 

kr) 

".4 

cv 

FIGURE 2.1.10 

SLC-7EN VIRONMENTAL I MPACT STATEMENT 

4 

11111 111

1111 

S 

■•■••■•■ 

,.., 0 ..= o 0 0.- 0 ... 22 0 0 .1 .5 ' -.1 a. o "5 cjt.-B -. 

5 

-., ..... 0 0 

. '6 . 

...., :7. Li 

0. ' ) >'' c0

0 3 

..., 7.', r E- < 5. 74 — -0 _c 

P• 

c. o 

.= 6.4, :2 

. , 5 E 

..

,.. 

'5 > ti 5 ., 

0 _a = 

-. . C' . 2 C . " 'o .. 

.., ... . 

. :.., . --i. 0 0 0 —1 

-;<' 'ap.Ura _ a.) a.) >, ra 0 

T.1 g g f— 

c C c) — 0 C .c) 

0 

-2 5 L) 

,,,, 

2 ., 

el 

L) 

, 

z.;,.; :-.-.- 

C 0 a 

a ^3 0 (.3 

,.. 

>, n 

',", . er) g 

73' 

, z pq 

o

- > "r' .E E ,d '' 5 r; C 

0 — >, • 0 0 - u, a. '5 '5 j 

,.5 ..'' 

E`) 

.c 

-'' () P. M. Cr) 

'1,)'

E. wo 0 c) cr) V) Cr = -, 0.

C C CI = 

8 :- .2S = 

-2 . ,- 0 7, ,) 0 8 -6 

>-. .2, 8 LE v) 

N 

E

e..5 

..._ 47i' 

C 

C 

C 

.3 

C 

U 

-c C_ "C 

LU 

O 0

0 

U 
w 

cc 

0, 

LL 

CO 

BASE 

LANDFILL 

\ MISSION 

I HILLS 

CORRE-;.; TK_TxS 

TUTU, 

SLC-6 SITE 

CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

BOATHOUSE FLATS SITE 

ALTERNATE 

BORROW PIT 

SPOIL PIT 

FIGURE 2.1.11 

PROPOSED 

BORROW AND SPOIL 

LOCATIONS 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

IHNIF 7ni 2-25 r 
FIGURE 2.1.12 

ROVED FOR RELEASE 

O 

C 

0 

SOURCE: USAF 1988d. 

2-29 
ONISS300Eld IN3N0dIA100 

CD CD0 CD CD CD 0 CD CD 

CD Lo 0 If) CD CD LO 

.7" C'D CD C\1 

1 I I 1111 

S33A01d1A13 

TRANSFER AFT AND FWD PLFTO LAUNCH PAD 

CORE VEHICLE ASSEMBLY CHECK OUT 

ON-PAD PROCESSING 

-1 

0 

a) 

w W 

o > > 

LU LL' 

Cr 

ll1 0 

CC 

RECEIVE SRMUs RECEIVE PLF 

COMBINED SYSTEM TEST 

CE 

w Z 

> 

• < 

"±- <

• 

H Z 

• < w —J o w 

LU 

H 0 

< 

11. 

0 

0 

cr, 

D 

tr 

Cr) < 

Oz 

LU 0 

T n fi

LI1 U_ 

> 

Ui LLI 

It 0- 0-

0 

I-: 

z... 

LL: 

0 

Cf) 

0 

f- < 

• a. 

0 

y 

• Z 

LU D 

• < 

0 H O 

Z W I 

Z 

M 

IFft. .::.. 

CC 

L.LJ 

PREPARATION AND THERMAL COAT 

0 

■■••■••1 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FIGURE 2.1.13 

SourceUSAF 1 988d. 

• 

LU 

(/) 

LU 

LU 

LL. 

LU O

• 

u) 

w 

0 

z 

87-2711/FE IS /Fig 2. 16/14/90 

2-31 
2-30 
2-42 
CONSTRUCTION 

c.i c.) T.) 

a 

C.) a 

..0 'cil 1... O

C.

C.) 

c't3 C.) C 

0 

....

j 

0 

.7.: 

-.= 1... C TA c4 c 

c,.. C U z...) 

cz 

-,-.-. 8 

I-. 0 CS CI s— 

a 

U a" 

7-"a 8 

U 0 

O CI 

C 

a

i... 

0 

c- o 73 v: = 

t 

...1C U a.) 

m 

© vi _a a) 

U C.) c) U CCi >.

▪ 

P. 

cn 

‘, •E m 

a 2 v, cs o ..a., a.) <.... _ c.) 0 

a o a 

6 .-:: cn 

a a..) . 

O c. 

c 

v, ch 

---,, , E -7, O 0 D 

,.. = '5' z c-J c.) ;..., .- -6 

..... = 

..... 

C..) 

a Q 

LI.) 

,..... ...-. 

(..^. 

.--. W 

7.: ,..., At... 

DEMOLITION PROCUREMENT 

I l I i I I I I I I 

V) 

• 

GROUND SUPPORTSYSTEMS 

DEMOLITION 

CONSTRUCTION (2) 

• 

MST/LM/UT 

00 

2-46a 

87-2211//FEIS/Flg2.2.3a REV. 6/29/90 

>'; 

ACTIVATION/OPERATIONS 

Lu 

▪ LLI (.5 =no .-I 

CI 11J z 

• c 0 1— 

= 

17_ < 

o < Z 

(1)LU 0 

Z CC Z r_- 

rzwE.cz 

Z LLI 

z 

CC 0 °- 

- Cn r1 C1)(f) Er 

• u j a. 

O ta. 0 

cc 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
2-48 
2-49 

87-271-1 FEIS REV. 5/30/90 

,,m■.... 

() 

; . 

/•/,'; , - ( - `,‘ 

/. ' 1.,-: \ • 11 • 

. . ., 

, 

., 

,/ ( I 

101.45..07

-1Q

2S 

/- --:

-. 4 01"

... 

c ,.., ) --, . .. ).''.- ,„„i:„ .-k_(,, \ , 

7------ 

,. 

_ 10230 ./ ' '( ; - •-•*141 . \,:s.... ' '. ..‘9(4) I \ .--"--------

V- -7 ' -- ----

------„,....__ 

"---- 

• 

.• " - i 

)__..-r

'-'/ / 490 4' 

. \,;,. o' , "•••as " \.1 

'"-: ' '' C.) ,.„.._ INIIIk

\' 

t"--- .-----' " - - ■:- -'------- , . \ , 

 .,___ _ \ 

 _ 12 5.0 -------1--0- 00- 4,, , , , , 

, 

,f, -77:- 

r---- c ( _ ; _ ' 

. \,.' 

7--\ 

1 

(7t. 

l. 

.--,,,_. /-,, 

H i \ 

AL 1 II ) . 

320 

./ i i 

1/ / 1°7 

k) --.--. / .. 

,/ / 

cyr . \' ' 

---- - • 

. „.7,......_650 7 . ,/. ,..- 1 ,.., 

,i•• ' - 1 ---------- ., 

. ,1 r,`::111 , / 

F2'iNFI ING 

N. US C GS 

A 

VINA 

\ AREA ___J 1r51 1 

do

I\ — 

\ ■ ; „ ..._-)j 

e°' 

.., , 

.-- ----..... 

'NI 

r.,__ SITE BOUNDARY. \\ -.._.• 

530 --- - 

7

•

/ ( . . , 7— i . .. . 

2, .,-- 

1 

( 

4, \ 

_., 

... . 

. .." 

.. , . . , ,--- --_,____,. ,i, 

• ..:,, , (:. s . ,, .,/, ...,, , ,. . . . 

,, __ 

, ,BOO 

7. 7' ' ' . ,.. • . / , / 1 : ;:-/ 1 

, . L\UNC

H -L)MPLEX . \ . . 

• 

/ , ' / ,1; / 

7-:, . 4. :./ " ,. . . ■ ' /' 

..' .". / / : /2'7 \-- • /7 ,. 1 

... , 

. 

s, , . ‘1 / \ . . / 

,: A 

. 

--N 

• 

/ 

,,. , 

. J /••• , ' , _ .4i 1'). 

ACCESS 

ROAD 

,.•,_ 

7, / ' \ •:. , ,. , - • 1 . , ;Too- • . ,/,; 

: I I , ! I • : 1 \ \ \ 

r----, • ,, / 1 \ ----------'

,- 

\,..s. fro, :1 •i ) \ \ ••••• 

. , ; ,. • 

. i! 1 1 f, -1, \.1 • , 

.. ..._ 

.„ J1I H ,-,5,_. / /l / 2 ) ) l,/ . -\J1/2),1\ \ • • ' -0---•• I ; 1.' 1 , -, 

____., _ , , 

- 00-- •.-- / . ii, 

•

, 

■

4,,s4,4, / . . • •_ 

.. / ‘ i i, 

.,,// .,_ ' , -•00 . . 

0 500 1,000 FEET 

FIGURE 2.2.5 

i......1...... 

CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT 

............. 

SCALE VINA TERRACE SITE 

TOPO: MAPPING DONE BY INTERNATIONAL MAPPING 

CORPORATION. LOS ANGELES, CALIF, 

CON

TOUR INTERVAL: 10 FEET SLC-7 ENVI

RONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

w 

co 

w 

_I 

in 

X 

a: 

0 

w 

a 

LLJ 

> 

0 In 

X L---D 

41ki 

it --1 

Z v- 
3-3 

• 

w 

w 

w 

0 

0 

w 

0 up 7, 

Z 

• 

87-271-1 MS RLV.S/31/90 
3-6 

(NI 

i

.„,• :7 

O 

CONTOUR 

O 

L.L.I 1- Li 

F/3 II 

Cl) LL1 

I- I-- C.) 

n E5 ..1 „., ,,,_ Lu d

c.., w 0 i < 

GO CC LU cL. Z D CC .1- i•- ‹ 0 W 1- iT) E8 

I a Q a. • 2 --: 

cr) 0 Z 0 c6Ci) 

-J 0 IV 

til co 5 Cl) w tco 12 e e Ow 

52 

...., o ,-, a • 0 Q 2 < tri 

m 8 a.. 

 .13 

Ow Ltz < cc< o __, . . ci, m ,,,,T 1.- co )- m8 4m_, % w og3 o 0 >" l- a....1 om g 5,, m 

Z 5 2 ° z2 0 -x.--1 0 i g 00a< w011.<0 0 )._Z - ›-n 

0 0- mw 

0 0 ›—JOO )-zM Zz.,451 -'m ILX _t)......J .‹.<00,-.< 0 0>___., < • • 

> )- 

Lu< a 0 c.)>- >- t 0 c) 8..m.c d., .. 

.. >=0z ,,, 

-3 < 0 -J < 5 g 117 ' 1:r.558 ,0 

oceP'tsl 00....,z-41-„,-m-nwss-Va to ill co CC 

•- < 

a li.1:j CC° 44'n . S Luz 2 5..) m - 0 12 )2 (5 cn cc 

1.,.. cl. 

< LLI L. ,P, =LA85,?, >,zz.00 D CL 

OCC‹<D.J.C.ftOgr<<<IA 

<<MMOW-3-5Y-12MOWI-SN di 

0 et 

aaccranw-i-,x_i2cCincni-> ni n.i 8 ..-..c..„.,m...z.,.-> 

In 

0 

PACIFIC 
CANADA HONDA 

•-• FAULT 

:o5f POINT 

ARGUELLO 

PROPOSED PROJECT 

VICINITY 

fill0 APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

I JUNE 2015 

POINT SAL 

,s,,„ • :i ,_ 

■ 4, 

• \ !I 

. N. ',,, 

'N''' SANTA MARIA . .,9,,, _4,, -, 7 ,-‹ ,, .,- -c.. ...1-, \ (-4 -.9 

---6:i(-- ."4- • cs \ 

-e-.....-- -, - 9 • rn \ \ 

-S----- , -"--P.,_ 

• "K/ 

9 

...,7 0 r, .T..irl,, 9 \ 4- --*.........._ ■ 

- ;S'4,, '-`-'' 4 , 00 E Tr**C.,#‘ (...:%,1. 6:. • 1 - " ..... 4 /4 "SYACILtv_.... ‘44, R C ti N 0 

/ <41 T '''' \ \ \ , \ N.- r ,., •?...FAL11 ................--,;■ \ Nr..1 

\-)f,. --e- --9-- `tip x__`

0,9 ......i'cr.N 

it'i 0s4 

_ -e- -- PUR !SIM A - 

- PO INT 

SuRTON,9.446..ssl. {4,6 

-X - 

yK 

- 

- ÷ 

, 

- 

- 

--- 4

SANT— 

 RITA syNCL N SANTA RITA FAULT 

 - 

....„,,, 

LOMpo LOMPOC • 1 SEG M Ers _...7.-... N. ;-;-..:-:,0-:: ................. f Nt34-'-'-47 "--).---1-'8\ .' 

--.. 

-..- -? €<-,..4._ - .--- -----)f- -')-i'' 

.. 

,, 

■.,_ ---.0..., ::::=_____ •-:....?........ ...... 

--\ 

.....:...BUELLI..2..N. 

_,,e.-----2;---;:-:gr-- : 

--__— --- 

......... .

7.7.-.„....

• -. A 

"_r.

■

: A.` 

7 yNE WO 

S tA . --. ,-- 

.0..--- ,..---9- 

7---s__-*-____ PACIFICO FAULT ,2- cv v- N-‘ 

C> GAN/IOTA .:.--. 

POINT CONCEPTION 

EXPLANATION 

NOTE: THIS FIGURE SHOWS THE KNOWN ONSHORE 

STRUCTURES. 

ANTICLINAL AXIS AND END ARROWS 0 5 10 MILES 

INDICATE PLUNGE 

SCALE 

SYNCLINAL AXIS, END ARROWS 

INDICATE PLUNGE 

FAULTS, SOLID WHERE EXPOSED. DASHED 

WHERE INFERRED AND DOTTED WHERE 

DOUBTFUL OR BURIED 

MODIFIED FROM: DIBBLEE (1950), WOOD RING AND 

SRA MLETT (1950), YERKES AND 

OTHERS (1981), BUCHANAN AND 

BANKS (1978), SYLVESTER AND 

DARROW (1979), IN: PAYNE AND 

RIETMAN (1985). 

FIGURE 3.1.3 

GEOLOGIC STRUCTURES MAP 

(ONSH DR E FEATURES) 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

w 

CT) 

IL 
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK LEGEND 

0 25 50 MILES 

NRO 25 

L. 

APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 

VANDENBERG 

AIR FORCE 

BASE 

0 0 

cb 

KINGS 

COUNTY 

KERN COUNTY 

NN7 

SANTA'.) 

MARIA 

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY 

FRESNO 

COUNTY 

MONTEREY COUNTY 

s 

SAN LUIS LUIS 

OBIS PO 

• 0 OBISPO 

O 

0 COUNTY 

PURISIMA POINT 

0 POINT ARGUELLO 0 0 

• LOMPOC 

0 

POINT 

SAL 

TULARE 

COUNTY 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 SAN 0 

0 

• 

0 BAKERSFIELD 

0 0 

0 

0 C00 

0 

0 

0 MORRO 

BAY 

0 

VENTURA 

COUNTY 

0 

0 // //// po 0 0 

POINT CONCEPTION SANTA BARBARA 

0 

OCAS' Ceo SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL 

6)00 

f 

0 

*OXNARD 

0B 

0 

0 

• VENTURA 

MAGNITUDES 

0 

0 5.0 - 5.9 

0 6.0-7A 

0 7.3 - 1927 EARTHQUAKE 

G-GAINTHROP 

H-HANKS 

S SMITH 

B - BYERLY 

REFERENCE: EARTH TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 1984, 

REAL ET AL. 1978, IN: PAYNE AND RIETMAN 

1985. 

APPROXIMATE SCALE 

FIGURE 3.1.4 

EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP 

(MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR GREATER) 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-11 
.. 

t.----,---) '.--.... I ' ■,—' ‘7,2-_-s.,,-"-\\,, 

, •-_--, 

,:. ----1.-----.7 i' `,--- ‘---, ..-i\-- \------1 — - - ,%,....._„.._-...\ 

. • 

,; ‘. \ ; 

/ 

• 

, . 

r.„ 

2 

C.) 

1V2,_-1"1 

SLC-6 SITE 

• i 

400 

, ( . 

- \ 

. . 

1 ; 

r 

N 

• &,•:: 

• 

111 

w 

w 

u_ 

co 

0 

0 

ROCKY 

+ POINT 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 3-15 

Ul\lt 

POINT B 

Lj 

,I.* 

\ , ,,,., N‘ „,. ,, . z__:. 

"------;--7-:- 1--' Q,‘, N7 ',\ '..\\.<_,•; 

(-:-.".__,--1 i,,, r.,/,' -2-----;:/,:z,1.,----\_1 i '::-..„-- ____,•; g 

/ / ' ,- ,1 -.c-7t.-, . 

,- i\■s./:22: __. -___..-- , 

/ iLc " . 

- A i / / ' • . . ' r'%. 

'" ) 

( '

; 

(

/ l 

1 ------ - - - >4 

'-'/______,--r',.._/ .1•-f i ..,,, ) i 

c

_ ....,.............\ -.-.,/ C.1.-1,,,, / 

L \ 1/ 

/ 1 ( 

VINA TERRACE SITE 

'-J Hflk 

;11 / 

i • . 

„:•-•; j ! .-; r1/ n 600 ,., 

ir . .,,,,,._ I ! , ", '-‘,_,,,,,:r , : f, ',.-•• ' ! (\V, \ ',,, 

', ", 1,\ 

,s .—

/ N j

• 

' ,

' n 

' i ' , 

,:

, 

'..500 i \--' n c

7 sj 400.

-, 

_ 

' 

,-, 

, 

. .

"

._

,., 

/; 

, I

.

; 

: 

,,,

.• 

n. 

.,

,

, 

--- 

• i 

\ ; 300 

,. 

IC 

CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

POINT A 

PINT E 

BOATHOUSE FLATS SITE POINT F 

POINT I 

a POINT H 

POINT G 

FIGURE 3.1.5 

DRAINAGE AREAS AND 

DISCHARGE POINTS 

0 2.500 5,000 FEET 

SCALE 

SOURCE: USAF 1987d. VAFB MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN 

BY KEN O'BRIAN & ASSOCIATES. LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
3-20 

0 

0 

>:

Ui 

V ANDENEE FG ___ AREA SHOWN 

A% 

POINT 

SAL 

SANTA 

BARBARA 

SAN ANTONIO CREEK 

VALLEY BASIN . 

PURISIMA 

POINT 

OCEAN BEACH 

at)

COUNTY PARK 

SOUTH 

VAFB POINT 

EDER NALES 

LOMPOC TERRACE 

BASIN 

POI 

ARGUELLO 

JALAMA BEACH 

COUNTY PARK 

0 

AN 

POINT CONCEPTION 

IIII SOURCE:USAF 1987a. 

FIGURE 3.2.1 

GROUND WATER BASINS 

VAFB VICINITY 

0 1 2 3 4 SMILES 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
..-CANTONM ENT 

AREA 

LOMPOC 

3-23 

DJO APPR vFn FOR RFI FASF 

JUNE 201 

(22) 

r, 

7 POINT 

PEDERNALES 

SLC-6 SITE 

VINA TERRACE SITE 

 CYPRESS RIDGE SITE' 

VANCENEERG 

,yiLLAC.-E 

z 

L POINT 

ARGUELLO 

BOATHOUSE FLATS SITE 

FIGURE 3.2.2 

0 2 4 MILES 

SCALE 

SOUTH VAFB 

EXISTING PRODUCTION WELLS 

SOURCE: USAF 1987a. SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

STUDY AREA 

BOUNDARY 

SOURCE: USAF 1988(BASE MAP). 

ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS. INC. 

1990a SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

0 4000 8000 FEET 

VANDENBERG 

/ 

q_C_ANY 

AIR FORCE 

POINT 

PEDERNALES 

EXTERNAL TANK 

TOW ROUTE 

3-34 

• NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

• 11EMIP 2015 

CENTRAL COASTAL SCRUB 

• GRASSLAND-COASTAL SCRUB 

CENTRAL DUNE SCRUB 

VENTURAN COASTAL SAGE SCRUB 

124 CHAPARRAL 

• GRASSLAND 

El WETLANDS/RIPARIAN WETLAND \ON 

• NONVEGETATION AREA 

• RUDERALJEXOTIC SPECIES 

O EUCALYPTUS 

SOUTH 

SLC-5 

w 

BASE 

VINA TERRACE SITE 

POINT 

ARGUELLO 

AD 

BOATHOUSE AREA 

SCALE 

FIGURE 3.3.2 

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 

AT ALTERNATIVE SITES 
7-271-1 FEIS REV 

000'91Z. 

Li) 

O O O 

1.6 

O 

0 

O 

,T, 

600'03Z l '3 

0 

U. J 0 

0 

• 

O. 

< 

U) 

0 0 

Z 

• < 

>- 

z o Z:5 

< • co 

- 1.0 

CL 0 

0 Z 

U 

3-35 

O O to 

(NI 

C

000'Z lZ t '3 

C 

O 

)- 

Lli 

1.11 

0 

0 

0 Lc) 

E) 

D 

0 Z 

Z 

d 

Q 0 

o 

pGOG ° 0.

z 

O 

cr) cn 

coo 00 U 0 c 

> 

C CE NTRAL COASTA L SCRUB VE NTU RAN COASTALSAGESCRUB 

CHAPARRAL- MIXED AND MA RITIME 

GRASSLAND- COASTALSCRUB G 

N 
ORCE 

CO 

0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES 

JALAMA 

SCALE 

3-43 

. alb 41. OW els ■•■ in. 110 Mb 

tif 

1 JUNE 2015 

POINT SAL 

ORCUTT 

w 

0 

VANOEN E G 

IL 

Q 

O 

PURISIMA POINT 

OCEAN 

BEACH 

COUNTY 

PARK 

VANDENBERG 

VILLAGE 

F (>600 

E2 a 20 

LOMPOC 

POINT 

PEDERNALES VINA TERRACE SITE 

I SLC-6 SITE 

POINT 

ARGUELLO 

CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

J40TFa 

1. LOCATIONS FOR BOTH 

AIONARDELLA UNDULATA VAR 

FRUTESCEALS AND AKALARDELL4 

CR1SPA ARE INCLUDED BECAUSE 

OF CONFUSION OF THESE SPECIES 

NAMES. 

2. ESTIMATES OF POPULATION SIZE. IF 

AVAILABLE. ARE IN PARENTHESES. 

I FGF 

• CALIFORNIA NATURAL DIVERSITY DATA 

BASE (CN008) SPECIFIC LOCATION (WITHIN 

80 ACRES) 

• CNODB NONSPECIFIC LOCATION (WITHIN 1 MILE) 

▪ CNDDB GENERAL LOCATION (WITHIN 5 MILES) 

* LOCATION OF ALTERNATIVE SITES 

El HDR 1980 

E2 USAF 1987a 

F FIELD OBSERVATIONS DURING THIS STUDY 

P R. NICHOLS (PERS. COMM.). GENERAL LOCATION 

JALAMA BEACH 

COUNTY PARK 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

BOATHOUSE FLATS SITE 

FIGURE 3.3.4 

LOCATIONS OF CURLY-LEAVED 

MONARDELLA AND CRISP 

MONARDELLA ON VAFB 
cz -2 

>- 

• u_ co 

uj Z 

co u) 0 0 

J Z ui 

• 0 < Z -.1 _j 

MI 0 

• o w UZ 

O CC CC < 

LLJ 

FIGURE 3.3.5 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEME 

H 

LL 

0 O8 

0 

000'sie t '3 H 

w 

L.1.1 

0 

0 

11J > 

-J 

< CC 

Cf)Z 

tt 

0 

0 

11,00Z t. -

SOURCE: USAF 1987d. 

1, 

oce 

0 

-J c, __, c, 

H 

c) Z LLI 

vs o 

cr z 

.5- 

0 

I 

LO 

C.? / \ ---•1 

-1400-04--4,-

11■PL---- 

0 LO 0 rjl. LU 

-

1- ow' Raz' L '3 

tn C) 

i- CC 

ci ...1 0 W -.J z _ 

) < - - 

-----'. 0 7LI 0 

U) IOO 

>- 1_ a. ".-i 1 

..., , en 

(-5 W co ..vNC 

cc co 0 

0 0 V Ili > Z k C> CE CL F- a- c-E _ 

-4 2 

Tc w 03 -1-

I 

-i0 CC 9, - 

I 000

.Ke '3 

< 0 , 

cc p Lg. LL1 

_ P- Z 

n_ 5 cr 

,---. ' ---- 

.„ 

c:, ,, 

0 

c,, co; i \00 ,R c, c:, 

0 c:, c, 

2 

i 

" 

, 1.0 •-,•• 

I 

_ 

U-1 

Z cc . 

,-"" 5 - cc cr.) 

'I. 

tr) 

O < H Q 

< < 

0- 112 

000' pae t -3 

g

V 

O 

z 

3

-44 

w 

U) 

uJ 

0 

0 

w 

> 

0 Lf) L-; 

Z 
VANDENBERG CHANNEL ISLANDS 

PROPOSED PROJECT 

VICINITY 

POINT 

CONCEPTION 

FIGURE 3.4.1 

U AF-Th'KUV I-.(OR RELEASE 

SANTA " 

SANTA 

MARIA 

VANDENBERG 

AIR 

FORCE 

BASE 

SANTA 

BARBARA 

PACIFIC 

PURISIMA 

POINT 

`NOR N 

VAFB 

AIR 

ANTONIO 

0 

NO SCALE 

CREEK 

POINT 

PEDERNALES 

FORCE 

SOUTH 

VAFB 

246 

Lj.-. R/V.F2R 

OCEAN BEACH 

*COUNTY PARK 

VANDENBERG 

VILLAGE 

246.-"K 

LOMPOC 

BASE 

POINT 

ARGUELLO 

'O. 

JALAMA BEACH 

COUNTY PARK 

JALA/44 

POINT 

SAL 

• 

AREA SHOWN 

101 

3-52 

LEGEND 

II) • WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER NESTING LOCATION 

III CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN NESTING LOCATION 

0 1 2 3 4 SMILES 

NESTING LOCATIONS 

OF CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN 

AND WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER 

SOURCES: USAF 1987a; 

PAGE AND STENZEL 1981. SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
AIR 

FORCE 

POINT 

PEDERNALES 

POINT 

ARGUELLO 

co 

3-13h 

PUfrypti 

P01 

co 

PPROVFD FOR RELEASE 

2015 

VANDENBERG 

NORTH 

VAFB 

VANDENBERG 

/ VILLAGE 

BASE 

BOATHOUSE FLATS SITE 

CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

HERMOSA 

• OIL PLATFORM 

0 

• POINT 

CONCEPTION 

s••..) 

HAYL EY .• 

OIL PLATFORM 

(PROPOSED) 

OCEAN LEGEND 

GROUND LEVEL HCI CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) 

• 0.53 

— — — — 1.60 

••■••■• • • •■■■■•■■•• 2.66 

YIN/MIMI • ••■••••••• 3.73 

4.130 

SHADED AREA INDICATES CONCENTRATIONS 

GREATER THAN TLV (THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUE) 

• NOTE: 

HCI ISOPLETHS SHOWN IN THIS EXAMPLE WERE GENERATED BY 

REEM USING HYPOTHETICAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS FOR 

A LAUNCH FROM THE CYPRESS RIDGE SITE. THE INCIDENCE OF 

HCI ISOPLETHS FROM THIS OR OTHER ALTERNATIVE SITES WOULD 

BE EXPECTED TO BE SIMILAR, WITH THE ACTUAL DISPERSION 

PATTERN DEPENDENT ON METEOROLOGICAL CONDMONS AT THE 

TIME OF LAUNCH. 

SOURCE: USAF 1988i. 

0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES 

111111111111 

SCALE 

FIGURE 3.11.2 

TITAN IV/CENTAUR 

HYPOTHETICAL HCI 1SOPLETHS 

NORMAL LAUNCH 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
GUADALUPE 

swab 11111•11 .111•■ COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY 

LAND UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION 

COMMUNITY FACILITIES 

A - LI - 100 R ?AlR31AUPE 5 

ex 

4111), OPEN LAND 

COUNTY PARK 

SANTA MARIA 

NRU A1-1--)RUVED FURRELEASE 

A - II — 320 

PURISIMA POINT 

LOS ALAMOS 

OCEAN BEACH 

COUNTY PARK 

POINT ARGUELLO 

PROPOSED PROJECT 

VICINITY 

MLA/AA BEACH 

COUNTY PARK 

COASTAL—DEPENDENT 

o INDUSTRY 

0 

POINT 

CONCEPTION GA viarA BEACH 

LOMPOC 

LEGEND WESTERN LNG STATE PARK 

COASTAL—DEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL 

INDUSTRY FACILITY 

FIGURE 3.13.1 

0 INDUSTRIAL 

OPEN LAND USES 

AGRICULTURE 11 (100 • 320—ACRE MIN.) 

RECREATION 

OPEN LAND 

COASTAL ZONE 

NORTH COAST PLANNING AREA 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

• 

0 5 MILES 

SCALE 

POINT SAL 

POINT SAL BEACH 

STATE PARK 

• 

3-153 
CC 

< N 

• 

Z 

CD CI 44 

CC 

< -J 

> 0 < 

= CC 

I— < 

M Cr 

O lij 0 N om0 = 

CL 

0 

CC 

FIGURE 4.2.1 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Actual Water Usage 

WaterUsagewith Proposed Action 

2 O

:7# 

Source: USGS 1988. 

— 

o co 

4-18 

8 (-4 

(aaN anu) 3DVSf1 1131VAA 

w 

w _J 

w 

Et 

0 

lL 

LLJ 

Cu-: 

Il c `

LL : 
4-26 

g.-4k0 APPRC\\ckkaR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 15) PERCENT OF TOTAL 

ACIDIC DEPOSITION 

IN GROUND CLOUD 

DISTANCE FROM 

CYPRESS RIDGE 

(MILES) 

ESTIMATED DEPOSITION 

PER UNIT AREA 

(GALLONS/ACRE) w 

19.35 

4.03 

1.21 

0.54 

NORTH 

VAFB 

0 TO 2 0 

2 TO4 

4 706 0 

6 PLUS Q 

O 

MISSION 

HILLS U.S. PENITENTIARY 

CENTRAL AVE. 

POINT 

p.w.E9NAt: 

LOMPOC 

SOUTH.' 

VAM. 

SLC-6 SITE 

VINA TERRACE SITE 

CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

BOATHOUSE FLATS SITE 

4 MILES 

SCALE 

FIGURE 4.3.1 

NOTE: 

WIND SPEED = 9.8 MILES PER HOUR 

COMPUTATION PERFORMED BY TRAJM 

(NASA 1983) 

SOURCE: UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 1987a. 

NEAR-FIELD ACIDIC DEPOSITION 

CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

TITAN 1V/CENTAUR LAUNCH 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
4-29 

RU AP 

JUNE 201 

t<LLLASt ESTIMATED DEPOSITION 

PER UNIT AREA 

(GALLONS/ACRE) 

PERCENT OF TOTAL 

ACIDIC DEPOSITION 

IN GROUND CLOUD 

DISTANCE FROM 

SLC-6 

(MILES) 

0TO 2 0 

2704 0 

4 TO 6 0 

6 PLUS Q 

19.35 

U.S. PENITENTIARY 

MISSION 

HILLS 

CENTRAL AVE 

cAhry.04 

SOUTH 

VA F B 

14 

11> 

SLC-6 SITE 

LOMPOC 

0 

0 

SANTA YNEz 

4"'Arr.ovs 

VINA TERRACE SITE 

CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

A UELLO 

2 4 MILES 

SCALE 

FIGURE 4.3.2 

NOTE: 

WIND SPEED = 9.8 MILES PER HOUR 

COMPUTATION PERFORMED BY TRAJM 

(NASA 1983) 

NEAR-FIELD ACIDIC DEPOSITION 

SLC-6 SITE 

TITAN 1V/CENTAUR LAUNCH 

SOURCE: UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 1987a. 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
4-30a 

$' NRO AP mR0 

1 JUNE 2 

ESTIMATED DEPOSITION 

PER UNIT AREA 

(GALLONS/ACRE) 

PRECENT OF TOTAL 

ACIDIC DEPOSITION 

IN GROUND CLOUD 

RELEASL DISTANCE FROM 

BOATHOUSE FLATS 

(MILES) 

NORTH 

VAFB 

0 TO 2 0 

2 TO4 0 

4 TO 6 0 

6 PLUS Q 

19.35 

4.03 

1.21 

0.54 

U.S. PENITENTIARY 

POINT 

PEDERNALES 

LOMPOC 

SANTA 

SLC-6 SITE 

VINA TERRACE SITE 

CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

BOATHOUSE FLATS SITE 

OTE: I 

WIND SPEED = 9.8 MILES PER HOUR 

COMPUTATION PERFORMED BY TRAM 

(NASA 1983) 

4 MILES 

SCALE 

FIGURE 4.3.3 

NEAR-FIELD ACIDIC DEPOSITION 

BOATHOUSE FLATS SITE 

TITAN IV/CENTAUR LAUNCH 

SOURCE: UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 1987a. 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
§ UNE 201 

5 

•

LL 

(N4 

NR(51APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

ESTIMATED DEPOSITION 

PER UNIT AREA 

;GALLONS/ACRE) 

PRECENT OF TOTAL 

ACIDIC DEPOSITION 

IN GROUND CLOUD 

DISTANCE FROM 

VINA TERRACE 

(MILES) `,..\\\ • N \\ '0 

OTO 2 75.8 19.35 

NGRTH 

VAFF, 

(-) 

O 

U.S. PENITENTIARY 

MISSION 

HILLS 

ri - 

LOMPOC 

SOUTH. 

VAFB 

SLC-6 SITE YNE-2./ 

410 .4 A s 

VINA TERRACE SITE 

CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

FIGURE 4.3.4 

NEAR-FIELD ACIDIC DEPOSITION 

VINA TERRACE SITE 

TITAN IV/CENTAUR LAUNCH 

0 

SCALE 

2 4 MILES 

NOTE: 

WIND SPEED = 9.8 MILES PER HOUR 

COMPUTATION PERFORMED BY TRAJM 

(NASA 1983) 

SOURCE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 1987a. 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
4-37 
UPOINT 

U).NALES /f 

4-44 

S REV. 5/2919 

JUNE 201 DISTANCE FROM 

CYPRESS RIDGE 

(MILES) 

o TO 2 0 

2 TO 4 0 

4 TOGQ 

6 PLUSQ 

PERCENT OF TOTAL 

ACIDIC DEPOSITION 

IN GROUND CLOUD 

ESTIMATED DEPOSITION 

PER UNIT AREA 

(GALLONS/ACRE) 

7.89 

8.19 

3.05 

1.35 

U.S. PENITENTIARY 

LOMPOC 

SANTA 

SLC-6 SITE 

VINA TERRACE SITE 

CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

BOATHOUSE FLATS. SITE 

2 4 MILES 

MISSION 

HILLS 

NOTE: 

WIND SPEED = 25 MILES PER HOUR 

COMPUTATION PERFORMED BY TRAM 

(NASA 1983) 

SOURCE: UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 1987a ■ 

SCALE 

FIGURE 4.4.3 

ACIDIC DEPOSITION 

IN VICINITY OF HONDA CREEK 

CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

TITAN IV/CENTAUR LAUNCH 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

r JuriNIE 

DISTANCE FROM 

SLC-6 

(MILES) 

ESTIMATED DEPOSITION 

PER UNIT AREA 

(GALLONS/ACRE) 

PRECENT OF TOTAL 

ACIDIC DEPOSITION 

IN GROUND CLOUD 

NORTH 

VAFB 

Q 

IU 

19.35 

4.03 

1.21 

0.54 

2 TO 4 0 

4 TO 6 0 

6 PLUS 0 

U.S. PENITENTIARY 

MISSION 

HILLS 

LOMPOC 

4-48a 

er 

0 

SANTA nvizz 

'°uAq:4,„ 

BOATHOUSE FLATS SITE 

2 4 MILES 

SCALE 

FIGURE 4.4.4 

NOTE: 

WIND SPEED = 9.8 MILES PER HOUR 

COMPUTATION PERFORMED BY TRAJM 

(NASA 1983) 

SOURCE: UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 1987a. •

ACIDIC DEPOSITION 

IN VICINITY OF HONDA CREEK 

SLC-6 SITE 

TITAN IV/CENTAUR LAUNCH 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

_ _ 
JUNE 201 

N168APPROVED FOR RFJ EASF 

DISTANCE FROM PERCENT OF TOTAL 

BOATHOUSE FLATS ACIDIC DEPOSITION 

(MILES) IN GROUND CLOUD 

ESTIMATED DEPOSITION 

PER UNIT AREA 

(GALLONS/ACRE) 

NORTH \ ''' \\ 

---- --- 

N., 

Lu r\( 1,1 

s:4W4 

\ 

\POINT 

PEDERNALES 

// i ,y-\ .',,-,-, sv ' ,...—......z_ 

e ,,,, r, 

\ 0., 

Fr's?-,-.__- ,y<,„ 

<

6 

,,.( 

CrAtyryo, 

7.89 

8.19 

3.05 

1.35 

31.3 

32.5 

12.1 

0 

cJ ii 

CENTRAL AVE 

0 TO 2 0 

2 TO 4 0 

4 TO 6 0 

6 PLUSO 

U.S PENITENTIARY 

rij41 

LI 

— il LI 

„II 

LOMPOC 

C-/ 

of 

SLC 6 SITE 

!SANTA 

A4C) vrAm4s, 

NOTE: 

WIND SPEED = 25 MILES PER HOUR 

COMPUTATION PERFORMED BY TRAJM 

(NASA 1983) 

0 2 4 MILES 

SCALE 

FIGURE 4.4.5 

ACIDIC DEPOSITION 

IN VICINITY OF HONDA CREEK 

BOATHOUSE FLATS SITE 

TITAN IV/CENTAUR LAUNCH 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATENTFNT SOURCE: UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 1987a. 

24.1 
PERCENT OF TOTAL 

ACIDIC DEPOSITION 

IN GROUND CLOUD 

ESTIMATED DEPOSITION 

PER UNIT AREA 

(GALLONS/ACRE) 

MISSION 

HILLS 

LOMPOC 

SOUTH 

VAFB.. 

0 

443(1 rrovs 

I 

I 

2 4 MILES 

SCALE 

FIGURE 4.4.6 

NOTE: 

WIND SPEED = 25 MILES PER HOUR 

COMPUTATION PERFORMED BY TRAJM 

(NASA 1983) 

SOURCE. UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 1987a. 

ACIDIC DEPOSITION 

IN VICINITY OF HONDA CREEK 

VINA TERRACE SITE 

TITAN IV/CENTAUR LAUNCH 

SLG-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
EPA WASTENUMBER 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEM

ENT 

FIGURE 4.6.1 

A

ND PROPOSED 

ACTION 

TITAN II AND IV PROGRAMS 

NORTH VAFB HAZARDOUS WASTES 

113H_LO 

E003 

Z003 

1003 

Proposed Actionoff-pad processing 

ES 0 

E0OG 

ZOOG 

00G 

• 

w 

(f) 

w 

w 

O 

LL. 

w 

0 LO 

Ct O

Z 

4-80 

0 

cq 

(araSis u 01) 031vHar1i3D 3ISVM JO Ainxvri6 

QUANTITY OF WASTE G

ENERATED BY 

TITAN PROGRAM ON N

ORTH VAFB 

(TONS/YEAR) 

PROPOS

ED ACTION' 

N 

r6 co r-, 

r.-; 

r- e ai 

6 

c•-1 

rl N 30.9 

CURRE

NT 

,r) 

t--i 

-1- 

6 

c, co 

(,-; 

co 

C 

. 

cn 

a, 

6 

cq 

r--: 

c.,1 

.._ 

so 

vi r-) 

w 14 1

< al a. ci) iz., < 

z 

§ § § i Y.. i 1 

0 

HAZARDOUS WASTE 

DESCRIPTION 

Ignitables (liquid and/orsolid) Corrosives (acid orbaseliquids 

and/orsolids) Reactives(solid and/orliquid) 

Halogenated Solvents (toxicpoisons) 

Halogenated Solvents (toxicirritatingpoisons) 

Non-Halogenated Solvents 

(ignitablepoisons) 

Contains Misc. EP Toxics, 

ListedAcuteHazardousWastes, Listed ToxicWastes,and 

CaliforniaListedWastes 

t 

TOTAL * 

Source: USAF 1988b. 
111 

WASTEWATER 

RETENTION BASIN/ 

20,000 GALLONS 

LAUNCH DUCT 

TOGROUNDCLOUD 

T . 

SLC-6 

WASTEWATER FILTER CAKE 

TREATMENT PLANT 11■"-- TO 

(PRECIPITATIONAND DUMPS TER NEW OR00 FILTRATION) REFURBISHED 1 - ORDRUMS 

SLC-6 PONDS 126,000 GALLONS 

@ ConcentrationB 

-;-- NO IS WATER A TO BE 

RECYCLED? Is< RECYCLEWATER 

STORAGE TANK 

YES 

V 

SLC-6 

WASTEWATER FIGURE 4.6.2 20,000 GALLONS TREATMENT PLANT BRINE (REVERSE LAUNCH WASTEWATER 

OSMOSIS) GENERATION 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT NOTE: ConcentrationsA, B, and C areshown inTable4.6.1. 

• 

U) z o —i .. g 

...I as 

< O t.> 

§ cithl 

LLI vri. 

Ch c.

.. @.) I

ill DPP* 

j 40,000 gallons 

OC post-launch T.washdown 

0 

LL 80,000 gallons 

0 pre-launch 

> 

LU check-out 

0 Li, -INI■ 

fX loi6,000 gallons 

aunch deluge 

z - 

LAUNCH PAD 

4-85 
1.666666666661:666666111414. 

£00d 

v1 sc Noo C‘ CToo Alino El 

FIGURE 4.6.3 

z 

0 

CC 

U.1 z 

LLI 

L11 

)- cry 

CC < 

< 

Cn 

u)0 

CC 

N 

LJJ 

z 

(.7) 

0 

z 0 

I

0 

U)

0 a. 0 cc 

0 

z 

co 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

EPA WASTE NUMBER 

• 

• 

4-88 

CO =7; 

(reaA7suoi) 

aiSVM JO AmNiva0 

QUANTITY OF WASTE 

GE

NERATED 

(TONS/YEAR) 

PROPOSED 

ACTION 

c 

cy: —. 

1.-- 

,,..1 

to 

cd 

.I) (-4 

o 

6 ‘1" — 

0, 

s.6 

en 88.4 

t-- 

O, 

--. 

,0 

xi 

Cn hi 

I-- 

cc. 

CV 

0 so 

C n 

i 

-1- 

6

,tr 

---. 

ni 

Cn 

r--- 

n•i 

ON 

en 

,.... 

CC; 

r.. l"-- 

co 

o■ 

--. 

cc; 

N cn 

-Kt 

v-i en 

Ct• ■6 ON 

6 ‘o 

0 un hl 

6 

.--. 

. 

co c) hl 

t-- 

ce: ‘71- 

in 

kr) 

co Cl■ --• 

0.: 

--. 

--. 

v-) 

kr; 

o on 

h: 

,7 

— 

Ni ON 

Csi 

Ni 

oo 

Csi hl vt 

C: hl CO tO 

1 

taa 

ta. II -2 

pac=4 

Z 

§ § 

§.1 

,... 

0.> " 

-5 

0 

HAZARDOUS WASTE 

DESCRIPTION 

Ignitables(liquidand/orsolid) 

Corrosives(acid or base liquids and/orsolids) Reactives(solid and/orliquid) Halogenated Solvents (toxicpoisons) Halogenated Solvents (toxic irritatingpoisons) Non-HalogenatedSolvents (ignitablepoisons) Contains Misc. EP Toxics, 

Listed Acute Hazardous Wastes, 

Listed Toxic Wastes,and 

California Listed Wastes 

TOTAL 

O 
O O 

O 

N § 8 § 8 0 

WaS/suol) 

(13,IN213N30 3ISVM AO AIIINVO 0 

QUANTITYOFWASTE 

GENERATED 

(TONS/YEAR) 

CUMULATIVE] 

VA FB TOTAL 

Con 

co N 

Cl■ 

rvn 

-. 

co .1- 

ON 

V en 

VI 

.- 

1008.5 

1987 VAFB 

TOTAL 

s.o 

co 

en 

N 

rc:r■ N 

0 so 

%a to 

'7 0 .t:r 

-. 

(..,:i 

to 

rPI 

ON (..% 

I'OLL 

-1- 

..-1 v) 

)0. 

N 

co r- en 

ry 00 

O 

en en 

(-4 

so 

oti v-1 

..... 

0.■ 

,-. 

...... 

PROPOSED 

ACTION 

O 

-. 

N 

4 

(.4 N 

00 

oi, 

ON 

c•-i 

N 

ra 

... N 

N 

cv 

a '0 

N ON .4 

.• 

i 

—, G4 

0., 

c./) .-, 

ul < 4 3 i 

-, cv en -. 

8 ;.,.. 

g g 4.) 

5 

o 

HAZARDOUS WASTE 

DESCRIPTION 

Ignitables(liquid and/orsolid) 

Corrosives(acid orbase liquids 

and/orsolids) 

Reactives (solid and/or liquid) 

HalogenatedSolvents (toxicpoisons) Halogenated Solvents (toxic irritatingpoisons) 

Non-Halogenated Solvents 

(ignitablepoisons) Contains Misc. EP Toxics, 

Listed AcuteHazardous Wastes, 

Listed Toxic Wastes,and 

California Listed Wastes 

TOTAL 

Source: USAF 1988k. 

VAFB CUMULATIVE 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

HAZARDOUS WASTEGENERATION 

r's\- \\\\-\\NN1". \\\\"\\\ .\\\ ,\..\\`‘`, 

IV in! 

ifirmik 

h\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'\ 

a 

E £003 EP Z004 Z 

1003 .ft c p 

£00G a, 

:::" ZOOG 

k\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 

• 

1987 VAFB Total 

Total SLC-4 Waste 

Cumulative VAFB Total 

Total Proposed Action Waste 

4-92 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 4-93 

1 JUNE 2 1 

1987 VAFB 

Baseline + Proposed Action 

+ SLC-4 

1987 VAFB 

Baseline 

• 

576,000 tons FIGURE 4.6.5 

Innrinfni 

C.*.) 

1000 

z 800 

F._ 2 600 

400 

O 

200 

E0 

EPA WASTE TYPE 

0 D001 

El D002 

[2 D003 

ED F001 

0 F002 

111 F003 

0 Other 

Total Hazardous Waste Landfilled in California in 1987 

COMPARISON OF VAFB 

AND CALIFORNIA 

HAZARDOUS WASTES 

Source: CDHS 1989. SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
4-96 

BOATHOUSE FLATS SITE 

0 1.8 MI. 

VINA TERRACE SITE 

LOMPOC 

SLC-6 SITE 19 dBA 

JALAMA 

104 dBA 

110 dBA 

L 

thjrb, ----8'0 TH 

POINT VAFB PEDERNALES 

3.4 MI. 

BEACH 

COUNTY PARK 

5.2 MI. 

6.8 MI. 

0 

C 

<(' 

4, 

11.4 MI. 

POINT CONCEPTION 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

PURISIMA POINT 

ri 

100 dBA NORTH 

VAFB 

VANDENBERG 

VILLAGE 

OCEAN BEACH 

COUNTY PARK 

FIGURE 4.7.1 

PROJECTED MAXIMUM 

NOISE LEVELS 

FROM TITAN IV/CENTAUR LAUNCH 

SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

NOTE: 

IMPACTS FROM THE SLC-6, BOATHOUSE FLATS, 

AND VINA TERRACE SITES DUE TO NOISE FROM 

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS WOULD BE 

ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS SHOWN FOR THE 

CYPRESS RIDGE SITE. 

0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES 

SCALE 

SOURCE: USAF 1988b 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

LIST OF PREPARERS 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • 4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 

This Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared by Environmental Solutions, Inc. 

for the Department of the Air Force, Space Systems Division. Environmental Project Manager 

John R. Edwards of the Space Systems Division, Directorate of Acquisition Civil Engineering, 

Environmental Planning Division (SSD/DEV) also provided information and assistance in 

preparing this document. 

4-1 

• 

• 

U.S. Air Force, Space Systems Division 

JOHN R. EDWARDS 

Environmental Project Manager 

M.S. Environmental Engineering, 1976, University of Southern California 

B.S. Zoology, 1973, University of California, Los Angeles 

Eleven years experience as an environmental engineer and project manager for various projects 

including: 

• Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. 

• Air Pollution Control. 

• Hazardous Waste Treatment. 

• Permits for projects which include the U.S. Air Force Space Shuttle, 

radar stations, and missile programs. 

Environmental Solutions Inc. 

MIRO KNE7FVIC 

Executive Vice President 

Principal Resource Coordinator 

Ph.D. Civil Engineering, 1978, University of Southern California 

M.S. Civil Engineering (Environmental), 1973, University of Maryland 

B.S. Civil Engineering, 1971, University of Maryland 

Fourteen years of experience as project engineer and project manager for various projects 

including: 

• Environmental Impact Statements and Assessments. 

• RCRA Part B compliance documentation. 

• Surface and ground water quality assessments. 

• Waste Discharge Requirement Reports for the STS Power Plant and 

Space Shuttle Launch Pad, Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB). 

• Management and engineering activities associated with MX and Assembly 

Test and System Support construction surveillance at VAFB, hazardous 

waste inventory and assessment for RCRA Part A at VAFB, RCRA 

Part B preparation for Kirtland Air Force Base, and RCRA Part B 

compliance evaluation for radioactive waste for the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant for the Department of Energy. 
NRO AF2PROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

TIM C. LASSEN 

Project Manager 

B.S. Civil Engineering, 1970, Purdue University 

P.E. State of California, 1983 

Eleven years of experience in environmental management and engineering activities including: 

• Environmental Assessments and Permitting. 

• Project Director on landfill project for major rail transportation company. 

• Project Manager on hydrogeological assessments, remedial action plan 

development, and cleanup of contaminated soil and ground water. 

• Manager, Environment and Hazardous Materials Control for major 

rail transportation company. Responsible for the following programs: 

Principal reviewer of Environmental Assessments and Environmental 

Impact Reports, environmental audits, spill response and prevention, 

hazardous waste management, industrial wastewater treatment, state and 

CERCLA Superfund, underground tank inventories and compliance, air 

quality, asbestos, and noise abatement programs. 

DANIEL M. EVANS, AICP 

Project Manager 

M.S. Planning, 1985, University of Tennessee 

B.A. Political Science, 1976, Knox College 

Eleven years of experience in environmental impact analysis and project management including: 

• Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. 

• Development and implementation of methodology to gather 

socioeconomic data used in microcomputer analytical system for Dam 

Safety Risk Analysis Regional Data Development for the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

Participation in preparation of Environmental Analyses for small 

Hydropower Developments for the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

Member of an interdisciplinary Oak Ridge National Laboratory team 

"Analyzing Water Resources Issues for the 1980s." 

Management of environmental impact analysis team for the Environmental 

Assessment for the proposed Northeast Regional Communications 

Facility. 

Regional Economic/Environmental Policy Analysis for the Department of 

Energy, including environmental implications of regional industrial shifts, 

regional fuel consumption forecasting for the manufacturing sector, and 

analysis of product mix and energy intensity as determinants of energy 

consumption. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 4-3 

• 

• 

CAROLYN E. TRINDLE 

Assistant Project Manager 

M.A. Business Administration, 1981, Pepperdine University, California 

M.A. Secondary Education, 1974, University of Missouri, Kansas City 

Bachelor of Journalism, 1965, University of Missouri, Columbia 

Fourteen years of experience in project management and environmental planning for various 

projects including: 

• Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Reports for major 

mining and energy development projects. 

• Socioeconomic and planning documents for proposed industrial projects 

and military installations. 

• Environmental documents for establishing the F/A-18A aircraft at 

Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii, and for impacts of constructing satellite 

earth stations in urban Southern California locales. 

• Permitting for major mining projects. 

PE I ER HAYDEN 

Assistant Project Manager 

B.S. Mathematics, 1980, University of the Pacific, Stockton, California 

Eight years of experience in air quality research including: 

Development of emissions inventories. 

Conducting and managing air quality studies to assess regulatory 

compliance of existing and proposed facilities. 

Conducting air quality monitoring and modeling studies to determine 

ambient pollution concentrations in the vicinity of industrial and 

government facilities. 

• 

DAVID BROWN 

Project Planner 

M.S. Geography, 1984, University of California, Riverside 

B.S. Geography, 1980, University of California, Riverside 

Seven years of experience in project management and environmental planning, including: 

Project manager and principal author of Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Environmental Impact Report for Bureau of Land Management/County of 

San Bernardino gold mine project. 

• Management of Environmental Impact Reports and Environmental Impact 

Assessments for commercial, industrial, and residential projects. Support 

for environmental documentation through public and agency reviews and 

public hearing processes. 

• Conducted environmental technical analyses, including land use 

consistency and compatibility, aesthetics, socioeconomic, infrastructure 

requirements and availability, and fiscal impact. 
NRO A44PROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• GREGORY S. KINDT 

Project Engineer 

B.S. Chemical Engineering, 1985, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology 

Five years of experience conducting engineering activities in support of: 

• • Environmental Assessments. 

• Air quality, hazardous waste, and risk assessments. 

• Regulatory and hazardous emissions reviews for gold mine. 

VIRGINIA M. CARMICHAEL 

Senior Environmental Scientist/Planner 

B.S. Geology/Biology, 1979, Metro State College 

Seven years of experience in geology and environmental management. 

• Principal author of Reclamation Plan for Bureau of Land Management 

gold mine project. 

• Conducted environmental analyses for varied types of projects, including 

transportation corridors, jail sites, airports, residential developments, 

pipeline projects, commercial developments, landfills, and reservoirs. 

• Managed federal minerals program at various duty sites. 

PAUL COLLINS 

Wildlife Consultant 

M.A. Zoology, 1982, University of California, Santa Barbara 

B.A. Zoology, 1973, University of California, Santa Barbara 

Wildlife consultant on six major Environmental Impact 

Statements/Environmental Impact Reports for offshore oil developments 

in Santa Barbara County. 

Associate Curator of Vertebrate Zoology, Santa Barbara Museum of 

Natural History. 

DIANA HICKSON 

Project Botanist 

M.A. Geography, 1987, University of California, Santa Barbara 

B.A. Geography, 1983, University of California, Santa Barbara 

• Compilation of fire history at VAFB. 

• Survey of VAFB vegetation communities for Basewide Biological 

Monitoring Program. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

HES IER KING 

mkt Archaeologist 

Anthropology, 1981, University of California, Davis 

1111Anthropology, 1966, University of California, Los Angeles 

3.A. Anthropology, 1964, University of California, Los Angeles 

• Completed Ethnohistory of VAFB. 

• Principal investigator for cultural resources on several Environmental 

Impact Statements/Environmental Impact Reports. 

Author of numerous articles on North American Indians, including the 

Chumash who once populated the areas now occupied by South VAFB. 

2HARLES D. WOODHOUSE, JR. 

vlarine Biologist 

)h.D. Zoology and Oceanography, University of British Columbia 

vl.A. Marine Biology, 1964, University of Oregon 

3.A. Biology, 1962, University of California, Santa Barbara 

Consultant to Marine Mammal Commission, Washington D.C. 

Deputy Director of Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History/Curator of 

Vertebrate Zoology. 

Program Director, Oceanic Biology Program, Office of Naval Research, 

Washington, D.C. 1971 to 1974. 

Principal Coordinator of natural resources study on the Channel Islands 

National Monument for National Park Service, 1978 to 1979. • 

4-5 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• 

REFERENCES 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 5-1 

5.0 REFERENCES 

Bowles, A.; Stewart, B. S. 1980. Disturbances to pinnipeds and birds of San Miguel 

Island, 1979-1980. In: Jehl, J. R. ; Cooper, C. F. , eds. Potential effects of Space 

Shuttle sonic booms on the biota and geology of the California Channel Islands: 

research reports. Prepared by the Center for Marine Studies, San Diego State 

University, in cooperation with Hubbs/Sea World Research Institute. Prepared for 

USAF, Headquarters, Space Division, El Segundo, California. Tech Rep 80-1. 

Section 7, pp. 99-137. 

California Department of Finance. 1988. Annual population estimates. Santa Barbara 

County controlled population estimates for January 1, 1988. Population Research 

Unit. 

California Department of Health Services (CDHS). 1989. Personal communication with 

D. Gonzales. January. 

Chambers Group, Inc. 1986. Draft EIS/EIR, Proposed Arco Coal Oil Point Project, 

Volume I and Appendix 6 - Terrestrial Biology, SCH No. 84011105, SLC 

No. EIR-401, SBC No. 86-EIR-12, U.S. Army, COE Permit Appl. 

No. 85-047-RC. September. 

Chappell, M. A. 1980. Possible physiological effects of Space Shuttle sonic booms on 

marine mammals. In: Jehl, J. R. ; Cooper, C. F. , eds. Potential effects of Space 

Shuttle sonic booms on the biota and geology of the California Channel Islands: 

research reports. Prepared by the Center for Marine Studies, San Diego State 

University, in cooperation with Hubbs/Sea World Research Institute. Prepared for 

USAF, Headquarters, Space Division, El Segundo, California. Tech Rep 80-1. 

Section 7, pp. 195-228. 

Earth Sciences Associates. 1982. Supplemental Water Study for Vandenberg AFB, 

California, Task IB: Review of Water Supply Alternatives. Earth Sciences 

Associates, Palo Alto, California. March. 

Engineering Science. 1987. Final environmental assessment Titan II space launch vehicle 

modifications and launch operations program. Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

California. August. 

Engineering Science and Sea World Research Institute, Hubbs Marine Research Center. 

1988. Biological assessment for the Titan II and Titan IV space launch vehicle 

modifications and launch operations programs, Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

California. Technical report prepared for USAF, Headquarters Space Division, Los 

Angeles, California. PS019.03. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987. EPA regulatory impact analysis: 

Protection of stratospheric ozone. Volume 1, Washington, D.C. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988. Protection of stratospheric ozone: Final 

rule, 40 CFR Part 82. In: Federal Register, Volume 53, No. 156:30566. August 12. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989. Protection of stratospheric ozone. 

EPA advance notice of proposed rule-making on ozone protection. In: Federal 

Register, Volume 54: 15228. April 17. 
NRO APP9VED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1989. Risk Assessment: Supplement to the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Construction and Operation of 

Space Launch Complex 7, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County, 

California. Prepared for USAF, Headquarters Space Systems Division, El Segundo, 

California. September. 

Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1990a. Waste Assessment, Space Launch Complex 7. 

Prepared for USAF, Headquarters Space Systems Division, El Segundo, California. 

Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1990b. Biological Assessment, Titan IV/Centaur Launch 

Complex, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Prepared for USAF, Headquarters 

Space Systems Division, El Segundo, California. 

Evans, W. E.; J. E. Jehi, Jr.; C. F. Cooper. 1979. Potential Impact of Space 

Shuttle Sonic Boom on the Biota of the California Channel Islands: Literature 

Review and Problem Analysis. Report to U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems 

Organization. Contract F 04701-78-C-0060. San Diego State University Center for 

Regional Environmental Studies and Hubbs/Sea World Research Institute, San Diego, 

California. 

Hanan, D.A.; Scholl, J.P.; Diamond, L.L. 1987. Harbor seal, Phoca vitulina richardsi, 

census in California, June 2-5, and July 1, 1986. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration/NMFS Southwest Region, Administrative Report SWR 87-3. p. 41. 

Henningson, Durham, & Richardson (HDR). 1980. Biological assessment for proposed 

MX Flight Test Program, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Volumes I and 

Technical Report E FR-158. Santa Barbara, California. 

Henningson, Durham, & Richardson (HDR). 1981. Socioeconomic impact insert for the 

Draft Supplement to the Space Shuttle Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

October. 

Henningson, Durham, & Richardson (HDR) Sciences. 1989. Effects of Minuteman 

launch on California least tern nesting activity, Vandenberg AFB, California. Report 

No. E 1'R 865. January. 

Houghton Mifflin. 1989. The Information Please Almanac. Boston. 

Jehl, J. R. and Cooper, C. F., eds. 1980. Potential effects of Space Shuttle sonic booms 

on the biota and geology of the California Channel Islands: research reports. Prepared 

by the Center for Marine Studies, San Diego State University, in cooperation with 

Hubbs/Sea World Research Institute. Prepared for USAF, Headquarters, Space 

Division, El Segundo, California. Tech Rep 80-1. 

Madrone Associates. 1981. Environmental assessment for a new hypergolic propellant 

storage facility, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. June. 

National Research Council. 1989. Letter to Col. Thayer Lewis, Headquarters U.S. Air 

Force, Boling Air Force Base. Committee on Toxicology. August 8. 

The Nature Conservancy. 1989. Personal Communication with Ken Wiley. October. 

Ozone Trends Panel. 1988. Executive summary. March 15. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 5-3 

• 

• 

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. 1989. Letter to Col. Orville 

Robertson, 1STRAD/ET. January 27. 

Santa Barbara County Cities Area Planning Council. 1985. Forecast '85 Santa Barbara 

County 1980-2000. October. 

Santa Barbara County Cities Area Planning Council. 1987. City of Lompoc Population, 

Employment and Land Use Forecast. May. 

Santa Barbara County Department of Resource Management, Division of Environmental 

Review. 1989. Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. 

Santa Barbara County Office of Emergency Management. 1990. Personal communication 

with Mary Barron. June. 

Schmalzer, P.A.; Hinkle, C.R.; and Breininger, D. 1986. Effects of Space Shuttle 

launches STS-1 through STS-9 on terrestrial vegetation of John F. Kennedy Space 

Center, Florida. NASA technical memorandum 83103. John F. Kennedy Space 

Center, Florida. 

Schreiber, E.A.; Schreiber, R.W. 1980. Effects of impulse noise on seabirds of the 

Channel Islands. In: Jehl, J. R. ; Cooper, C. F. , eds. Potential effects of Space 

Shuttle sonic booms on the biota and geology of the California Channel Islands: 

research reports. Prepared by the Center for Marine Studies, San Diego State 

University, in cooperation with Hubbs/Sea World Research Institute. Prepared for 

USAF, Headquarters, Space Division, El Segundo, California. Tech Rep 80-1. 

Section 7, pp. 138-162. 

Stetson Engineering. 1988. Tenth Annual Engineering Survey and Report on Water 

Supply Conditions of the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District 1987-88. 

San Clemente, California. June. 

Stetson Engineering. 1989. Eleventh Annual Engineering Survey and Report on Water 

Supply Conditions of the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District 1988-89. 

San Clemente, California. June. 

Stewart, B. S.; Antonelis, G. A., Jr.; DeLong, R. L.; Yochem, P. K. 1988. Abundance 

of harbor seals on San Miguel Island, California, 1927 through 1986. Bull. So. Calif. 

acad. Sci. 87(1):39-43. 

IENERA. 1990. Evaluation of Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch Risk Model and 

Application. January. 

Tetra Tech. 1989. Personal Communication with Diane Concannon, project manager for 

biological monitoring of the Rail Garrison project. October. 

USAF. 1976. 1st Strategic Aerospace Division (Strategic Air Command) Regulation 

127-200, Missile Mishap Prevention, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. 

October. 

USAF. 1982. Supplemental water study for Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. 

Task IB, review of water supply alternatives. March. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2111/5 

• 

• 

USAF. 1985. Western Space and Missile Center (Air Force Systems Command) 

Regulation 127-1, Range Safety Requirements, Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

California. May. 

USAF. 1987. Economic resource impact statement for Vandenberg Air Force Base, fiscal 

year 1987. Prepared by Cost Branch, Comptroller Division, 4392nd Aerospace 

Support Wing, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. 

USAF. 1988a. White Paper on Bixby Ranch Update. Air Force Systems Command. 

July. 

USAF. 1988b. Environmental Assessment For the Titan IV Space Launch Vehicle 

Modification and Operations, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. February. 

USAF. 1988c. Operations Concept, SLC-7 Titan IV/Centaur Launch Vehicle. Generated 

by WSMC/ST. 24 March. 

USAF. 1988d. Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) Limitation in Heating, Ventilating and Air 

Conditioning (HVAC) Systems. Unpublished Engineering Technical Letter (ETL) 

88-8. October 4. 

USAF. 1989a. Unpublished Weekly Notes: Evaluation of Environmental Effects of the 

Titan IV Launch. June 20. 

USAF. 1989b. 1st Strategic Aerospace Division OPlan 234-89, Spill Prevention, Control 

and Countermeasures (SPCC)/Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan 

(OHSCP), Spill Prevention Response (SPR) Plan. HQ 1st Strategic Aerospace 

Division (SAC), Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. July. 

USAF. 1989c. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Construction and Operation of 

Space Launch Complex 7, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. 20 July. 

USAF. 1990. Unpublished Letter from Col. Hal W. Wold (WSMC/SE) to WSMC/ST. 

April 18. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1985a. 1980 Census of Population and Housing, 

Congressional Districts of the 99th Congress, Part 6, California, PHC80-4-6. 

February. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1985b. 1980 Census of Population and Housing, 

Census Tract Report Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc SMSA. PHC80-2-324. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1985c. 1980 Census of Population and Housing, 

Journey to Work: Metropolitan Commuting Flows. PC80-2-6C. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT). 1988. Final programmatic environmental 

assessment for commercial expandable launch vehicle programs, Vandenberg Air 

Force Base, California. January. 
Chapter6.0 

'71 z r

FINAL EIS MAILING LIST i r F. z 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 6-1 

1 JUNE 2015 

6.0 FINAL EIS MAILING LIST • 

6.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Washington, DC 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Western Office of Project Review 

Golden, CO 

Attn: Director 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Regional Headquarters 

Los Angeles, CA 

Intragency Archaeological Services Branch 

National Park Service 

Western Region 

San Francisco, CA 

Marine Mammal Commission 

Washington, DC 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Sacramento, CA 

Ann: John Harris, CESPK-ED-M 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Los Angeles, CA 

Atm: Paul Apodaca 

U.S. Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Division 

Long Beach, CA 

Attn: U.S. Coast Guard Chief 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Soil Conservation Service 

Santa Maria, CA 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Forest Service 

Santa Lucia Ranger District 

Santa Maria, CA 

Attn: Keith Gunther, District Ranger 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Rockville, MD 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Services 

Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center 

Seattle, WA 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Southwest Region 

Terminal Island, CA 

Atm: E. C. Fullerton, Regional Director 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Terminal Island, CA 

Atm: James Lecky, Marine Biologist 

U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development 

San Francisco, CA 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Central California Agency 

Sacramento, CA 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Washington, DC 

Attn: Division of Planning and 

Environmental Control 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Sacramento, CA 

Attn: Planning Division 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Channel Islands National Park 

Ventura, CA 

Attn: William H. Thom, Superintendent 
6 2.. NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

4,0 U.S. Department of the Interior 

ational Park Service 

hannel Islands National Park 

Ventura, CA 

Attn: Frank Ugolini 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Western Regional Office 

San Francisco, CA 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Office of the Secretary 

Washington, DC 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Regional Environmental Officer 

San Francisco, CA 

Attn: Patricia Port 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Laguna Niguel Field Office 

Laguna Niguel, CA 

Ann: Nancy M. Kaufman, Field Supervisor 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

estern Regional Office 

ortland, OR 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Sacramento Endangered Species Office 

Sacramento, CA 

Attn: Mr. Gail C. Kobetich 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Washington, DC 

Atm: Cliff Haupt 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Washington, DC 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

San Luis Obispo, CA 

Ann: Mr. Henry 0. Case 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Washington, DC 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Federal Activities 

Region IX 

San Francisco, CA 

Attn: Jacqueline Wyland, Chief 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Federal Activities 

Region IX 

San Francisco, CA 

Attn: David Tomjovic 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Headquarters 

Washington, DC 

6.2 STATE AGENCIES 

California Coastal Commission 

San Francisco, CA 

Atm: Mr. Peter Douglas 

California Department of Fish and Game 

Sacramento, CA 

California Department of Parks and Recreation 

La Purisima Mission District 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Russell G. Guiney, District Superintendent 

California Native Plant Society 

San Luis Obispo, CA 

Attn: President, San Luis Obispo Chapter 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Central Coast Region 

San Luis Obispo, CA 

Attn: William R. Leonard, Executive Officer 

California State Historic Preservation Office 

Sacramento, CA 

Atm: SHPO 

Governor's Office of Planning Research 

Sacramento, CA 

La Purisima Mission State Park 

Lompoc, CA 

Native American Heritage Commission 

Sacramento, CA 

Ann: Larry Myers, Executive Secretary 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 6-3 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• 

• 

The Resources Agency of California 

Office of the Secretary 

Sacramento, CA 

6.3 COUNTY AGENCIES 

Santa Barbara County 

Resource Management Department 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Health Care Services 

Environmental Health Services 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Atm: Ben Gale, Director 

Santa Barbara County 

Air Pollution Control District 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: James M. Ryerson, 

Air Pollution Control Officer 

Santa Barbara County 

Air Pollution Control District 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Atm: Deborah Pontifex 

Santa Barbara County 

Board of Supervisors 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Atm: Chairman 

Santa Barbara County 

Board of Supervisors 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: David M. Yager, Supervisor, 1st District 

Santa Barbara County 

Board of Supervisors 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: Thomas Rogers, Supervisor, 2nd District 

Santa Barbara County 

Board of Supervisors 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: William B. Wallace, Supervisor, 3rd 

District 

Santa Barbara County 

Cities Area Planning Council 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Atm: Gerald R. Lorden, Executive Director 

Santa Barbara County 

Flood Control and Water Agency 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: James Stubchaer, Engineer-Manager 

Santa Barbara County 

Office of Disaster Preparedness 

Hazardous Materials Coordinator 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: Susan Strachan 

Santa Barbara County 

Park Department 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: Mike Pahos, Director of Parks 

Santa Barbara County 

Park Department 

Santa Maria, CA 

Attn: Weldon Hobbs 

6.4 LOCAL AGENCIES 

City of Lompoc 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Karl Braun, Mayor Pro-Tem 

City of Lompoc 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Jeremy Graves, Associate Planner 

City of Lompoc 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Marvin Loney, Mayor 

City of Lompoc 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: William S. Muffins, Councilman 

City of Lompoc 

Lompoc, CA 

Atm: Jim Smith, Councilman 

City of Lompoc 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Gene Stevens, Councilman 

City of Lompoc 

Department of Community Development 

Lompoc, CA 

Atm: King Leonard, Planning Director 
640 APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

City of Santa Barbara 

ommunity Development Department 

anta Barbara, CA 

Attn: Director 

City of Santa Maria 

Santa Maria, CA 

Attn: George S. Hobbs, Jr., Mayor 

City of Santa Maria 

Santa Maria, CA 

Attn: James A. May, Councilman 

City of Santa Maria 

Santa Maria, CA 

Attn: Robert Orach, Councilman 

City of Santa Maria 

Santa Maria, CA 

Attn: Curtis J. Tunnel, Councilman 

City of Santa Maria 

Santa Maria, CA 

Attn: Thomas B. Urbanske, Mayor Pro-Tem 

City of Santa Maria 

Department of Community Development („Santa Maria, CA 

6.5 LIBRARIES 

Buellton Library 

Buellton, CA 

Goleta Library 

Goleta, CA 

41110Lompoc Public Library 

Lompoc, CA 

Montecito Library 

Montecito, CA 

Santa Barbara City Library 

Central Branch 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Santa Maria City Library 

Santa Maria, CA 

Santa Maria City Library 

Guadalupe Branch 

Guadalupe, CA 

Santa Maria City Library 

Orcutt Branch 

Orcutt, CA 

Solvang Library 

Solvang, CA 

University of California at Santa Barbara 

Library Reference Department 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Ventura County Library 

E.P. Foster Branch 

Ventura, CA 

Village Library 

Vandenberg Village, CA 

6.6 ORGANIZATIONS 

California Wildlife Trust 

Hermosa, CA 

Attn: Edward S. Loosli, Director 

Chumash Cultural Heritage Association 

Solvang, CA 

Attn: Reggie Pagaling 

Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: John Ruiz, Cultural Resource Coordinator 

Elders Council of the Santa Ynez Reservation 

Santa Ynez, CA 

Environmental Defense Center 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Federation of American Scientists 

Washington, D.C. 

Attn: Steven Aftergood 

Environmental Health Services 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Richard Runyon 

Health Care Services 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Larry Bishop, Supervisor 

Lompoc General Plan Advisory Committee 

Lompoc, CA 

Lompoc Valley General Plan Advisory 

Committee 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Jane Green, Secretary 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

Historical Society (Lompoc Valley) 

Lompoc, CA 

Historical Society of Santa Maria 

Santa Maria, CA 

Ann: Ted A. Bianchi, Sr. 

Hollister Ranch Owners' Association 

Gaviota, CA 

Ann: Alvin J. Remmenga 

La Purisima Mission Association 

Lompoc, CA 

League of Women Voters 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: Marty Blum, President 

Lompoc Valley Chamber of Commerce 

Lompoc, CA 

Ann: Lee Bohlmann, Executive Director 

National Audubon Society 

La Purisma Chapter 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Debra Argel, President 

Planning and Conservation League 

Sacramento, CA 

Attn: Larry Moss 

Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce 

Santa Maria, CA 

Atm: Charlie Jackson, Executive Director 

Santa Ynez Indian Reservation 

Business Council 

Santa Ynez, CA 

Attn: James Pace, Chairman 

Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: Fred Eissler 

Sierra Club (Arguello Group) 

Lompoc, CA 

Atm: Connie Geiger 

Sierra Club National Headquarters 

San Francisco, CA 

United Chumash Central Counsel • Santa Barbara, CA 

• 

• 

6-5 

6.7 BUSINESSES 

ACTA Incorporated 

Torrance, CA 

Atm: Jerold Haber 

Bixby Ranch Company 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: John M. Baucke 

Bixby Ranch Company 

Los Angeles, CA 

Attn: Kenneth C. Bornholdt 

Bixby Ranch Co. 

Los Olivos, CA 

Attn: Andrew Mills 

CH2M Hill 

Portland, OR 

Attn: Dan Heagerty 

Community Construction Co. 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Bea Smith 

County News Service 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: John Hankins 

Fluor Daniel 

Irvine, CA 

Attn: E. R. Phillips 

General Dynamics 

San Diego, CA 

Atm: Mike Haro 

General Dynamics 

Space Systems Division 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA 

Attn: George Lacombe 

General Dynamics 

San Diego, CA 

Atm: Harvey Jewett 

Ground Systems Associated Contractor 

Vandenberg AFB, CA 

Attn: M. W. Milligan 
Santa Maria Times 

Santa Maria, CA 

Santa Maria Valley Developers, Inc. 

Santa Maria, CA 

Sverdrup Corporation 

St. Louis, MO 

Atm: Lieu Smith 

TAD Corps 

Washington, D.C. 

Attn: Doyle McDonald 

Thomas Paine Associates 

Santa Monica, CA 

Attn: Dr. Thomas 0. Paine 

WESCO 

Novato, CA 

Atm: Diana Hickson 

6.8 INDIVIDUALS 

Mike Anderson 

Lompoc, CA 

Larry Austin 

Lompoc, CA 

Raymond Bellrose 

Lompoc, CA 

Don Benn 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Jennifer Bessette 

Lompoc, CA 

Steve Bridge 

Lompoc, CA 

Walter B. Burnett 

Lompoc, CA 

Tony Cayabyab 

Lompoc, CA 

Paul Collins 

Santa Ynez, CA 

Greg Cooper 

Lompoc, CA 

Judy Y. Cooper and Laura M. Cooper 

Lompoc, CA 

6-6 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute 

San Diego, CA 

Lockheed Space Operations Company 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Steve Bridge 

Lompoc Record 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Chuck Bolcom 

Lompoc Record 

Lompoc, CA 

Atm: David Nen 

Los Angeles Magazine 

Los Angeles, CA 

Attn: Rodger Clair 

Martin Marietta Corp. 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA 

Attn: Robbie Robinson 

Martin Marietta Corp. 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA 

Attn: Mel Wheeler 

Martin Marietta Denver Aerospace ill Denver, CO 

Atm: Eldon Milner 

McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Co. 

Huntington Beach, CA 

Ann: Larry R. Nelson 

Robert Nichaus 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Ann: Jeff Eitucci 

Pacific Enterprises 

Los Angeles, CA 

Attn: Mark Portner 

Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro 

Washington, DC 

Attn: Gen. Sugiyama 

San Luis Obispo Telegram - Tribune 

San Luis Obispo, CA 

Santa Barbara News-Press 

Santa Barbara, CA 

McDonnell Douglas 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA 

Attn: Bill Sobszak 

• 
• 

• 

• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

Peter Coulston 

Salt Lake City, UT 

S. R. Datrell 

Santa Maria, CA 

Darlene Dial and Terry Dial 

Santa Maria, CA 

David A. Dimalty 

Lompoc, CA 

Nicole M. Donla 

Lompoc, CA 

David A. Dunaltz 

Lompoc, CA 

Andrew N. Dunlap 

Lompoc, CA 

Robert Dwyer 

Lompoc, CA 

Clay Easterly 

Knoxville, TN 

Commander Carl W. Erickson 

USN (Ret) 

Livingston, TX 

Charles R. Eshelman 

Goleta, CA 

Scott Feirn 

Lompoc, CA 

Ray Fincham 

Santa Monica, CA 

Gary Gault 

Santa Maria, CA 

Robert Gibson 

Paso Robles, CA 

Vince Gomez 

Santa Ynez, CA 

Tom Gooch 

Lompoc, CA 

Jeremy Graves 

Lompoc, CA 

Fred Halneka 

Lompoc, CA 

6-7 

Kathryn L. Harter 

Lompoc, CA 

Charles Hutchison 

Lompoc, CA 

George Johnson 

Lompoc, CA 

Dominic Keen 

Lompoc, CA 

Michael E. Kelley 

Lompoc, CA 

Chester King 

Topanga Canyon, CA 

Ray Kunze 

Lompoc, CA 

George LaCombe 

Lompoc, CA 

Larry Lane 

Lompoc, CA 

Jackson Leeds 

Washington, DC 

Larry Liles 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Joe Manieri 

Bay St. Louis, MS 

Michael J. McDermott 

Lompoc, CA 

Mike McFlligott 

Lompoc, CA 

Mark D. Mopson 

Lompoc, CA 

J. C. Picciuolo 

Lompoc, CA 

Richard A. Proctor 

Lompoc, CA 

Tony Roberts 

Lompoc, CA 

Donn Robertson 

Lompoc, CA 
6-8 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

K. K. Rodriguez 

Lompoc, CA 

• Barbara Russell 

Avila Beach, CA 

Allen Schauffler 

San Luis Obispo, CA 

Elaine Schneider 

Santa Maria, CA 

Sandra Schweiger 

Orcutt, CA 

Le Roy Scolari and Joan Scolari 

Lompoc, CA 

Donald Shaw 

White Oak, PA 

Maria Slizys 

Lompoc, CA 

Aubrey B. Sloan 

Santa Maria, CA 

Don D. Smith 

Lompoc, CA 

onald D. Smith 

Lompoc, CA 

Steve Sorkin 

Goleta, CA 

James Spellman, Jr. 

Vandenberg AFB, CA 

Steen W. Steensen 

Lompoc, CA 

Steve Strachan 

Lompoc, CA 

K. R. Taybro 

Goleta, CA 

Tad Weber 

Lompoc, CA 

Lisa Weetman 

San Luis Obispo, CA 

Dorene Wettck 

Lompoc, CA 

Joe Wisely 

oleta, CA 

Charles D. Woodhouse 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Jimmy Wyest 

Lompoc, CA 

Michael I. Zeenin 

Lompoc, CA 

Roger Zimmerman 

Lompoc, CA 

6.9 ELECTED OFFICIALS 

Alan Cranston, U.S. Senator 

Los Angeles, CA 

Ed Davis, State Senator 

(19th District) 

Northridge, CA 

George Deukmejian, Governor 

Sacramento, CA 

Gary Hart, State Senator 

(18th District) 

Santa Barbara, CA 

DeWayne Holmdahl, Supervisor 

(4th District) 

Lompoc, CA 

Robert Lagomarsino, Congressman 

(19th District) 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Toni Miyoshi, Supervisor 

(5th District) 

Santa Maria, CA 

Office of the Mayor 

Santa Barbara City Hall 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Eric Seastrand, State Assemblyman 

(29th District) 

San Luis Obispo, CA 

Pete Wilson, U.S. Senator 

Los Angeles, CA 

Cathie Wright, State Assemblywoman 

(37th District) 

Simi Valley, CA 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 6-9 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 6.10 EDUCATIONAL/RESEARCH 

INSTITUTIONS 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

California Institute of Technology 

Pasadena, CA 

Attn: Dr. Mario J. Molina 

Lompoc Unified Schools 

Lompoc, CA 

Atm: Domenic Signorelli 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Energy Division 

Integrated Analysis and Assessment Section 

Oak Ridge, TN 

Superintendent of Schools 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: William J. Cirone 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

DOCUMENTATION OF DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARINGS 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 7-1 

1 JUNE 2015 • 7.0 DOCUMENTATION OF DRAFT EIS 

PUBLIC HEARINGS 

The material in this section is provided to document the Environmental Impact Analysis Process 

(EIAP) and its consistency with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as implemented by 

the Regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR Parts 1500 -

1508). In particular, this section demonstrates consistency with CEQ requirements for public 

involvement (40 CRF Part 1506.6). Documentation of public notice is shown in the Federal 

Register Notice of Availability of Draft EIS, mailing list for notification of Draft EIS public 

hearings, notification of Draft EIS public hearings, and publication dates for newspaper 

notifications of Draft EIS public hearings. 

Public hearings on the Draft EIS were held at Lompoc and Santa Barbara, California, on August 

30 and 31, 1989. The public hearing summary handout, public hearing registration card, written 

statement form, and list of attendees and speakers are provided to demonstrate public involvement 

in the EIAP and NEPA process. The same handouts were distributed at both public hearings. 

• 

• 
t 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 7-3 

1 JUNE 2015 

7.1 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT EIS 

• 

• 
NRPAAPPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 fiff\JE 2015 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 88 / Friday. April 8. 1988 / Notices 11695 

• 

Dower House Road 

Washington, DC 

Janitorial Service 

The Rexnord Building 

4277 Poche Court West 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

C.W. Fletcher, 

Executive Director. 

(FR Doc. 88-7748 Filed 4-7-68: 8:45 amj 

131U-114G CODE 6129-33-11 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Air Force 

Intent (N01) To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Proposed Construction and 

Operation of Space Launch Complex 7 

at Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB), 

California 

The Department of the Air Force is 

proposing to construct and operate 

Space Launch Complex 7 (SLC-7) at 

Vandenberg AFB to launch Department 

of Defense satellites beginning in 1994 

into polar orbit aboard Titan Centaur 

expendable space launch vehicles. The 

proposed location of SLC-7 is near 

Cypress Ridge on South Vandenberg. 

approximately one mile south of SLC-6, 

the Vandenberg AFB launch site for the 

Space Shuttle. The proposed action 

includes the construction of the launch 

complex and support facilities, the 

extension of roads and utilities on 

Vandenberg AFB, and the launching of 

the Titan Centaur. In addition. existing 

launch support facilities constructed for 

other space launch systems at 

Vandenberg AFB (i.e.. Space Shuttle) are 

proposed to be used and/or modified as 

required to support the new launch 

complex. The satellites proposed to 

launch aboard the Titan Centaur from 

SLC-7 require polar orbits. Vandenberg 

AFB is the only existing U.S. 

government launch site that can launch 

satellites into polar orbits without over 

flying populated land masses. Therefore, 

Vandenberg AFB is the only feasible 

location for the proposed SLC-7. 

Alternative sites on Vandenberg AFB 

are being evaluated for SLC-7 including 

a coastal terrace near Point Arguello, 

and an upland terrace approximately 

one miles south of the proposed Cypress 

Ridge site. 

The Department of the Air Force will 

hold two public scoping meetings to 

solicit inputs on significant 

environmental issues associated with 

the construction and operation of SLC-7 

at Vandenberg AFB. These scoping 

meetings are scheduled for May 3. 1988 

at the Lompoc Civic Auditorium. 217 

South '1" Street. Lompoc, CA from 

7:00-10:00 pm: and May 5. 1988 at the 

Goleta Valley Community Center, 5679 

Hollister Avenue, Goleta, CA from 

7:00-10:00 pm. In addition to these two 

scoping meetings, written inputs to the 

scoping process are solicited. Comments 

in response to this NOI or as part of the 

scoping process are requested in writing 

within 30 calendar days from 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Questions concerning the proposed 

action or the NEPA process for the 

action, comments on this NM, or written 

inputs to the scoping process should be 

mailed to Mr. Robert Mason, 

Department of the Air Force, 

Headquarters Space Division/DEV. P.O. 

Box 92960, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960. 

Telephone inquiries should be directed 

to Mr. Mason at (213) 643-1409. 

Patsy J. Conner. 

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

(FR Doc. 88-7710 Filed 4-7-88: 8:45 am) 

sit.usc. CODE 3910-01-U 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Proposed Information Collection 

Requests 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTON: Notice of proposed information 

collection requests. 

SUMMARY; The Director, Information 

Technology Services. invites comments 

on the proposed information collection 

requests as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1980. 

DATE: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before May 9, 

1988. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be addressed to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs. 

Attention: Jim Houser, Desk Officer. 

Department of Education, Office of 

Management and Budget, 726 Jackson 

Place, NW., Room 3208, New Executive 

Office Building. Washington. DC 20503. 

Requests for copies of the proposed 

information collection requests should 

be addressed to Margaret B. Webster, 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW., Room 5624, Regional 

Office Building 3. Washington, DC 

20202. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margaret B. Webster, (202) 732-3915. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3517 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1980 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) provide interested Federal 

agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency's ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. 

The Director, Information Technology 

Services. publishes this notice 

containing proposed information 

collection requests prior to submission 

of these requests to OMB. Each 

proposed information collection. 

grouped by office, contains the 

following: (1) Type of review requested, 

e.g., new, revision, extension, existing or 

reinstatement; (2) Title: (3) Frequency of 

collection: (4) The affected public; (5) 

Reporting burden: and/or (6) 

Recordkeeping burden; and (7) Abstract. 

OMB invites public comment at the 

address specified above. Copies of the 

requests are available from Margaret 

Webster at the address specified above. 

Dated: April 4. 19E8. 

Carlos U. Rice. 

Director for Information Technology.ier-r.ces. 

Office of Planning. Budget. and 

Evaluation 

Type of Review: New 

Title: Administrative Cost Study of the 

College Cost Containment Project 

Frequency: One time only 

Affected Public: Businesses or other forprofit, non-profit institutions 

Reporting Burden: 

Responses: 500 

Burden Hours: 900 

Recordlteep g.. 

Recordkeepers: 0 

Burden Hours: 0 

Abstract: This study will collect 

information from postsecondary 

institutions that have participated in the 

College Cost Containment Project. Thi 

Department will use the data to analyze 

and test cost reduction methods. 

Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitation Services 

Type of Review: New 

Title: Evaluation of State Vocational 

Agency Costs 

Frequency: One time only 

Affected Public: State or local 

governments 

Reporting Burden: 

Responses: 40 

Burden Hours: 920 

Recordkeeping: 

Recordkeepers: 0 

Burden Hours: 0 

Abstract: This study will collect 

information on Vocational 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

7-5 

7.2 NEWS RELEASE FOR DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARINGS 

• 
• 

NR07*PROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 August 1, 1989 

AIR FORCE ANNOUNCES PUBLIC 

HEARINGS ON VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE 

SPACE LAUNCH PROJECT 

LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- Officials at Headquarters Air Force Space 

Systems Division announced here today that public hearings will be held to provide the public 

an opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Space Launch 

Complex 7 (SLC-7) project at Vandenberg Air Force Base. 

These meetings are open to all interested individuals, groups, and government agencies. 

They will be held at the following times and places: 

1. August 30, 1989, 7:00 p.m. 

Grossman Gallery of the Lompoc Public Library 

501 East North Avenue 

Lompoc, CA 

2. August 31, 1989, 7:00 p.m. 

Santa Barbara Superintendent of Schools Auditorium 

4400 Cathedral Oaks Road 

Santa Barbara, CA 

The U.S. Air Force is proposing construction and operation of a new space launch complex 

(SLC-7) for the Titan IV/Centaur launch vehicle at Vandenberg. The proposed facility represents the 

latest modification to the Titan program and is a continuation of the USAF Space Launch program at 

this Santa Barbara County base. 

During the hearing, individuals are limited to 5-minute presentations and representatives of groups 

to 10 minutes. If a more lengthy statement is necessary, the speaker is asked to provide a written 

copy and summarize it orally according to the above time limits. 

Written statements may be submitted to: 

Headquarters Space Systems Division 

SSD/DEV 

ATTN: Mr. John Edwards 

P. 0. Box 92969 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 7-7 

7.3 MAILING LIST FOR NOTIFICATION OF DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARINGS 

• 
NRO X1A3

ROVED FOR RELEAMAILING LIST FOR NO I thICATION 

1 JUNE 2015 -OP DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARINGS 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Washington, DC 

Advisory Council for Historic Preservation 

Western Office of Project Review 

Golden, CO 

Attn: Director 

Mike Anderson 

Lompoc, CA 

John M. Baucke 

Bixby Ranch Company 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Raymond Bellrose 

Lompoc, CA 

Don Benn 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Jennifer Bessette 

Lompoc, CA 

Anthony Blacken 

Lompoc, CA 

Board of Supervisors 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: Chairman 

Kenneth C. Bornholdt 

Bixby Ranch Company 

Los Angeles, CA 

Steve Bridge 

Lompoc, CA 

Walter B. Burnett 

Lompoc, CA 

California Coastal Commission 

San Francisco, CA 

Attn: Peter Douglas 

California Department of Fish and Game 

Sacramento, CA 

California Native Plant Society 

San Luis Obispo, CA 

Attn: President, San Luis Obispo Chapter 

California Regional Water Quality Control 

Board 

Central Coast Region 

San Luis Obispo, CA 

Attn: William R. Leonard, Executive Officer 

California State Historic Preservation Office 

Sacramento, CA 

Attn: SHPO 

California Wildlife Trust 

Hermosa, CA 

Attn: Edward S. Loosli, Director 

Tony Cayabyab 

Lompoc, CA 

Central Coast Indian Council 

Paso Robles, CA 

Atm: Director 

City of Lompoc 

City Hall 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Gene Stevens, Councilman 

City of Lompoc 

City Hall 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Jeremy Graves, Associate Planner 

City of Lompoc 

City Hall 

Lompoc, CA 

Ann: Jim Smith, Councilman 

City of Lompoc 

City Hall 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Karl Braun, Mayor Pro-Tern 

City of Lompoc 

City Hall 

Lompoc, CA 

Atm: Marvin Loney, Mayor 

City of Lompoc 

City Hall 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: William S. Mullins, Councilman 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

7-9 

• 

• 

• 

City of Lompoc 

Department of Community Development 

Lompoc, CA 

Atm: King Leonard, Planning Director 

City of Santa Barbara 

Community Development Department 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Atm: Director 

City of Santa Maria 

Santa Maria, CA 

Attn: Curtis J. Tunnel, Councilman 

City of Santa Maria 

Santa Maria, CA 

Attn: George S. Hobbs, Jr., Mayor 

City of Santa Maria 

Santa Maria, CA 

Attn: James A. May, Councilman 

City of Santa Maria 

Santa Maria, CA 

Atm: Robert Orach, Councilman 

City of Santa Maria 

Santa Maria, CA 

Atm: Thomas B. Urbanske, Mayor Pro-Tern 

City of Santa Maria 

Department of Community Development 

Santa Maria, CA 

Paul Collins 

Santa Ynez, CA 

Judy Y. Cooper 

Lompoc, CA 

Laura M. Cooper 

Lompoc, CA 

County of Santa Barbara 

Resource Management Department 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Alan Cranston, U.S. Senator 

Los Angeles, CA 

S.R. Datrell 

Santa Maria, CA 

Ed Davis, State Senator 

(19th District) 

Northridge, CA 

George Deukmejian, Governor 

Sacramento, CA 

Darlene Dial 

Santa Maria, CA 

Terry Dial 

Santa Maria, CA 

David A. Dimalty 

Lompoc, CA 

Nicole M. Donla 

Lompoc, CA 

David A. Dunaltz 

Lompoc, CA 

Andrew N. Dunlap 

Lompoc, CA 

Robert Dwyer 

Lompoc, CA 

Clay Easterly 

Knoxville, TN 

William H. Ehorn, Superintendent 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Channel Islands National Park 

Ventura, CA 

Elders Council of the Santa Ynez Reservation 

c/o Elaine Schneider 

Santa Ynez, CA 

Charles R. Eshelman 

Goleta, CA 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Regional Headquarters 

Worldway Postal Center 

Los Angeles, CA 

Scott Feirn 

Lompoc, CA 
NRO AIFIPOVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

Fluor Daniel 

Irvine, CA 

Attn: E.R. Phillips 

Gary Gault 

Santa Maria, CA 

General Dynamics 

San Diego, CA 

Attn: Harvey Jewett 

Robert Gibson 

Paso Robles, CA 

Tom Gooch 

Lompoc, CA 

Governor's Office of Planning Research 

Sacramento, CA 

Russell G. Guiney, District Superintendent 

California Department of Parks and 

Rec. eation 

La Purisima Mission District 

Lompoc, CA 

Jerold Haber 

NTS Engineering 

Los Angeles, CA 

Fred Halneka 

Lompoc, CA 

Gary Hart, State Senator 

(18th District) 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Kathryn L. Harter 

Lompoc, CA 

Health Care Services 

Environmental Health Services 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: Ben Gale, Director 

Health Care Services 

Lompoc, CA 

Atm: Larry Bishop, Supervisor 

Diana Hickson 

WESCO 

Novato, CA 

Historical Society (Lompoc Valley) 

Lompoc, CA 

Historical Society of Santa Maria 

Santa Maria, CA 

Atm: Ted A. Bianchi, Sr. 

Hollister Ranch Owners' Association 

Gaviota, CA 

Attn: Alvin J. Remmenga 

DeWayne Holmdahl, Supervisor 

4th District 

Lompoc, CA 

Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute 

San Diego, CA 

Interagency Archaeological Services Branch 

National Park Service Western Region 

San Francisco, CA 

George Johnson 

Lompoc, CA 

Dominic Keen 

Lompoc, CA 

Michael E. Kelley 

Lompoc, CA 

Mike Kelly 

Isla Vista, CA 

Chester King 

Topanga Canyon, CA 

Ray Kunze 

Lompoc, CA 

Robert Lagomarsino, Congressman 

(19th District) 

Santa Barbara, CA 

La Purisima Mission Association 

Lompoc, CA 

La Purisima Mission State Park 

Lompoc, CA 

Larry Lane 

Lompoc, CA 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

7-11 

• 

League of Women Voters 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: Marty Blum, President 

Lockheed Space Operations Company 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Steve Bridge 

Lompoc General Plan Advisory Committee 

Lompoc, CA 

Lompoc Record 

Lompoc, CA 

Lompoc Valley Chamber of Commerce 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Lee Bohlmann, Executive Director 

Lompoc Valley General Plan Advisory 

Committee 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Jane Green, Secretary 

Los Angeles Times 

Santa Barbara Edition 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Marine Mammal Commission 

Washington, DC 

Martin Marietta Corp. 

DEOOA 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA 

Attn: Robbie Robinson 

Martin Marietta Corp. 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA 

Attn: Mel Wheeler 

Doyle McDonald 

TAD Corps 

Washington, D.C. 

McDonnell Douglas 

Bill Sobszak 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA 

Eldon Milner 

Martin Marietta Denver Aerospace 

Denver, CO 

Toru Miyoshi, Supervisor 

5th District 

Santa Maria, CA 

Dr. Mario J. Molina 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

California Institute of Technology 

Pasadena, CA 

Mark D. Mopson 

Lompoc, CA 

Larry Myers, Executive Secretary 

Native American Heritage Commission 

Sacramento, CA 

National Audubon Society 

La Purisma Chapter 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Debra Argel, President 

David Nert 

Lompoc Record 

Lompoc, CA 

Office of the Mayor 

Santa Barbara City Hall 

Santa Barbara, CA 

James Peach 

Isla Vista, CA 

Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro 

Washington, DC 

Attn: Gen. Sugiyama 

Planning and Conservation League 

Sacramento, CA 

Attn: Larry Moss 

Deborah Pontifex 

SBCAPCD 

Santa Barbara, CA 

John Riughnuser 

Lompoc, CA 

Donn Robertson 

Lompoc, CA 

K.K. Rodriguez 

Lompoc, CA 

Richard Roop 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Oak Ridge, TN 
NROMFROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

Richard Runyon 

Environmental Health Services 

Lompoc, CA 

Barbara Russell 

Avila Beach, CA 

San Luis Obispo Telegram - Tribune 

San Luis Obispo, CA 

Santa Barbara County Flood Control 

and Water Agency 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: James Stubchaer, Engineer-Manager 

Santa Barbara County Parks Department 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: Mike Pahos, Director of Parks 

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control 

District 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: James M. Ryerson, 

Air Pollution Control Officer 

Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: Chairman 

Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Atm: David M. Yager, Supervisor, 1st 

District 

Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: Thomas Rogers, Supervisor, 2nd 

District 

Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: William B. Wallace, Supervisor, 3rd 

District 

Santa Barbara County 

Cities Area Planning Council 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: Gerald R. Lorden, Executive Director 

Santa Barbara News 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Santa Maria Times 

Santa Maria, CA 

Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce 

Santa Maria, CA 

Attn: Charlie Jackson, Executive Director 

Santa Maria Valley Developers, Inc. 

Santa Maria, CA 

Santa Ynez Indian Reservation 

Business Council 

Santa Ynez, CA 

Attn: James Pace, Chairman 

Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: Mr. Fred Eissler 

Elaine Schneider 

Santa Maria, CA 

Eric Seastrand, State Assemblyman 

(29th District) 

San Luis Obispo, CA 

Donald Shaw 

White Oak, PA 

Sierra Club (Arguello Group) 

Lompoc, CA 

Attn: Connie Geiger 

Sierra Club National Headquarters 

San Francisco, CA 

Domenic Signorelli, 

Lompoc Unified Schools 

Lompoc, CA 

Maria Slizys 

Lompoc, CA 

Aubrey B. Sloan 

Santa Maria, CA 

• 

Santa Barbara County Office of 

Disaster Preparedness 

Hazardous Materials Coordinator 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Attn: Susan Strachan 

Bea Smith 

Community Const. 

Lompoc, CA 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

Don D. Smith 

Lompoc, CA 

Steve Sorkin 

Goleta, CA 

Steen W. Steensen 

Lompoc, CA 

Steve Strachan 

Lompoc, CA 

Superintendent of Schools 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Atm: William J. Cirone 

Sverdrup Corporation 

St. Louis, MO 

Attn: Lieu Smith 

The American Cetacean Society 

National Headquarters 

San Pedro, CA 

Atm: Millie Payne, Executive Secretary 

The Resources Agency of California 

Office of the Secretary 

Sacramento, CA 

Russ Thompson 

Lompoc, CA 

S.M. Times 

Santa Maria, CA 

United Chumash Central Counsel 

Santa Barbara, CA 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Atm: John Harris, CESPK-ED-M 

Sacramento, CA 

U.S. Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Division 

Long Beach, CA 

Attn: U.S. Coast Guard Chief 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Forest Service 

Santa Lucia Ranger District 

Santa Maria, CA 

Attn: Keith Gunther, District Ranger 

7-13 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Soil Conservation Service 

Santa Maria, CA 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Services 

Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center 

Seattle, WA 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Rockville, MD 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Southwest Region 

Terminal Island, CA 

Atm: E.C. Fullerton, Regional Director 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Services 

Terminal Island, CA 

Attn: Dana J. Seagars, Marine Biologist 

U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development 

San Francisco, CA 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Laguna Niguel Field Office 

Laguna Niguel, CA 

Attn: Nancy M. Kaufman, Field Supervisor 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Central California Agency 

Sacramento, CA 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Washington, DC 

Atm: Division of Planning and 

Environmental Control 
NRO 7414ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Sacramento, CA 

Atm: Planning Division 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Office of the Secretary 

Washington, DC 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Regional Environmental Officer 

San Francisco, CA 

Attn: Patricia Port 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Western Regional Office 

Portland, OR 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

Washington, DC 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Washington, DC 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

San Luis Obispo, CA 

Attn: Henry 0. Case 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Federal Activities 

Region IX 

San Francisco, CA 

Atm: Jacqueline Wyland, Chief 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Federal Activities 

Region IX 

San Francisco, CA 

Atm: David Tomjovic 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Headquarters 

Washington, DC 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Sacramento Endangered Species Office 

Sacramento, CA 

Attn: Gail C. Kobetich 

Frank Ugolini 

Channel Islands National Park 

Ventura, CA 

Tad Weber 

Lompoc, CA 

Western Regional Office 

National Park Service 

San Francisco, CA 

Dorene Wettck 

Lompoc, CA 

Pete Wilson, U.S. Senator 

Los Angeles, CA 

Joe Wisely 

Goleta, CA 

Charles D. Woodhouse 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Cathie Wright, State Assemblywoman 

(37th District) 

Simi Valley, CA 

Jimmy Wyest 

Lompoc, CA 

Michael I. Zeenin 

Lompoc, CA 

LIBRARY DIS I RIBUTTON 

Buellton Library 

Buellton, CA 

Goleta Library 

Goleta, CA 

Lompoc Public Library 

Lompoc, CA 

Montecito Library 

Montecito, CA 

Santa Barbara City Library 

Central Branch 

Santa Barbara, CA 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • Santa Maria City Library 

Santa Maria, CA 

Santa Maria City Library 

Guadalupe Branch 

Guadalupe, CA 

Santa Maria City Library 

Orcutt Branch 

Orcutt, CA 

Solvang Library 

Solvang, CA 

Reference Department 

Library 

University of California 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Ventura County Library 

E.P. Foster Branch 

Ventura, CA 

Village Library 

Vandenberg Village, CA • 

7-15 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUiff2015 

• 

• 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 7-17 

7.4 NOTIFICATION OF DRAF I EIS PUBLIC HEARINGS 

• 
OVED FOR RELEASE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON DC 20330- 1000 

7-18 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

• 

TO: ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND 

INDIVIDUALS 

Attached for your review and comment is the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Construction and Operation of 

the Space Launch Complex 7 at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFP), 

California. The document is provided in compliance with the 

regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality. 

The Draft EIS addresses the construction and operation of a 

new or modified spa6e launch complex for the Titan IV/Centaur space 

launch vehicle at VAFP. The proposed facility represents the 

latest modification to the Titan program and is a continuation of 

the space launch program at this Santa Barbara County base. 

Alternatives to the proposed action which are considered in detail 

are the development and operation of the facility at three other 

sites on south VAFP. Two of these sites are undeveloped, and the 

third is the existing Space Launch Complex 6, which currently is 

ccnfigurcd to support launches cf the Space Shuttle. 

There will be a forty-five day review and public comment 

period for the Draft EIS, which will end on September 11, 1989. 

Public hearings on the Draft EIS will be held by the Air Force on 

August 23 and 24, 1989. The August 23 hearing will be held at 7:00 

pm in the Grossman Gallery at the Lompoc Public Library, 501 East 

North Avenue, Lompoc, California. The August 24 hearing will be 

held at 7:00 pm in the Santa Barbara County Superintendent of 

Schools Auditorium, 4400 Cathedral Oaks Road, Santa Barbara, 

California. Those agencies and individuals who desire to provide 

written comments may do so by submitting them to the Air Force by 

September 11, 1989. Written comments or questions on the Draft EIS 

should be directed to: 

HQ Space Systems Division 

P.O. Box 92960 

Worldways Postal Center 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 

ATTN: Mr. John Edwards 

Telephone (213) 643-0934 

GARY D. VEST 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 

(Environment, Safety and Occupational Health) 

2 Attachments 

1. Draft EIS 

2. Draft EIS Appendices 

July 21, 1989 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

7-19 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS SPACE DIVISION (AFSC) 

LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE, PO BOX 92960 

LOS ANGELES, CA 90009-2960 

10 August 1989 

TO: ALL IN 1ERES 1ED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND 

INDIVIDUALS 

The dates for the Space Launch Complex 7 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

public hearing announced in the July 21, 1989 letter from Deputy Assistant Secretary Vest that 

was inserted in the Draft EIS have been changed from August 23 and 24, 1989. The new 

dates and locations are: 

1. August 30, 1989, 7:00 p.m. 

Grossman Gallery of the Lompoc Public Library 

501 East North Avenue 

Lompoc, California 

2. August 31, 1989, 7:00 p.m. 

Santa Barbara Superintendent of Schools Auditorium 

4400 Cathedral Oaks Road 

Santa Barbara, California 

AM E. LEONHARD, JR., COL, USAF 

Acquisition Civil Engineering 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JURE2Q015 • 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 7-21 

7.5 NEWSPAPER NOTIFICATION OF DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARINGS • 

• 
1 JUNE 2015 

WARR PARRPI ORM RPM 

ommonon onno onmn CRIMEMOI MUM MIMI elrarletrin 

o©moa annum onnornmonon 

nnmo onnm mmn °moo nmn 

mom nnnn noono ono ommn 

nonnnno m

ane omno 

in 

om

=MU 

ominous IIIPIPMVI RIM allr/EIVICIP 

(131113113 onn 

WoRMBERWTINAOrnOMBM 

manna MUM DMOM MEIMM010 

mon mmmo annnnen 

onno non mono man anon 

mon nomon mono IMMOM mmm 

Ramon monoo mono =mon 

nonno PROMO nonmo onnno 

onnmo nomoo omoon amino 

t•I 

ALP 

Palmdale lures L.A. 

By Paul Nussbaum 

snorms/wtmwss..m.. 

PALMDALE — The names read 

like a list of singles bars: California Dawn. Reflections. Images. 

Moon Shadows. Tigertail. Sunburst 

But these establishments are 

more alluring than any nightspot_ 

more attractive than any club 

scene. They are offering Southern 

California's greatest seduction: An 

affordable home. 

These are the housing developments of Palmdale, a windblown 

plateau in the Mojave Desert 45 

miles north of Los Angeles, where, 

for 8150,000, you can buy a new 

house today and move in next 

year. 

House-starved commuters from 

Los Angeles have turned this 

small aerospace town in the sagebrush into the fastest-growing city 

in California and one of the fastest 

growing in the nation_ Palmdale is 

home to 50,000 people today, up 

from only 12.= in 1980. and city 

officials predict that it will house 

a population of 118,000 by the year 

MOO. 

For Los Angeles workers who 

have given up on ever affording a 

home there, where the median 

cost is $220,000, the $160.000 median price for a two-story, three-bedroom, two-bath house in Palmdale 

looks attractive. Real estate refugees from Los Angeles have 

turned Palmdale and the surrounding Antelope Valley into a 

vast bedroom community of lookalike ersatz Spanish developments at the outer edge of commuter tolerance. 

More than 80 percent of the new 

home buyers are Los Angeles commuters, and every day, 40,000 cars 

from the Antelope Valley clog .the 

leeway that links Palmdale to 

"down below." Already, the 45- 

mile drive can take two hours or 

more during rush hours. 

"It has just been an explosion of 

people," says Deputy City Administrator Tom Combiths. "When the 

(San Fer 

there wa 

to go. TY 

was dev, 

Here, pc 

American 

own guar, 

For yes 

more tna 

aerospace 

wards Air 

Force's vs 

bomber s 

were buil 

Northrop, 

nett Dougl 

tion plants 

pending c 

budgets. 

But it's 

aerospace 

it's the ml 

the first-tin 

"People 

for years th 

it was the 

driving the 

said. "But t 

4.000 people 

Housing 

Continued from Page A I 

LA-, people could be abrupt and 

rude, but here, they're all so willing to help." 

The Confers are part of a growing exodus from Southern California by emigrants who have decided the price of paradise is too 

high. More Americans are moving 

out of the Los Angeles region than 

into it, and about 40 percent of 

those are returning to the states of 

their birth_ 

'There is not necessarily an economic motivation for doing it," 

says James Minuto, who has studied the migration patterns for the 

Southern California Association of 

Governments. 'They just want to 

go home." 

In the 30 years between 1980 

and 2010, about 8.1 million people 

will move into the six-county 

greater Los Angeles region from 

other parts of the United States, 

according to projections by the association of governments. But 

about 9 million will move out. 

That doesn't mean Southern 

California will stop growing-. For-' 

eign immigration and new births 

will push the population ever upward, demographers predict By 

2010, the population of the sixcounty area is expected to reach 

183 million, up from 13 million 

now. 

But the departures are helping 

change the fabric of Southern California. Those moving out tend to 

be predominantly white, more alfluent, slightly older and better 

educated than those moving in. 

"Those leaving are fed up, while 

those coming are seeking opportunities." says Peter Morrison of the 

Rand Corp., the Santa Monicabased research group. "It's causing a lot of redistribution of racial 

and ethnic groups. It's amazing 

how rapidly it is changing." 

Within 21 years, based on current trends, the shifting population and migration patterns will 

create a Southern California 

where those who are now minorities will be the majority. By 2010, 

Hispanics, Asians and blacks are 

expected to make up 59 percent of 

the population, compared with 

just 39 percent in 1980. 

For those who leave, a combinabon of factors usually pushes 

them. 

For many, crime, pollution. traftic, the cos 

poor quality 

have taken 

Southern Ca 

Angeles Tinnearly half 

dents have c 

in the pastye 

Ted Vollrr. 

took a hefty t 

move from 

Crosse, Vlis, 

change has b. 

"It was suc 

thing or go 

trapped in 

Vollmer, 38, 

Milwaukee. ". 

two hours on 

to a junior h. 

was frightene 

beat up a es 

threatened 

grades plumm 

see was the sa 

to my daughtc 

er. 

"I lived 41/2 r 

I never knew 

take me lo mi• 

to drive to the c 

Now, Voilme 

old son is goin 

football team, 

has improved. 

CROSSWORD SOLUTION NY!' CROSSWORD 

IntX E SITERA 

N VET S'VA4 N 

r

PATENIT 

iITERATU 

• I Chan-0 7' 

C 

• 

ONSTANCE 11,1PNIS 

U NDANC 

BIRI S 1111 BUTE 

• D A N A 

1 

U PI OCR l E 

L OVE 

O ERA 

T IAR A R A 

I N T E R S T AT A

E CC A L AT r-rir 

T A .L11/4'ARN 

L E Ca II SylICA Ei 

N L A 

NC 

oil? 

6 EA 

S9 

1 A N 

N N 

T 

A 

✓ 

A 

0 

A 

E 

N 

A 

A 

$ 

A 

0 

P I 

O 1 

K E 

ER 

Di 

R/N 

O S 

E T 

Co 

N RO APPROVE Santa Barbara News-Press, Sunday, August 13, 1989 

ANNOUNCING 

The Establishment of the U.S. Penitentiary 

CAREER INFORMATION HOTLINE 

805-736.2193 

A pre-Recorded, weekly update of positions 

available at the 

UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY 

LOMPOC, CALIFORNIA 

/ 

. • . EXCITING THINGS ARE 

HAPPENING AT TOM WILLIAMS - 

OLDSMOBILE CADILLAC SUBARU 

: UNDER. NEW. MANAGEMENT .: 

1989 CADILLAC 

FLEETWOOD 

, List Price $33,272.00 . ... - --:-..---.7- 

DISCOUNT $5,334.60 -,'. — -—-.-1‘ --7.--- —tirl"" 

Your Price $27,931.40 101351525 

Check with us before you buy a 

Cadillac anywhere 

inci foci. rebore 

OPEN SUN. 10-6 SAT. 9-6 M-F 8-7:30 

410 State Street 966-7146 

PUBLIC NOTICE 

THE U.S. AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS SPACE SYSTEMS 

DIVISION ANNOUNCES PUBLIC HEARINGS TO PROVIDE 

THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

AIR FORCE SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 7 (TITAN 

IV/CENTAUR) PROJECT AT VANDENBERG AIR FORCE 

BASE, CA. THESE MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO ALL 

INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS, AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AND WILL BE HELD ON 

AUGUST 30. 1989. BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. AT THE 

GROSSMAN GALLERY OF THE LOMPOC PUBLIC 

LIBRARY, 501 EAST NORTH AVENUE IN LOMPOC. 

CA. AND ON AUGUST 31, 1989 BEGINNING AT 7:00 

P.M. AT SANTA BARBARA COUNTY 

SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS AUDITORIUM. 

4400 CATHEDRAL OAKS ROAD IN SANTA BARBARA. 

CA. IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE ALL SPEAKERS. 

INDIVIDUALS WILL BE ALLOWED FIVE MINUTES. THOSE 

REPRESENTING GROUPS WILL BE ALLOWED TEN MINUTES 

TO SPEAK EXTENDED COMMENTS SHOULD BE 

SUBMITTED IN WRITING. AND MAYBE SENT DIRECTLY TO 

HQ SSD/DEV, ATTN: MR. JOHN EDWARDS. P.O. BOX 

92960, LOS ANGELES, C 90009-2960. WRITTEN 

STATEMENTS SHOULD BE MAILED TO REACH HQ SSD BY 

SEPTEMBER 11. 1989. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

CALL MR. EDWARDS AT (213) 643-0934. 

the News-Press Forum Page. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 7-23 

7.6 NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION DA1ES OF DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES 

• 

• 
NRO AV1NOVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION DATES 

OF DRAF1 EIS PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICES 

The Notice of Public Hearings(1) for the proposed TCLC project at Vandenberg Air Force Base 

appeared in the following newspapers on the dates shown: 

• Lompoc Record 

- August 13, 1989 

- August 22, 1989 

- August 29, 1989 

San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune 

- August 19, 1989 

• Santa Barbara News-Press 

August 13, 1989 

August 22, 1989 

August 29, 1989 

• Santa Maria Times 

August 13, 1989 

August 22, 1989 

- August 29, 1989 

• • Ventura County Star Free Press 

August 13, 1989 

- August 22, 1989 

- August 29, 1989 

• (1) See Section 7.5 for example of published notice. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

7.7 PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY HANDOUT 

7-25 

• 
7-26 PUBLIC HEARING 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

SYSTEMS COMMAND 

SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 7 

DR AFT EIS 

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA 

This meeting is one of two being held in the Santa Barbara area to solicit comments from 

community interest groups, individuals, elected officials, and governmental agencies on the 

adequacy and completeness of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared to address 

the potential environmental consequences of the proposed Space Launch Complex 7 project. The 

project would involve construction and operation of a space vehicle launch complex at Vandenberg 

Air Force Base in northwestern Santa Barbara County, California_ A summary of the Draft EIS 

that describes the proposed action, its potential environmental impact, and mitigation measures is 

available at this meeting. 

Those who desire to comment on the Draft EIS may do so by completing the SPEAKER'S CARD 

and presenting it to a U.S. Air Force representative. In order to be sure there is time available for 

all persons who wish to comment, appropriate time limits will be announced during the meeting. 

Verbal comments of considerable length should also be submitted in writing, either to an Air Force 

representative at the meeting or to the Department of the Air Force, Headquarters Space Systems 

Division/DEV, Attention: Mr. John Edwards, Post Office Box 92960, Los Angeles, California 

90009-2960. In order to receive full consideration, written comments should be received by the 

Air Force on or before September 11, 1989. 

The proposed Space Launch Complex 7 project is subject to environmental review in compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act, as implemented by the regulations of the President's 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The CEQ regulations direct Federal agencies which 

have made a decision to prepare an EIS to engage in a public review process. The purposes of this 

public review process are to share expertise, disclose agency analyses, and check for accuracy of 

the draft environmental document. 

Following review of the Draft document, a Final EIS will be prepared and made available for a 

34-day public review period. It is anticipated that the Final EIS for this project will be completed 

and released for review early in 1990. The Final EIS will reflect the oral comments received at the 

two public hearings and written comments submitted during the public review period. 

Thank you for your attendance and participation. • 
• 

C/) 

LJ 

O 

LL 

LU 

0 I-0 

E) 
• 

Lid 

LU 

LLJ 

O 

LL 

0 

LLJ 

0 La 

iS 

Z 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 7-29 

• 

7.8 PUBLIC HEARING REGISTRATION CARD 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE02015 

• 

UNIIE,D STA 1ES AIR FORCE 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PROCESS 

PROPOSED 1T1AN IV/CENTAUR SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 7 

PUBLIC HEARING REGISTRATION CARD 

• 

(Please Print Clearly) 

Name: El I would like to make 

Addressa statement 

City: State, Zip: 0 Please send me a copy 

Affiliation: of the Draft EIS 

Area of Environmental Concern- 0 Please send me a copy 

of the Final EIS 

So that all who wish to speak may be heard, individuals should 

limit statements to 5 minutes; group/organization representatives 

should limit statements to 10 minutes. Thank you. 

PLEASE GIVE THIS CARD TO AIR FORCE REPRESENTATIVE 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 7-31 • 

7.9 WRITTEN STA 1L1\4ENT FORM • 

• 
NRO•f‘fROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

WRITTEN STATEMENT 

U. S. Air Force Proposed Titan IV/Centaur Launch Complex 7 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California 

Submitted by 

Name : 

Address: 

Submit to: Attn Mr. John Edwards 

HQ SSD/DEV 

P. O. Box 92960 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 

Comments must be received no later than Sept. 11. 1989 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 7-33 • 

7.10 DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARINGS ATTENDANCE AND SPEAKERS LISTS 

• 

• 
NRO APPRO4tD FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARING A I ENDANCE 

The following individuals attended the Public Hearings on the Draft EIS: 

AUGUST 30, 1989 

LOMPOC, CALIFORNIA 

George Armenta 

Larry Austin 

Sarah H. Berry 

Harry Bernard 

Chuck Bolcom 

Edmund Burke 

Thomas C. Calkins 

Bess Christensen 

Greg Cooper 

Steve Cresswell 

Ray Fincham 

Patricia M. Fresh 

Vince Gomez 

Howard E. Grantz 

Jeremy Graves 

Robert Hardaway 

Weldon Hobbs 

Charles Hutchison 

Anthony R. Kent 

Constance Kent 

George La Combe 

Jess Leyva 

R. Lillard 

Mike McClure 

Mike McElligott 

Michael W. Milligan 

Andrew Mills 

W. S. Mullins 

Larry R. Nelson 

Reggie Pagaling 

Diane Paszek 

J. C. Picciuolo 

Tony Roberts 

Allen Schauffler 

Elaine M. Schneider 

Sandra Schweiger 

Joan Scolari 

Le Roy Scolari 

Aubrey B. Sloan 

Donald D. Smith 

James Spellman, Jr. 

Steen Steensen 

Steve Tuoly 

Tad Weber 

Dorene Wellck 

Roger Zimmerman 

AUGUST 31, 1989 

SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 

Donald M. Benn 

Scott Blankenship 

Tom Demery 

John Hankins 

Michael Haro 

Karen Kivela 

Larry Liles 

M. J. McDermott 

Andrew Mills 

Larry R. Nelson 

Reggie Pagaling 

Richard Proctor 

Elaine M. Schneider 

William Sobczyk 

K. R. Taylor 

Lisa Weetman 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS 

The following individuals presented oral statements at the Draft EIS Public Hearings: 

AUGUST 30, 1989 

LOMPOC, CALIFORNIA 

7-35 

SPEAKERS 

Howard Grantz, President 

Vandenberg Village Community Services 

Vandenberg Village, CA 

James Spellman, Jr. 

National Space Society 

VAFB, CA 

W. S. Mullins 

Lompoc, CA 

Le Roy Scolari, Rancher 

Lompoc, CA 

Jeremy Graves, Associate Planner 

Lompoc Community Development 

Department 

Lompoc, CA 

Elaine Schneider, Representative 

Chumash Cultural Heritage Association 

Santa Ynez Indian Reservation, CA 

AUGUST 31, 1989 

SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 

SPEAKER 

Reggie Pagaling 

Chumash Cultural Heritage Association 

Santa Ynez Indian Reservation, CA 

CONCERNS 

Impacts to Lompoc Plain and Lompoc 

Upland Aquifers and adequacy of community 

water supplies. 

Possibilities of using SLC-4 and Shuttle C as 

alternatives. 

Mitigation measures for water resources and 

USAF purchase of domestic versus foreign 

products. 

Impacts on lands east of the project site. 

Written comments to be provided prior to end 

of comment period. 

Preference for use of SLC-6, and impacts to 

the Chumash "Gate to the World Beyond." 

CONCERNS 

Further development on VAFB and 

preference for use of SLC-6. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 8-1 • 8.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

1S I RAD First Strategic Aerospace Division 

1STRAD/ET First Strategic Aerospace Division, Environmental Management 

t 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Federal) 

AFB Air Force Base 

AFM Air Force Manual 

AFOSH Air Force Occupational Safety and Health 

AFR Air Force Regulations 

AFS Air Force Station 

AFSC Air Force Systems Command 

A1203 Aluminum Oxide 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

AOC American Ornithologists Union 

APCD Air Pollution Control District 

AQAP Air Quality Attainment Plan 

AQIA Air Quality Impact Analysis 

ARCO Atlantic Richfield Company 

AT Access Tower 

ATC Authority to Construct 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

BTU British Thermal Unit 

• 

C Centigrade 

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards 

CAP Collection Accumulation Point 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CCAA California Clean Air Act 

CCAFS Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 

CCC California Coastal Commission 

CCD Census County District 

CCR California Code of Regulations 

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

CDOHS California Department of Health Services 
8-2 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

CDWR California Department of Water Resources 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

CESA California Endangered Species Act 

CFC Chlorofluorocarbon 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs Cubic feet per second 

CH4 Methane 

CHP California Highway Patrol 

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base 

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level 

CNPS California Native Plant Society 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

COE Corps of Engineers 

CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

CSBRMD County of Santa Barbara Resource Management Department 

CY Cubic Yards 

dB Decibels 

dBA Decibels (A-Weighted Sound Level) 

DOD Department of Defense 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOT Department of Transportation 

DOHS Department of Health Services 

EA Environmental Assessment 

Ec Expected Casualty 

ECRP Erosion Control/ and Restoration Plan 

EIAP Environmental Impact Analysis Process 

EIR Environmental Impact Report 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EM Engineering Manual 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act (Federal) 

ESMC Eastern Space and Missile Center 

E I R Eastern Test Range 

F Fahrenheit 

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation 

1-DH Formaldehyde Dimethyl Hydrazone 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FPA Flight Plan Approval 

FTS A Flight Termination System Approval 

FVIS Fuel Vapor Incinerator System 

FVSS Fuel Vapor Scrubber System 

• Gal Gallon 

GN2 Nitrogen Gas 

GO2 Gaseous Oxygen 

gpd Gallons per day 

gpm Gallons per minute 

H2 Hydrogen 

H 2S Hydrogen Sulfide 

HC Hydrocarbon 

H2O Water 

HCl Hydrogen Chloride 

Hr Hour 

HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments 

HWTP Hazardous Wastewater Treatment Plant 

Hz Hertz 

8-3 

• 
NRO APOR3VED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missile 

ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization 

ILC Initial Launch Capability 

ILL Impact Limit Line 

IRP Installation Restoration Program 

ISS Ice Suppression System 

JP-4 Jet Propulsion Fuel 

km Kilometers 

kV Kilovolt 

kVA Kilovolt-ampere 

LARA Launch Area Risk Analysis 

LB Pound 

LCC Launch Control Center 

LCP Local Coastal Plan 

LD Launch Exhaust Duct 

Lect Equivalent Sound Level 

LH, Liquid Helium 

LH? Liquid Hydrogen 

LM Launch Mount 

Lmax Maximum Sound Level 

LN Liquid Nitrogen 

LO2 Liquid Oxygen 

LOS Level of Service 

LSS Launch Support Structure 

• 

M Earthquake Magnitude 

MCE Maximum Credible Earthquake 

MCL Maximum Contamination Levels 

Mg/L Milligrams per liter 

mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter 

mm Millimeters 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MOL Manned Orbital Laboratory 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • MPE Maximum Probable Earthquake 

mph Miles per hour 

Ms Surface Wave Magnitude 

MSGSA Missile System Ground Safety Approval 

MST Mobile Service Tower 

MVA Megavolt-ampere 

8-5 

• 

N204 Nitrogen Tetroxide 

NA Not Applicable 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

N CP National Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan 

NDIR Non-Dispersive Infrared Spectroscopy 

Nitrosodimethylamine 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NEPA National Fire Protection Association 

NFC National Fire Code 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NIPDWR National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NO, Nitrogen Dioxide 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NO, Nitrous Oxide 

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

NPPA Native Plant Protection Act 

NR ' Not Reported 

NRC National Response Center 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

N S No Established Standard 

NS R New Source Review 

NUS No Upper Stage 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 201503 

Ozone 

OAL 

Operations Approval Letter 

OSB 

Operations Support Building 

OSHA 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

OHSCP 

Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan OSC 

On-Scene Coordinator 

8-6 

PCBs 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PCR 

Payload Changeout Room 

PGA 

Peak Ground Acceleration 

PG&E 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

PLF 

Payload Fairing 

PMiu 

Particulate matter less than 10 microns aerodynamic diameter POTW 

Publicly-owned treatment works 

POV, 

Privately-owned vehicle 

ppm Parts per million 

PPR 

Payload Processing Room 

PSD 

Preventative Source Determination 

psf 

Pounds per square foot 

psi 

Pounds per square inch 

psig 

Pounds per square inch-gauge 

PTO 

Permit to Operate 

QD 

Quantity-Distance Criteria 

RCRA 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

REEDM 

Rocket Exhaust Effluent Dispersion Model ROC 

Reactive Organic Compounds 

ROD 

Record of Decision 

RSV 

Ready Storage Vessel 

RWQCB 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

• 

SAB 

Shuttle Assembly Building 

SAC 

Strategic Air Command 

SAMTO 

Space and Missile Test Organization SARA 

Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 8-7 • 

• 

SBCAPCD Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District 

SBCCAPC Santa Barbara County Cities Area Planning Council 

SBCOEM Santa Barbara County Office of Emergency Management 

SC Sandy clay 

SENEL Single Event Noise Exposure Level 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SJC Secondary Jobs Created 

SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring Stations 

SLC-4, -6, -7 Space Launch Complex 4, 6 and 7 

SLC-4E Space Launch Complex 4 East 

SLC-4W Space Launch Complex 4 West 

Slvl Silty Sand 

SMSA Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SO, Sulfur Oxide 

SP Poorly graded sand with gravel 

SPA Statement of Program Acceptance 

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan 

SPEGL Short-term Public Emergency Guidance Level 

SPL Sound Pressure Level 

SPR Spill Prevention and Response 

SRB Solid Rocket Booster 

SRMU Solid Rocket Motor Upgrades 

SSD/DEV Space Systems Division/Division of Environmental Planning 

SSME Space Shuttle Main Engine 

STRAD Strategic Aerospace Division 

STS Space Transportation System 

SV Satellite Vehicle 

SWEI Sea World Research Institute 

• 
NRO APPROVESE8FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

TCLC Titan IV/Centaur Launch Complex 

THC Toxic Hazard Corridor 

TNT Trinitrotoluene 

TOG Total Organic Gases 

TPCA Toxic Pits Control Act 

TPY Tons Per Year 

TSP Total Suspended Particulates 

• 

UCSB University of California, Santa Barbara 

UDMH Unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine 

US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USAF United States Air Force 

US C University of Southern California 

UV Ultraviolet 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

UST Underground Storage Tank 

UT Umbilical Tower 

VAB/HTF Vehicle Assembly Building/Horizontal Test Facility 

VAFB Vandenberg Air Force Base 

WINDS Weather Information Network and Display System 

WSMC Western Space and Missile Center 

WSMCR Western Space and Missile Center Range Safety Regulation 

WTR Western Test Range 

iig_Jrn3 

Micrograms per liter 

Micrograms per cubic meter 
GLOBAL WARMING 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 A-1 • APPENDIX A 

GLOBAL WARMING 

1. Global climate could be impacted from rocket exhaust emissions associated with the operation 

of the proposed Titan IV/Centaur Launch Complex (TCLC) located on South Vandenberg Air 

Force Base (VAFB), California. An analytical evaluation of emissions from Titan 1V/Centaur 

launches has been performed to determine if launch-related emissions would be expected to 

contribute significantly to global climate changes (global warming). This Appendix describes 

the technical basis for global warming and estimates the potential effects of proposed Titan 

IV/Centaur launches upon global climate. 

A.1 BACKGROUND 

1. Recent climatological research suggests that the temperature of the lower atmosphere is rising 

because of the atmospheric buildup of trace gases. These gases are termed "greenhouse 

gases" because they allow visible and ultraviolet light (shortwave radiation) to pass through 

the atmosphere and heat the earth's surface. This heat is re-radiated in the form of infrared 

energy (longwave radiation) and is partially absorbed by the greenhouse gases before it 

escapes into space. 

2. The greenhouse gases are vitally important for life. It has been estimated that without the 

greenhouse effect, the earth's surface would be approximately 33° C (59° F) colder than it is 

today, too cold to support life as we know it (Abrahamson 1989). Five naturally occurring 

atmospheric gases are responsible for the greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide (CO2), 

tropospheric ozone (03), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and water vapor (H20). 

3. The concentrations of CO2, 03, CH4, N2O, and H2O have been increasing over the past 100 

years due to increased levels of human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and 

deforestation. In addition, greenhouse gases, such as chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs), have 

been added to the atmosphere over the last 30 years (Ozone Trends Panel 1988). Also, 

stratospheric ozone, which absorbs sunlight before it reaches the earth's surface, has recently 

been noted to have been decreasing in concentration during the past 20 years. This depletion 

contributes to global warming because it allows more shortwave radiation to enter the earth's 

atmosphere, thus contributing to more infrared energy being trapped by the greenhouse gases 

in the lower atmosphere . 
NRO Ar?rRovED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • 

• 

4. On the basis of available climatological data, researchers have determined that the average 

global temperature has increased by approximately 0.6° C (1° F) over the last 100 years 

(Hansen 1987). During the same period, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen from 

approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) to 350 ppm (MacDonald 1989). Atmospheric 

concentrations of CH4 have doubled during the last 100 years, and the other greenhouse gases 

have been noted to be increasing at rates from 0.2 to 5 percent per year. 

5. Combustion that accompanies the atmosphere is presently estimated to contain approximately 

700 billion tons of CO2 (Woodwell 1989). CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere by fossil fuels 

combustion, the deforestation, and the respiration products of photosynthesis, while it is 

removed from the atmosphere by the oceans and photosynthesis. Given the present rate of 

fossil fuels combustion and deforestation, the combined effect of increases in atmospheric 

concentrations of each of the greenhouse gases over the next 50 years has been estimated by 

some researchers to be equivalent to a doubling of present concentrations of CO2 (California 

Energy Commission 1989). Researchers note that, during the next fifty years, atmospheric 

concentrations of CO2may increase at a rate of 1.5 ppm per year to approximately 450 ppm 

by the year 2030 (Ramanathan et al. 1985). Atmospheric scientists, with the aid of global 

climatological models have estimated that, as a result of the predicted increase in atmospheric 

CO2 concentrations, global temperatures between the equator and 50° latitude (northern and 

southern hemispheres) may increase at the rate of 0.06° C per year to a total of approximately 

3° C by the year 2030 (Schlesinger and Mitchell 1985). The temperature increase in polar 

regions (60° latitude) may be up to two times greater, or approximately 6° C (Brasseur and 

Soloman 1986). 

• 

6. If estimates of global temperature increase over the next 50 to 100 years are correct, 

researchers have determined that significant environmental consequences may result, including 

but not limited to glacial melting, rising ocean levels, loss of coastal and delta wetland habitat, 

decrease in drinking and irrigation water supplies, increased demand for electrical energy, 

increased urban air pollution, and deforestation. 

A.2 PROPOSED PROJECT CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL CO2 EMISSIONS 

1. The exhaust products emitted from a single Titan IV/Centaur launch vehicle are listed in 

Table 4.5.6 of the Draft EIS. As shown in this table, a Titan IV/Centaur launch vehicle would 

emit approximately 44 tons of CO2. Assuming three Titan IV/Centaur launches per year, 

project launches would emit approximately 132 tons of CO2 per year. Air contaminant 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 A-3 

• 

• 

emissions anticipated from normal launch support activities are presented in Table 4.5.1 of the 

Draft EIS. On the basis of fuel consumption information presented in the table, it may be 

estimated that proposed project launch support activities would result in the emission of 1,104 

tons of CO? per year. Thus, total CO2 emissions from are anticipated to be 1,236 tons per 

year. When compared with present global emissions of CO2 from the combustion of fossil 

fuels (approximately 5.5 billion tons per year), operations of the proposed action would 

increase current global CO2 emissions by approximately twenty-three millionths of one 

percent in one year. 

2. As noted above, depletion of the earth's stratospheric ozone layer is expected to contribute to 

global warming. However, no significant depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer is 

expected as a result of exhaust products from proposed Titan IV/Centaur launches. This topic 

is discussed in detail in Draft EIS Section 4.5.4, Stratospheric Ozone. 

A.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONS 

1. Due to the complexity of global climatic modeling, a simplified analytical approach was 

undertaken that scaled data regarding existing CO2 levels and anticipated global CO2 buildup 

and temperature increase rates. Other greenhouse gases emitted by proposed project 

operations, including gases that may contribute to depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, 

were not considered in this analysis. This is because of the complexity of modeling their 

interrelated impacts and the primary importance of CO2 emissions to global warming (due to 

their abundance with respect to the other greenhouse gases). This macro approach omits 

detailed spatial, temporal, and climatological processes that would be undertaken in large scale 

computer analyses, but is conservative enough to reasonably encompass potential effects. 

Researchers have estimated that an accumulation of approximately three billion tons per year 

of excess CO2 in the earth's atmosphere could be responsible for a global temperature increase 

of approximately 0.06° C per year at 50° latitude during the next 50 to 100 years (Woodwell 

1989), or 0.12° C per year at 60° latitude (Brasseur and Soloman 1986). The potential 

environmental consequences of proposed Titan IV/Centaur launches with respect to global 

warming were assumed to be proportional to the ratio of estimated global temperature increase 

and accumulation of CO2. On the basis of this assumption, total estimated CO2 emissions 

during one year of operations (see Section A.2) were estimated to result in a global 

temperature increase of 2.5 x 10-8°C at 50° latitude, or 5.0 x 10-8°C at 60° latitude. 
NRO ARPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 3. Assuming that present atmospheric levels of CO2 would double during the next 50 years, 

resulting in a global temperature increase of 6° Cat 60° latitude (see Section A.1), and an 

estimated project life of 25 years, the proposed action would be expected to contribute to a 

temperature increase of approximately 1.3 x 10-7°C at 60°latitude. As mentioned earlier, 

60°latitude corresponds to the earth's polar regions where the greatest environmental 

consequences due to global warming (i.e., glacial melting) would be expected to occur. 

On the basis of these analyses, it is considered that emissions of greenhouse gases from 

proposed Titan IV/Centaur launches would not contribute significantly to global warming. 

A.4 REFERENCES 

• 

Abrahamson, D. E. 1989. Global Warming: The Issue, Impacts, Responses. In "The Challenge 

of Global Warming," edited by D. E. Abrahamson. Island Press, Washington D.C. 

Brasseur, G.; Soloman, S. 1986. Aeronomy of the Middle Atmosphere. D. Riedel Publishing. 

Company, Boston. 

California Energy Commission. 1989. The Impacts of Global Warming on California, Interim 

Report. Report No. P500-89-004 Sacramento, California. August. 

Hansen, J.; S. Lebedeff. 1987. Global Trends of Measured Surface Air Temperature. Journal of 

Geophysical Research, Volume 92. 

MacDonald, G. S. 1989. Scientific Basis for the Greenhouse Effect. In "The Challenge of 

Global Warming," edited by D. E. Abrahamson. Island Press, Washington D.C. 

Ozone Trends Panel. 1988. Executive summary. March 15. 

Ramanathan, V.; R. Circerone; H. Singh; J. Kiehl. 1985. Trace Gas Trends and Their Potential 

Role in Climate Change. Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 90. 

Schlesinger, M.; J. Mitchell. 1985. Model Prediction of the Equilibrium Climatic Response to 

Increased Carbon Dioxide. In "The Potential Climate Effects of Increasing Carbon Dioxide," 

edited by M. MacCracken and F. Luther. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/ER-0237, 

Washington D.C. 

Woodwell, G. M. 1989. Biotic Causes and Effects of the Disruption of the Global Carbon Cycle. 

In "The Challenge of Global Warming," edited by D. E. Abrahamson. Island Press, 

Washington D.C. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

WHITE PAPER ON BIXBY RANCH UPDATE 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 B-1 

• APPENDIX B 

WHITE PAPER ON BIXBY RANCH UPDATE 

The V 'hite Paper on Bixby Ranch Update is provided in its entirety in the Final EIS on pages 

2-132 to 2-144. 

• 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

SUMMARY OF RISK ASSESSMENT 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 C-1 

APPENDIX C 

SUMMARY OF RISK ASSESSMENT 

The material that follows is a reprint of the Summary of the Risk Assessment undertaken for the 

proposed action in support of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (USAF 1989c). Since 

this is a reprint of previously produced material, the proposed project is referred to as SLC-7 

instead of Titan IV/Centaur Launch Complex. The conclusions drawn in the Summary are valid 

for implementation of the proposed action at any of the four alternative sites under consideration. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

S-1 • 

• 

SUMMARY 

1. The U.S. Air Force (USAF) has proposed to construct and operate a Titan IV/Centaur space 

launch complex in support of the Department of Defense space program. The proposed 

action, known as Space Launch Complex 7 (SLC-7), would be located at Vandenberg Air 

Force Base (VAFB), California, and would be designed for a minimum operational period of 

25 years. 

This Risk Assessment has been prepared as a supporting technical document to the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the proposed SLC-7. During the 

Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP), various environmental and public health and 

safety issues were raised. Many of the issues were addressed in the Draft EIS through 

incorporation of previous analyses and reports from similar projects and operations. Other 

issues were addressed by citing existing Air Force regulations and policies to avoid or 

minimize such issues. Issues that were addressed in this fashion include impacts to terrestrial 

animals, marine mammals, waste management, the Channel Islands, safety procedures for 

offshore oil platfoi ins, and others. The remaining issues comprise the scope of this 

assessment. 

3. The principle environmental and health and safety issues addressed in this Risk Assessment 

are identified by exposure pathways as follows: 

• Particulate and Gas Dispersion of various contaminants, including 

hydrogen chloride (HCL), aluminum oxide (A1203), carbon monoxide 

(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and byproducts of liquid hypergolic fuel 

reactions with air, as they relate to health issues. 

• Acidic Deposition effects on biota inhabiting sensitive wetland areas such 

as the Santa Ynez River and Honda Creek and vegetation near the 

proposed and alternative launch sites. 

Air Blast and Noise as it relates to public health and safety and structures, 

including potential window breakage. 

Burning Debris as it relates to potential damage to structures. 

Surface Runoff from an accidental spill of hypergolic fuels during on-base 

transportation, resulting in potential runoff effects to surface waters. 

• 

4. As shown in Table S.1 (Summary of Relative Potential Risk SLC-7 Operations), the 

individual risk analyses followed development of scenarios leading to a potential ccnsequence. 

Scenario development included identification of: (1) an event, such as a normal launch or 

launch anomaly; (2) an outcome, such as rocket exhaust or a hypergolic propellant spill; (3) a 
FOR RELEASE 

0 

C 

cL" 

S-2 

E. 

R 

r 

b oo g- -1- 0000 1 .;000 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 1, 1. ,- 0 o oo oo 

!, 

1 `

0 0 0 0 5: 000 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g g 0 0 0 0 00 

i;. 

8 0 l o o 1 1- 

,!°' 

o cw o o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 00 00 

Eig 

, 

0 

00 

i 

1 104 00 5 50,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 5 1 0 

. 

0 00 00 

. 

.,6E 4 Rg 

. 

1 

, 

• 01-• 1 1 • 01•1 1 al • 1 1 -; 1 - 3 • 4 4 1 1 00 00 

EP _ 

: 

Cq41g111 ; IMIIM: 

f 

< 2 

-t, 

a 

. _ 

< 

liZii; 

< < < 

1 '52 

a 

% 

: 

2 

; 

2 4 

, 

< Z' < i—ii- 

< < < i Z 

MITIGAI1NO 

FACTORS 

flit ji 

' ' ' " St 

.2 

52 • 

Irp/p:11ppI 

. 

41 

Si 1 " 

111 

4 I -5' l 5 i3 

4 4 .1 4%.,7, 

52 52 

-

" 

J1 

-5' 

4 

2 

I 

Se 

4 

2 

ppgpSli—ill 

41 

4 b. 

2 

:711 -i 7, i li 

ill 

4 

11 

4 

iiI'l 

t - 

7c 

C. 5 Va 

ii 

I :.! 

" 

11 

Si 

42 

I .2 

" 

II 

Si 

42 

Ti 

- i 

t ' 

'5' 3 

)1 

2:?: 

Z 

Ez! 

; 

1 

& 

; 

w 

a

1 

41 

A 

i 

. 

1 

4-1 

Al 

li 

I. 

" 

)1 

.1('., 

li 

i. 

w 

R 

2 

; 

1 

4 

3 

a 

a 

0 

" 

1. -51 

111 

Al! 

a 

E 0 

- 

a -p 

TA 

H 

0 

4 

a . 

r 

; 

I 

a 

a 1, 

- 

1 a 

11 

a 

- 

11 

sl 

g—g—g, 

.1 

';' 

h 

!I 

a 

: 

IV 

TI, 

5. 

, 0 

t 

4 

2 

1 

; 

1 

a 

- 

; 

gl "a 

z 

.! 

2 1 

1 1 

Ii51 i; 

a 4 

1 

8v a 

xl 

a ,,P, 

' 

ia 

11 

1 

ig 

P 

. 2 

1 

ig 

1 , 

a 

a i 

. 

r 

I 

' 

,., 

l'A.I A A 1 

1 

ItiA 

1 

A 

, 

3 3 11 

, 4 

1 

4 

1 3 

. 

3 

a 

g 

4 

5 

.Z 

g 

4 

- 

k• 

33 

1 

2 

I 1 

re 

gt.1 ' z 

2 

4 4 

1>;11 111 

a 

.1 

5. 

a 1 SI 

JI 

5 

g 

HI 

a 

I 

1 . 

! 

t 

2 

11 

3 

Ai 

II 

a 

! 

. 

i 

I 2 

! 

, 

g Al 

i 

t 

z 

., 

. Al . • 

11 

i 

1 

t 

1 4 

! 

- 

i 2.ff 

iiii 

PATHWA YS 

ANALYZE() 

1 

a .4 

i 

P 

i . 

• 

- 

j 

- 

P 

El 

a 

.1 

M 

a 

1 

— 

I 

1 

15 li ...,, it 

..., 

fi r ] j 

- LI 2 

1. 

4 

&•,, t 4. 

3 

I' Z 

r 

1. 

. 

.1' 

! 

g 

P 

'A 

a a 

1 i a I I 

.5 5 ,I 

3 

il 32 1.1S 

; 

1 

i 

i 

I 

§, g. 0 

I 

I 

; & 

,4 t 

1 

i 3 3 

a 

i 

a 4 

k 

. 

i 

1 

x 5 r 

t 

1 

1 

z 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 S-3 

• 

pathway, such as particulate and gas dispersion; (4) a receptor, such as the human respiratory 

system; and (5) a consequence or effect on a receptor. 

5. In addition to scenarios, Table S.1 displays the following summary level information about 

mitigating factors, probabilities, and the relative potential risk for receptor areas: 

• Mitigating Factors include safety measures undertaken by the USAF to 

minimize potential risks to public health and safety and the environment 

from launches and operational activities. 

• Probabilities are shown where calculated and are indicated as not 

applicable when probabilities were not calculated due to low level 

consequences. 

• Relative Potential Risks are worst-case in nature since they are based on 

conservative assumptions and risks are shown to be applicable to all 

receptors for a given scenario. For example, under actual operations and 

launch conditions, worst-case conditions may not exist and events 

propagated through the gas and particulate dispersion pathway would not 

impact upwind receptors. Relative potential risks are indicated in Table 

S.1 as not applicable when risks were not estimated for human receptors 

in the proposed SLC-7 vicinity or for environmental resources outside of 

VAFB. 

6. Two broad categories of events were considered in this assessment: (1) launches, and 

(2) operations. Launch events are made up of both normal launches and launch anomalies. 

Operations include a variety of unplanned events (anomalies) including solid rocket motor 

upgrade (SRMU) accident, hypergolic fuel accident, cryogenic fuel accident, and propane 

accident. Operational anomalies may be the result of activities undertaken in preparation for a 

launch such as transportation or handling accidents within the confines of VAFB. 

7. For normal launches the outcomes, pathways, receptors, and consequences were considered 

as a certainty (i.e., in a non-probabilistic fashion). Operations anomalies were evaluated on 

the basis of their potential consequences, and when considered to be significant, the 

probability of their occurrence was estimated through either formal analysis or from available 

operating experience. 

8. Analyses were performed based on pathways linking events to outcomes and consequences. 

The report is organized in terms of the following pathways: 

• Particulate and gas dispersion of chemicals from both normal launch 

procedures and launch anomalies. 

• Acidic deposition on the area surrounding the launch complex. 

• Air blast and noise propagation resulting from an explosion, plus noise 

from nozzle exhaust during a normal launch. 
NRO AIMROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• Burning debris resulting from a launch anomaly or explosive accident. 

• Surface runoff of chemicals resulting from a spill of liquid chemicals on 

the ground surface. • 

9. Receptors addressed in the Risk Assessment comprise locations and resources proximate to 

the SLC-7 site. Those locations are: 

• Historical U.S. Coast Guard Lifeboat Rescue Station (the Boathouse) 

• Jalama Beach County Park 

• Ocean Beach County Park 

• North VA1-13 Cantonment Area 

• City of Lompoc 

• U.S. Penitentiary near Lompoc 

• Bixby Ranch 

• Hollister Ranch 

• Wetlands of Santa Ynez River and Honda Creek 

• Offshore oil drilling platforms 

10. The following briefly discusses, by event, outcome, and pathway, the results of this 

assessment. 

• 

Normal Launch 

- No significant impacts were found to result as a consequence of a 

normal launch to the receptors considered at the locations shown in 

Table S.1. 

A high relative potential risk from a normal launch is to vegetation 

near the proposed or alternative launch sites where there are 

populations of curly-leaved monardella (Monardella undulata var. 

frutescens) and surf thistle (Cirsium rhothophilum) (plants nominated 

for federal listing as threatened or endangered) that may suffer partial 

or complete defoliation as a result of acidic deposition. 

A high relative risk was also found for impacts from normal launches 

at the historic former U.S. Coast Guard Lifeboat Rescue Station 

(Boathouse) where there is a potential for window breakage. The 

maximum probability associated with window breakage is 8x102. 

- Dosage levels for aluminum oxide, hydrogen chloride gas, carbon 

monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide were calculated at each of the 

receptors and compared to threshold levels for acute and chronic 

illnesses. These doses were found to be considerably lower than 

threshold levels in a worst-case approach. Since threshold limits 

were not approached, probabilities of occurrence were not calculated. 

Highest dosages occurring in uncontrolled areas were found at 

Lompoc and the U.S. Penitentiary. Doses at these locations were 

less than acute thresholds by a factor of a least 60 (carbon monoxide) 

and were below chronic thresholds by three orders of magnitude. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• Launch Anomaly 

- A launch anomaly is an unplanned event that results in the destruction 

of the launch vehicle. The destruction may take place as a result of 

the vehicle failure or may be initiated by Air Force personnel in a 

programmed destruction. 

- The results of the analysis of the rocket exhaust outcome of a launch 

anomaly are the same as those summarized above for a normal 

launch, since prior to the occurrence of an anomaly the rocket exhaust 

characteristics are the same in both cases. A launch anomaly could 

potentially result in detonation of the SRMUs. 

The effects of a rocket destruction outcome are similar to a normal 

launch with the exceptions of: (1) a higher probability of window 

breakage at the Boathouse; and (2) the potential for burning debris to 

start fires that may lead to property losses. The probability of window 

breakage at the Boathouse due to a launch anomaly is 1x10-1. The 

probability associated with property losses due to burning debris is a 

maximum of 2x10-5based on the probability of a launch anomaly 

occurring (2x10-2) and the conditional probability of uncertainties in 

the launch risk analysis program (LARA) that would allow debris to 

fall in an area where public property losses could occur. 

Dosage levels for aluminum oxide, hydrogen chloride gas, carbon 

monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide were also calculated at each of the 

receptors for a launch anomaly and compared to threshold levels for 

acute and chronic illnesses. While higher than doses associated with 

a normal launch, these doses were also found to be considerably 

lower than threshold levels in a worst-case approach. Highest 

dosages occurring in uncontrolled areas were found at Jalama Beach 

County Park. Doses at Jalama Beach were less than acute thresholds 

by a factor of at least 5 (carbon monoxide) and were below chronic 

thresholds by three orders of magnitude. In addition to the above 

mentioned combustion products, this assessment calculated the 

predicted doses of hypergolic fuel reaction products and compared 

them with threshold levels. The highest dosages were found at 

Jalama Beach County Park (unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine 

[UDMH], miscellaneous reaction products, and 

nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA]) and the North Vandenberg Air Force 

Base Cantonment Area (formaldehyde dimethyl hydrazone [FDH]). 

At all receptor locations, dosages were below chronic threshold limits 

by at least a factor of 9 (miscellaneous reaction products) and were 

below acute threshold limits by at least a factor of 8. 

• 

SRMU Accident 

An SRMU accident is an event that could occur during transport or 

handling of the SRMUs in or near the launch complex that would 

produce sufficient kinetic energy to begin combustion of the 

propellant contained in the SRMU. The worst-case air dispersion 

conditions produced by a potential SRMU accident are the same as 

those described for a normal launch, where the SRMUs burn for 120 

seconds, and a launch anomaly where detonation could potentially 

occur. 

S-5 
NRO AROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• Hypergolic Fuel Accident 

- A hypergolic fuel accident could potentially result in a spill that may 

produce hypergolic fuel vapor dispersion and potential impacts to 

surface water and ground water. 

- A hypergolic fuel accident that would reach surface water would 

impact aquatic wildlife present in the streams, including the federally 

protected unarmored three-spine stickleback (known to be present in 

Honda Creek) and other endemic species. While the consequences of 

such an event would be undesirable, the probability associated with a 

spill are very low. Based on the vehicle transportation rate, the 

probability of a spill is 2x10-5. 

- Hypergolic fuel vapor dispersion would also result from a cold spill 

(i.e., a spill where combustion of the fuels on contact with the 

ground would not occur). Assuming that the spill takes place near 

the proposed or alternative launch sites, the highest doses were 

calculated to occur at Jalama Beach. Doses at Jalama Beach 

associated with the hypergolic fuel vapor/air reaction products are 

three orders of magnitude below the acute and chronic threshold 

limits for NDMA and a factor of 2.5 below the acute and chronic 

threshold limits for miscellaneous reaction products. 

• Cryogenic Fuel Accident 

A cryogenic fuel accident may result in an explosion or fire that could 

cause damage to structures through air blast or fires resulting from 

burning debris. It was found that the explosive energy that would 

result from this kind of event would be less than that generated by 

rocket destruction associated with a launch anomaly, with a resulting 

lower potential risk for broken windows at the Boathouse. The 

potential for fire to impact off-base structures is low due to existing 

base safety procedures and the distances to receptors located offbase. 

Propane Accident 

A propane accident may result in an explosion or fire that could cause 

damage to structures through air blast or fires resulting from burning 

debris in a manner similar to a cryogenic fuel accident. It was found 

that the explosive energy that would result from this kind of event 

would also be less than that generated by rocket destruction 

associated with a launch anomaly, with a resulting lower potential 

risk for broken windows at the Boathouse. The potential for fire to 

impact off-base structures, as with a cryogenic fuel accident, is low. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 S-7 • RESULTS 

Based on the results of this Risk Assessment, as summarized above, no significant adverse 

risks to surrounding populations or the environment were identified. 

2. Operations accidents, normal launches, and launch anomalies are associated with a limited 

number of high probability and low impact consequences (such as window breakage at the 

Boathouse) and low probability high impact consequences (such as property loss from 

burning debris). The probabilities associated with potentially high impact consequences are 

maintained at a low level due to strict adherence to USAF safety procedures. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSULTATION 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE D-1 

1 JUNE 2015 

• APPENDIX D 

THREAIENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSULTATION 

This Appendix contains materials documenting the Threatened and Endangered Species 

consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) for implementation of the Titan IV/Centaur Launch Complex (TCLC) at the 

SLC-6 alternative as consistent with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Section 7, 

Interagency Cooperation). The consultations were based on the material contained in the 

Biological Assessment for the proposed action (Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1990b). Appendix 

D.1 and D.2, respectively, discuss the consultations with NMFS and USFWS. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE X15 • 

• 

I 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • 

APPENDIX D. I 

THREA I ENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSULTATION 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

D-3 
NRO AP14ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

This section of Appendix D contains materials documenting the Threatened and Endangered 

Species consultation (Section 7 consultation) undertaken with the NMFS for the proposed TCLC 

as implemented at SLC-6. Material provided here includes the TCLC consultation letter and other 

communications regarding the biological opinion for the Space Shuttle which are referenced in the 

TCLC consultation letter. Specific communications provided are: 

Date: June 15, 1990 

From: U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

E. C. Fullerton, Regional Director 

To: U. S. Air Force, Headquarters 1st Strategic Aerospace Division, 

Environmental Management, Col. Daryl G. Atwood, Deputy Director. 

Date: August 1, 1986 

From: U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

William G. Gordon, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 

To: U. S. Air Force, Headquarters Space Division, Acquisition Civil 

Engineering, Col. Raymond E. Rogers, Director. 

Date: April 9, 1982 

From: U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Alan W. Ford, Regional Director 

To: U. S. Air Force, Headquarters Space Division, Directorate of 

Environmental Planning, Lt. Col. R. C. Wooten, Director. 

Based on information contained in the Biological Assessment (Environmental Solutions, Inc. 

1990b), NMFS concluded in its June 15, 1990 letter that the impacts of the TCLC would be 

comparable to or less than those that would have been incurred by Space Shuttle program activities 

at SLC-6. As a consequence, NMFS determined that the conclusions and recommendations 

contained in the biological opinion for the Space Shuttle continue to be valid and that formal 

consultation for the TCLC was not considered necessary. 

In its letter, NMFS continues to support the development and implementation of monitoring 

programs to assess the impacts of launches on pinnipeds, including the Guadalupe fur seal, at 

Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) and the Channel Islands. These issues were previously 

discussed at discussed at a June 1989 informal consultation meeting. As indicated in the Biological 

Assessment (Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1990b), the U. S. Air Force (USAF) will undertake a 

monitoring program in compliance with USAF Regulations AFR 19-7 and AFR 126-1. The 

program will be developed in consultation with NMFS and USFWS to address data needs and 

agency concerns identified in the consultation process. These mitigation measures will be formally 

adopted in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the proposed action. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 D-5 

• 

• 

The monitoring program will be structured to address both the construction and operation phases 

of the proposed action and will focus on Threatened and Endangered and other sensitive species. 

Although details of the monitoring program will be developed in cooperation with NMFS, it is 

anticipated that the monitoring program will address potential impacts to marine mammals from 

launch-related acidic deposition, noise, and sonic booms. The TCLC monitoring program will 

build on and expand the Sea World Research Institute program that was instituted to comply with 

monitoring requirements for the Space Shuttle program at VAFB. It is anticipated that for marine 

mammals, the program will focus on species found on San Miguel and San Nicholas Islands and 

on the mainland in areas that may be impacted by the proposed action. Discussion of proposed 

monitoring for other biological resources is described in Appendix D.2, Threatened and 

Endangered Species Consultation with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The Biological Opinion for the Space Shuttle program (determined by NMFS to be valid for the 

TCLC) indicated that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

Threatened or Endangered marine mammal species. The opinion was issued subsequent to the 

promulgation of regulations that allow USAF a small take of marine mammals incidental to 

launches of the Space Shuttle. The regulations for incidental takings associated with the Space 

Shuttle program would be updated and revised to reflect the less intense nature of the proposed 

action (i.e., lower launch rate and smaller space launch vehicle than the Space Shuttle program). 

• 
rely 

C. ilerton 

Regional Director 

JUNE 015 t s . DARTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1 

NROAPAPROVED FOR REL 

rNagii".1 0t AL MAR apilain:FIs1,11;11s4birfRaVrChCsibla adminie"."1" 

**mr, Southwest Region 

300 South Ferry Street • Terminal Island, CA 90731 

June 15, 1990 F/SWR14:JHL 

Daryl G. Atwood 

Colonel, USAF 

Deputy Director, Environmental Management 

Headquarters 1st strategic Aerospace Division 

Vandenberg Air Force ease, CA 93437-5000 

Dear Colonel Atwood: 

we have reviewed the biological assessment on the proposed 

conversion of Space Launch Complex Six (SLC-6) for use in the 

Titan IV/Centaur Launch Program in the context of your request 

for consultation under the Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act. sLc-6 is the facility that was originally constructed for 

use in the Space shuttle Program. We conducted consultations on 

the construction and operation of SLc-6 in 1982 (Letter April 9, 

1982 From Allen W. Ford, Regional Director NMFS Southwest Region 

to Lt. Col. R.C. Wooten Jr. HQ Space Division), and again in 1986 

subsequent to our listing of the guadalupe fur seal as a 

ill threatened species (Biological Opinion dated August 1 1986, from 

William Gordon, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA to 

Col. Raymond E. Rogers HQ Space Division). 

Based on the information contained in the biological assessment, 

we think that the impacts of modifying SLC-6 and launching 

Titan TV/Centaur boosters will be comparable to or less than 

those considered in previous consultations for the Space Shuttle 

Program. Thus the conclusions and recommendations contained in 

the letters and biological opinions referenced above continue to 

be valid and there is no need to proceed through the formal 

consultation process for this project. 

We continue to support the development of monitoring programs to 

assess the impacts of launches on pinnipeds, including the 

guadalupe fur seal, at Vandenberg and on the Channel Islands. In 

June of 1989, we met with several members of your staff and your 

consultant, Environmental solutions, Inc., to discuss the 

problems of disturbance to pinnipeds and the need to assess the 

impacts of the SLC-7 program. We recommend that you continue the 

development of those monitoring programs. If needed, we would be 

pleased to assist. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE D-7 

1 JUNE 2015 

• gi6 1 1988 

F/M411:MI. 

• 

• 

Colonel Raymond E. Rogers 

Director of Acquisition Civil Engineering 

Headquarters Space Division (AFSC) 

Los Angeles Air Force Station 

P.O. Box 92960/ Worldway Postal Center 

Los Angeles, CA 90009 

Dear Colonel Rogers: 

Enclosed are a biological opinion and statement regarding 

incidental taking prepared by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (ESA). The opinion and statement concern the impacts 

of proposed launches and returns of the Space Transportation 

System (STS), or space shuttle, from Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

California. 

Based on our review of the available information on the proposed 

activities and on the biology and ecology of the threatened 

Guadalupe fur seal on the northern Channel Islands, we have 

determined that the proposed activities are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of this species. Please note 

that the enclosed biological opinion in no way permits the taking 

of this threatened species. Such taking, unless properly 

permitted, is prohibited under Section 102 of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA). Section 17 of the ESA states that unless 

otherwise provided, no provision of the ESA shall take precedence 

over any more restrictive provision of the M!1PA. Under Section 

101(a)(3)(B) of the MMPA, the taking of depleted species of 

marine mammals can be permitted only for scientific purposes. 

Therefore, the appended statement concerning incidental taking of 

endangered or threatened species pursuant to Section 7(b)(4) of 

the ESA does not authorize taking of the threatened Guadalupe fur 

peal. 

Ve are recommending that the Guadalupe fur seal be included 

within the monitoring program described in the reoulations 

(issued April 7, 1986) that allow the Air Force a small take of 

marine mammals incidental to launchings of the space shuttle from 

Vandenberg. New information on the timing, location, and nature 

of activities associated with STS program should be reviewed by 

the Air Force on a case-by-case basis to determine if additional 

consultation with NtiFS is required pursuant to Section 7. 

fr-1-5-a4e-f 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

D-8 

Consultation must be reinitiated if there is a modification to 

the proposed action, if a new species is listed, if critical 

habitat is designated in the area covered by your program, or if 

new information reveals impacts of identified activities that may 

affect listed species. 

I look forward to continued cooperation during future 

consultations. 

Sincerely, 

/8/ James E. Douglas, Jr, 

iilliam G. Gordon 

Assistant Adrlinistrator 

for Fisheries 

Enclosure 

• 

cc:F/SWF3(Seagars), F/M411F(2)., F/M 

F/M411:MLorenz:gec:7/21/86:673-5349:ed rogers:disk no 28 

F/M411:revised:gec:7/24/86: 

• 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 D-9 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion 

AGENCY: United States Air Force (USAF) 

ACTIVITY: Operations associated with the launch and return of 

the space shuttle from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California 

CONSULTATION CONDUCTED BY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

DATE OF ISSUANCE: AUG 11986 

BACKGPOUND: On March 4, 1986, the United States Air Force (USAF) 

requested initiation of formal consultation on a biological 

assessment for operations associated with the Space 

Transportation System (STS), or space shuttle program, from 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The purpose of this 

consultation is to consider impacts of the proposed activities on 

the threatened Guadalupe fur seal. 

This opinion is based on information acquired through 

consultation with the USAF, Headquarters Space Division, Los 

Angeles, CA, information contained in the biological assessment 

prepared for this project (USAF, 1986), the proposed and final 

rules (NMFS 198Sa,b) listing the Guadalupe fur seal as 

*threatened" according to the Endangered Species Act, the final 

and supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

prepared for the project (USAF 1979, 1983), and additional 

materials provided by the USAF that describe changes in program 

activities (correspondence of November 8, 1983, August 16, 1984, 

November 20, 1984, and March 5, 1985). Additional supporting 

materials, including published and unpublished research reports, 

referred to by the above documents are incorporated by reference. 

PROPOSED ACTIVITY: Launches of the STS from Vandenbero Air Force 

Base (VAFB) were expected to begin no earlier than July 15, 1986/ 

with a second launch scheduled for late 1986. However, it is 

possible that this schedule will be delayed up to one year or 

more as a result of the Challenger accident at Kennedy Space 

Center, Florida in February, 1986 (M. Mondl, pers. comm.). 

Between 28 (USAF 1986) and 80 (USAF 1979, 1983) space shuttle 

launches may take place from VAFB during the ten year life span 

• 

• 
NRO APROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUN 21015 

2 

• of the STS project. 

Depending on the trajectory and the azimuth of the STS, sonic 

booms with intensities more powerful (4-6 pounds per square foot 

or psf) than supersonic military aircraft (0.5-2.0 psf) are 

expected to occur over Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San 

Miguel Islands. Up to seven launches are predicted to occur with 

trajectories that will produce "focused" sonic booms over the 

Northern Channel Islands. Focused sonic booms will occur when 

the STS pitches over from vertical to horizontal flight; this 

results in 'focusing' of sonic boom energy and may result in 

overpressures of up to 10 - 12 psf within a narrow "focal 

region". This overpressure of 10 - 12 psf is equal to 147.6 

decibels (NMFS 1986). Since the focal region is expected to 

occur in a band downrange of VAFB approximately 80 miles wide and 

1000 feet long (uprance-downrange), it is expected to occur only 

over San Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands and their adjacent waters. 

Lower pressure, "conventional' intensity, sonic booms (0.5-2 psf) 

are expected to occur over the Sari Miguel and Santa Rosa Island 

areas as a result of orbiter returns to the VAFB area. 

4111 As part of the final regulations (NMFS 1986: April 7, 1986; 

Federal Register 51(66): 11737-11742) authorizing the incidental 

taking of small numbers of non-depleted pinnipeds due to STS 

operations, the USAF is required to monitor the impacts of 

focused sonic booms from STS operations on the pinniped 

populations on the Northern Channel Islands. 

These regulations do not authorize any taking of pinniped species 

during those times of year for which NMFS cannot determine that 

the incidental taking will have a negligible impact. The first 

Letter of Authorization issued to the USAF to authorize 

incidental taking will not authorize a take during either January 

1 through February 15 or May 15 through - July 31 (M. Lorenz, 

pers. comm.). 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

41/1 Additional details concerning the proposed project are available 

in the biological assessment prepared for the project (USAF 1936) 

and other documents referenced above. 

STATUS OF SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THIS OPINION 

Common Name Scientific Name Status 

Guadalupe fur seal Arctocephalus townsendi Threatened 

BIOLOGICAL In FORMATION: It is likely that Guadalupe fur seals 

formerly ranged approximately from 18° N (Revillagigedo Islands) 

to 37° N (Monterey Bay, California). Breedinc, likely occurred in 

the California Channel Islands from San Miguel Island south to 

Guadalupe, the San Benitos and Cedros Islands, and perhaps as far 

south as Socorro Island. The species does not currently breed in 

the Southern California Bight. All breeding activity and 

virtually the entire population of approximately 1600 animals is 

found on or near Guadalupe Island (256 km west of Baja 

California, Mexico). Animals typically cone ashore in the 

Southern California Bight during the breeding season (early May 

4111 

to July -- possibly to early August). A few juveniles and an 

occasional adult have been observed durina this period each year 

on San Miguel Island since 1968 (less than 6 animals in any one 

year). Three individuals were seen north of the project area at. 

Piedras Blancas in 1938. Other observations offshore California 

include recent sightings of 2 animals on San Nicolas Island, 

single individuals at Santa Barbara and San Clemente Islands, and 

at three pelagic and two coastal locations. No further 

information is available which describes the species pelagic 

distribution, feeding areas, or prey species. 

Additional detailed biological information concerning the 

Guadalupe fur seal is available in the N?1P.S status review 

(Seegers 1984), the various published and unpublished reports 

referenced within the status review, and notices of the proposed 

and final rule to list the species as published in the Federal 

Recister (40(2): 294-296 and 50(24): 51251-51258). Additional 

information is contained in the biological assessment prepared 

for the proposed STS project (USAF 1986) and references cited in 

that assessment. Information contained in the above documents is 

incorporated into this opinion by reference. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS: If STS launches were to take place during 

the summer months when Guadalupe fur seals were expected to be on 

or near San Miguel Island, between 1 to 5 individuals could he II 

3 D-11 
NROPgWOVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE-20105 4 • 

• 

disturbed by sonic booms of varying intensities. The potential 

impacts of these sounds to pinnipeds (other than the Guadalupe 

fur seal) on the Channel Islands was discussed in the proposed 

(Federal Register 50[148): 31200-31205) and final rule (51[66): 

11,37-117421 governing the taking of small numbers of nondepleted pinnipeds due to STS operations. Additional information 

is provided in the biological assessment prepared for the STS 

project (USAF 1986). 

The following is a summary of this information. Animals under 

water outside the focusing region are not expected to be affected 

because almost all sound from the launch would be reflected at 

the water's surface. Animals on land or with their heads outside 

of water and within the path of the focused sonic boom could 

experience some temporary hearing threshold shift, but this 

threshold change should last a short time (minutes to hours) and 

minimally disrupt animal behavior. The Air Force expects that 

STS sonic booms, both launches and returns, will alter slightly 

the acoustic environment of San Miguel Island and are predicted 

to increase the frequency of sudden movements to the water for 

northern fur seals and California sea lions by 15 per cent. 

Similar results could be expected for Guadalupe fur seals. 

Although the startle effect of these sounds could result in panic 

and concomitant physiological stress, the frequency of these 

sonic booms will be low compared to the frequency of naturally 

induced startle-causing events. For the present, these acoustic 

events could result in disturbance to a few resting 

individuals. It is unlikely that such disturbance in the future 

could discourage incipient colonizers or affect breeding activity 

should a breeding colony become established on San Miguel Island 

within the life of the proposed project. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS: There are a number of State tideland oil and 

gas related activities either in progress or scheduled for the 

immediate future which also have some potential to result in 

disturbance to Guadalupe fur seals on San Miguel Island. 

Potential disturbance from these activities would most likely be 

the result of oil spill clean-up programs on or around the Pt. 

Bennett area of San Miguel Island. However, since there are so 

few Guadalupe fur seals in the project area, the potential for 

disturbance due to oil spill clean-up activities is low, the 

potential for disturbance as a result of sTsnprAti,n C .c ,.,.. 1

,.tic puuetiLlal tor a combined or sequential disturbance from 

both projects is negligible, we believe that any cumulative 

effects are well below any threshold which would result in 

adverse impacts to either individuals or the population. • 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 D-13 

• NMFS will monitor Air Force and OCS activities and review information concerning listed species for indications of 

cumulative impacts. The monitoring programs of the USAF and the 

Minerals Management Service should provide information that may 

help to identify any such impacts. 

CONCLUSIONS: The NMFS conclusion concerning the potential for 

disturbance to Guadalupe fur seals from STS operations is based 

on the following: the majority of the population is located far 

to the south of the project area; fur seals are widely dispersed 

at sea during winter months; only 0.2 percent of the total world 

population is present on San Miguel Island from May to August; 

the affects of impulse sound from sonic booms on the auditory 

system of Guadalupe fur seals are expected to be minimal and 

temporary in duration; the timing of (at least the first two) 

launches likely to produce high intensity focused sonic booms 

over San Miguel Island is expected to occur outside of the period 

when Guadalupe fur seals typically inhabit the Island; and the 

predicted increase in possible disturbance to fur seals from STS 

generated sonic booms is low (15 t), Therefore, NNFS concludes 

that the proposed activities are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the Guadalupe fur seal. 

• CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS: NNFS recommends that the USAF 

include Guadalupe fur seals on San Miguel Island within the 

monitoring program described by the regulations authorizing the 

taking of non—depleted pinnipeds (NMFS 1986) and within the 

Letter of Authorization issued to the USAF for the Space Shuttle 

Program. NMFS recommends that the USAF provide the results of 

these studies to NMFS so that an assessment can be made of any 

need to modify measures designed to protect the Guadalupe fur 

seal on San niguel Island. 

• 

REINITIATION OF CONSULTATION: Reinitiation of formal 

consultation is required and shall be requested by the Federal 

agency or by the Service where discretionary Federal involvement 

or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by 

law and (1) if the amount or extent of taking specified in the 

incidental take statement is exceeded (incidental take of marine 

mammals is not authorized by thiS biological opinion); (2) if new 

information (such as that collected through the recommended 

monitoring program) reveals effects of the action that may affect 

the Guadalupe fur seal in a manner or to an extent not previously 

considered; (3) if the identified action is subseouently modified 

in a manner that causes an effect to the Guadalupe fur seal that 

was not considered in the biological opinion; or (4) if a new 

species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 D-15 • STATEMENT REGARDING INCIDENTAL TAKING PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 7(b)(4) OF THE 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED 

Any marine mammal population listed pursuant to the ESA is 

considered depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 

1972 (MMPA). According to Section 17 of the ESA, no provision of 

the ESA is to take precedence over a more restrictive, 

conflicting provision of the MMPA. The MMPA is more restrictive 

than the ESA because the MMPA prohibits taking from depleted 

stocks except for scientific research. Therefore, Section 

7(b)(4) of the ESA is not applicable to the threatened Guadalupe 

fur seal population and no take is authorized. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNFD20515 

REFERENCES CITED 

• 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1985a. Proposed Rule: 

Threatened Fish and Wildlife; Guadalupe Fur Seal. Federal 

Register 50(2):294-298. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1985b. Final Rule: 

Threatened Fish and Wildlife/ Guadalupe Fur Seal. Federal 

Register 50(241): 51252-51258. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1985c. Proposed Rule: 

Regulations governing small takes of marine mammals 

incidental to specified activities. Federal Register 

50(148):31200-31205. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1986. Final Rule: 

Regulations governing small takes of marine mammals 

incidental to specified activities. Federal Register 

51(66):11737-11742. 

United States Air Force. 1986. Biological assessment for the 

Guadalupe fur seal, Arctocephalus towndsendi. 6p. 

United States Air Force. 1983. Supplement to the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Space Shuttle Program, 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. 

United States Air Force. 1979. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Space Shuttle Program, Vandenberg Air Force 

Base, California. 

Seagars, J. 1984. The Guadalupe fur seal: a status review. 

NMFS, Southwest Region Admin. Rept., SWR-84-6; 29p. 

F/M411:MLorenz:gec:7/21/86:673-5349:ed:-COMm00001:disk no 28 

Revised:gec:7/24/86 

• 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

D-17 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

Southwest Region 

300 South Ferry Street 

Terminal Island, California 90731 

Lt. Col. R. C. Wooten, Jr. 

Headquarters Space Division, SD/DEV 

P.O. Box 92960 

Worldway Postal Center 

Los Angeles, CA 90009 

Dear Colonel Wooten: 

April 9, 1982 F/SWR31:DJS 

F/NWC3:GA 

F/SWR33:RSH 

• 

• 

We have reviewed the Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (DSFEIS) for the Space Shuttle Program at Vandenberg APB, California 

and offer the following general comments for your consideration. These 

comments address issues relating to marine fisheries, endangered species, 

marine mammals, and their habitats for which the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) is responsible. 

Construction Activities at Point Arguello 

The proposed construction activities at the Point Arguello boathouse area 

will have short and long-term adverse impacts to marine fishery resources of 

concern to our agency. The short term effects include the destruction of 

benthic organisms by dredging activities. These impacts are relatively minor 

since recolonization should occur rapidly. The long-term effects involve the 

permanent removal of an existing pier, submerged rocks, and a small kelp bed 

all of which serve to enhance fishery resources. In addition, construction of 

the proposed dock would eliminate approximately 0.4 acres of intertidal 

habitat. 

The proposed mitigation is directed only to reducing impacts to 

intertidal and subtidal areas. The mitigation does not address the need to 

compensate the permanent habitat losses associated with this project. Although 

the document indicates that one potential option for the disposal of dredge 

material could be the creation of an artificial reef, which could have an 

enhancement value to fish resources, the suitability of dredge material for 

this type of project remains to be determined. 

We feel the construction of an artificial reef would be an appropriate 

compensatory measure to offset the losses associated with this project since 

the reef would essentially replace in kind the habitat lost through 

construction activities. The final document should explore further the 

feasibility of this concept for habitat compensation. 
NRO ABPROVED FOR RELEASE 2 

1 JUNE 2015 

Endangered Species 

The final SFEIS should note that the NMFS is the federal agency 

responsible for administration of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended 

(ESA) as it pertains to threatened and endangered marine species. Concerns 

pertaining to marine turtles are shared with the Department of Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS). Sea otters are also under the their jurisdiction. 

The final SFEIS should note that species listed by the NMFS as endangered 

or threatened which are likely to occur within the area to be impacted by 

actions of this project include: 

Gray whale 

Blue whale 

Humpback whale 

Right whale 

Fin whale 

Sei whale 

Sperm whale 

Leatherback sea turtle 

Pacific hawksbill sea turtle 

Green sea turtle 

(Eschrictius robustus) 

(Balaenoptera musculus) 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) 

(Eubalaena up.) 

(Balaenoptera physalus) 

(B. borealis) 

(Physeter catodon) 

(Dermochelys coriacea) 

(Eretmochelys imbricate brissa) 

(Chelonia mydas) 

For the species listed above there has been no critical habitat proposed 

or designated in the southern California area. 

The loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) and Pacific ridley sea turtle 

(Lepidochelys olivacea) are occasionally found in the area and are listed as 

threatened. 

Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to consider the impacts of 

a proposed action to listed species. We have treated your February 5, 1982, 

request for comments on the DSFEIS as a request for informal consultation 

pursuant to the ESA. We have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and DSFEIS and agree with the conclusions that the proposed action will not 

jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species for which the NMFS is 

responsible. 

We concur with your recommended mitigation (#2, page 2-140) to limit 

blasting to periods when gray whales are absent from the immediate construction 

area. We further recommend that a reconnaissance of waters adjacent to the 

Boathouse cove be conducted during the gray whale migration period (December -

March) to determine if gray whales are present in the immediate area. 

These comments conclude our informal review under the ESA. In the event 

that any new evidence becomes available which indicates the project may have 

adverse impacts on listed species within the project area, we request that the • 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 3 

1 JUNE 2015 D-19 

• 

U.S. Air Force (USAF) initiate the formal consultation process. We futher 

recommend that formal consultation be initiated if another species in the 

project area is listed as threatened or endangered. 

Marine Mammals 

The DSFEIS predicts (summary, page ix and elsewhere) disturbance to 

pinnipeds on the northern Channel Islands due to Space Shuttle generated sonic 

booms. A 15 percent increase in pinniped mass movements from the shores of the 

islands to the water is predicted as a direct result of Space Shuttle generated 

sonic booms. Disturbance and/or displacement is predicted to occur to harbor 

seals at the Point Arguello Boathouse from proposed construction activities. 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA), places a 

moratorium on the taking of marine mammals. The definition (50 CFR 216.3, 

216.11 et seq.) of take includes among other activities harassment, killing and 

"...the negligent or intentional operation of an aircraft or...any other 

negligent or intentional acts which result in disturbing or molesting of a 

marine mammals." Section 101 (a)3 of the MMPA as amended describes conditions 

by which the Secretary is authorized to waive the moratorium on taking provided 

specific conditions are met. Public law 97-58 amended the MMPA by adding, 

among other things, a new Section 101 (a)5 to allow individuals engaging in 

activities, other than commercial fishing, to take small numbers of marine 

mAmmAls incidentally within a specified geographic region. The amendments and 

proposed general regulations (50 CFR 228 Subpart A) (enclosed) describe the 

process by which a formal written request must be submitted to receive 

consideration for a Letter of Authorization to allow activities which may 

result in the "take" of marine mammals. It is recommended that you contact our 

office so that we may assist you in exploring the potential for submission of a 

formal written request via these mechanisms of exemption. 

We note that several statements which attempt to describe the effects.. of 

sonic booms to pinnipeds appear to inaccurately report the results of USAF 

contracted studies. Several references state that the present rate of 

disturbances to pinnipeds at San Miguel Island exceeds 100 major disturbances 

per year. It is unclear how this rate was obtained. It appears that Cooper 

and Jehl (1980) may have erred initially when they calculated this estimate by 

adding the estimated disturbance rates of otariids (given as 4 to 5 per month 

for California sea lions and northern fur seals) and harbor seals (2-3 per 

month-reported by Bowles and Stewart, 1980). For example, both otariids and 

harbor seals can be affected by the same loud sonic boom while in other 

instances a relatively quieter sonic boom may affect only a small group of 

geographically isolated harbor seals. Therefore, the disturbance rates for the 

two groups must be analyzed separately. Additionally, Bowles and Stewart 

(1980) use differing criteria for defining a 'major event" for otariids and 

phocids. Neither of these definitions include the criterion "causing at least 

half the population to vacate the beach" (DSFEIS). It appears likely that 

estimates from separate analyses would result in lower rates of current annual 

disturbance and higher percentage increases in disturbance caused by shuttlegenerated sonic booms. 
NRO A5P2F6OVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

4 • 

• 

The percent contribution of sonic booms and boat noises relative to total 

disturbance also should be presented in the Final SFEIS. Adopting these 

recommended changes in the Final SFEIS would result in a more accurate 

description of the complex interactions of pinnipeds and disturbing stimuli on 

San Miguel Island. 

We are also concerned with the implication that the low abundance of 

harbor seals in the northern Channel Islands relative to the world population 

can be used as a rationale for not considering the species to be sensitive to 

disturbance during the pupping season (Page F-15, paragraph 4). Harbor seals 

on the northern Channel Islands are protected at all times under the MMPA and 

by being within the Channel Islands National Park and should not be overlooked 

when scheduling space shuttle activities which could adversely impact them. 

Bowles and Stewart (1980) state that for both harbor seals and otariids, the 

period of greatest potential impact occurs from March through July. They also 

note that "among the pinnipeds, harbor seals were most likely to startle." We 

concur with these statements. The mitigation measure offered in Section 

2.7.2.3 (DSFEIS) should be improved to ensure that the flight director will. 

avoid scheduling shuttle launches that will create large sonic-boom overpressures at San Miguel Island during the breeding seasons (March-July), if a 

practical alternative exists. 

Finally, there is a chance of significant impact of shuttle-generated 

booms on marine mammal hearing (Page 2-86, paragraph 1), and this points out 

the need for an experimental evaluation of this potential impact. We recognize 

the problems involved with studies designed to evaluate the effect of shuttlegenerated booms on pinnipeds (Chappell, 1980). We suggest that the USAF can 

overcome the logistic and technical problems and that scientists would prefer 

to face the difficulties of interpretting the results of such an experiment 

rather than relying on extrapolations from experiments performed on other 

species. Therefore, we urge the USAF to consider supporting such research. 

Sincerely yours, 

Alan W. Ford 

Regional Director 

Encl 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 D-21 • 

Literature Cited 

Bowles, A. E., and B. S. Stewart. 1980. Disturbances to pinnipeds and 

birds of San Miguel Island during 1979 and 1980, In Potential Effects 

of Space Shuttle Booms on the Biota and Geology of the California 

Channel Islands: Research reports USAF Technical Report #80-1, 

pages 99-137. 

Chappall, M. A. 1980. Possible physiological effects of space shuttle 

sonic booms on marine mammals, In Potential Effects of Space Shuttle 

Sonic Booms on the Biota and Geology of the California Channel 

Islands: Research Reports, USAF Technical Report #80-1, 

pages 195-228. 

Cooper, C. F., and J. R. Jehl. 1980. Potential effects of space 

shuttle sonic booms on the biota and geology of the California 

Channel Islands: Synthesis of research and recommendations, USAF 

Technical Report #80-2, 14 pages. 

• 
NRO DROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

1 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

APPENDIX D.2 

THREA I E\TED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSULTATION 

U.S. FISH AND WILDL11±, SERVICE 

D-23 

• 
NRO 6FNROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • This section of Appendix D contains materials documenting the Threatened and Endangered 

Species consultation (Section 7 consultation) undertaken with the USFWS for the proposed TCLC 

as implemented at SLC-6. The consultation letter regarding the proposed action is provided here. 

The Biological Opinion (Opinion) rendered by USFWS states that the proposed action is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species present in the area of potential impact. 

Listed species of concern are the California brown pelican, California least tern, American 

peregrine falcon, and the unarmored threespine stickleback. USFWS believes that the proposed 

action is likely to result in some level of take in the form of harassment by noise and other 

disturbances during launches and potentially some loss of habitat due to vehicle exhaust. Animal 

mortality of listed species is not expected. As a consequence, the taking in the form of harassment 

is authorized by the Opinion and an incidental take permit is not required at this time. If future 

monitoring data shows that mortality of listed species is occurring, an incidental take permit may 

be required at that time. 

• 

To minimize harassment of listed species, USFWS is requiring that USAF: 

• Develop a monitoring plan to assess the impacts of launch noise and sonic 

booms that considers both individual and cumulative effects from the 

TCLC and other launch programs on VAFB. In the event that taking 

of listed species is documented, additional measures would need to be 

implemented to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the take. If necessary, these 

measures would be developed in coordination with USFWS and the 

California department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 

• Develop a monitoring plan to assess the short- and long-term individual 

and cumulative impacts of deposition of HC1 and A1203 in areas near 

the launch pad. In the event that taking of listed species is documented, 

additional measures would need to be implemented to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate the take. If necessary, these measures would be developed in 

coordination with USFWS and CDFG. 

• Engage the services of a qualified raptor biologist to investigate the 

potential use of areas of South VAFB by the American peregrine falcon. 

In the event that nesting activities are identified, a monitoring program 

would be developed to measure the impact of the TCLC on the species. 

If necessary, these measures would be developed in coordination with 

USFWS and CDFG. 

• As indicated in the Biological Assessment (Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1990b), USAF 

will undertake a monitoring program in compliance with USAF Regulations AFR 19-2 and 

AFR 126-1. The program will be developed in consultation with USFWS and NMFS to address 

data needs and agency concerns identified in the consultation process as outlined above. USAF 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

D-25 

• 

• 

will develop monitoring plans to address the above-described requirements in coordination with 

USFWS. These mitigation measures will be formally adopted in the ROD for the proposed action. 

The preface to the Opinion indicates that an evaluation of potential effects to candidate species 

will be forwarded to USAF by USFWS at a future date as part of informal consultation since it 

does not address threatened or endangered species. Impacts to candidate species will be fully 

considered since USAF regulation AFR 126-1 provides that species proposed for listing or under 

review for proposed listing are afforded the same protection as species already listed. Personal 

communication with USFWS (Donna Brewer, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ventura Office, 

June 21, 1990) indicated that the forthcoming evaluation of potential effects to candidate species 

will specifically address the need to integrate monitoring of curly-leaved monardella (a candidate 

species for listing) with the monitoring measures outlined above. These mitigation measures will 

be formally adopted in the ROD for the proposed action. 

Conservation recommendations identified in the Opinion are USFWS suggestions regarding 

discretionary measures to minimize or avoid impacts on listed species or critical habitat or to 

develop additional information. They will be evaluated with regard to the proposed action and 

discussed in the ROD. 

• 
D-26 

PROVED FOR RELEASE 

015 United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIELD STATION 

Ventura Office 

2140 Eastman Avenue, Suite 100 

Ventura, California 93003 

June 12, 1990 

• 

Colonel Orville J. Robertson 

Director, Environmental Management 

Department of the Air Force 

Headquarters 1st Strategic Aerospace Division 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California 93437-5000 

Re: Formal Section 7 Consultation - Construction and Operation of Titan 

IV/Centaur space launch complex, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California (# 

23) 

Dear Colonel Robertson: 

1-6-90-FThis responds to your request dated March 16, 1990, and received by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) on March 22, 1990, for formal consultation pursuant to 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of,I973, as amended. At issue are the 

effects of construction and operation of the proposed Titan IV/Centaur space launch 

complex program on the following listed species: California brown pelican (Pelecanus 

occidentalis californicus), California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni), American 

peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), and unarmored threespine stickleback 

(Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni). 

Species which are candidates for federal listing may also be affected based on their 

possible occurrence in areas affected by project operations. Although candidate 

species are not protected by the Act, and therefore not covered in this Opinion, we 

recommend consideration of such species early in the planning process since they may 

become listed during later phases of the proposed action. Consideration of candidate 

species is especially important with respect to long-term actions. An evaluation of 

Potential effects to candidate species (i.e., acidic deposition and candidate plants) will 

be forwarded to your office under separate cover. 

Threatened or endangered marine mammals which may be affected by the proposed 

action, excluding the southern sea otter, are under the jurisdiction of the National • Marine Fisheries Service and therefore, are not considered in this consultation. Formal 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 D-27 • consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the effects of this 

project on marine mammals may be required. 

BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

It is our Opinion that implementation of the subject project as proposed is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of the California brown pelican, California least 

tern, American peregrine falcon, or unarmored threespine stickleback. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

• 

• 

The United States Air Force (Air Force) has proposed to construct and operate a new 

Titan IV/Centaur space launch complex (SLC) on south Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

Santa Barbara County. As originally proposed in their draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS), the Air Force's preferred alternative was to construct an entirely new 

complex (SLC-7) at Cypress Ridge (Environmental Solutions, 1989). Subsequently, the 

Air Force was redirected by language in the 1990 Congressional Appropriations Bill to 

pursue a reconfiguration of an existing space launch complex (SLC-6) on south 

Vandenberg Air Force Base which is currently in mothball status. Reconfiguration of 

SLC-6 was previously identified by the Air Force as an alternative to the construction 

of SLC-7 and has been evaluated in a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

This Opinion analyses the impact of the construction and operation of SLC-6 and is 

based on information contained in the draft EIS (Environmental Solutions, 1989), the 

Biological Assessment (Environmental Solutions, 1990) and previous documents provided 

to the Service on Titan IV missile programs (Engineering Science, 1988a,b). 

The Air Force invested 3.1 billion dollars to plan and construct the Space Shuttle 

launch site (SLC-6) on Vandenberg. Following the Challenger accident, and discovery 

that the lift capability of the shuttle was inadequate to provide launches to a polar 

orbit from Vandenberg, the Air Force deactivated SLC-6.. The currently proposed 

reconfiguration of SLC-6 for use by Titan IV/Centaur vehicles will allow the Air Force 

to resume plans for polar orbit launches. Also, reconfiguration of the existing SLC-6 

complex will not require the financial cost or extensive grading needed to construct an 

entirely new complex. All construction or modification activities for the Titan 

IV/Centaur discussed in the Biological Assessment are planned to occur in areas 

previously disturbed in construction of SLC-6. The Titan IV/Centaur program is 

anticipated to be operational by 1994-1995 and support a maximum of three launches 

per year from the modified SLC-6 facility. 

Components of the Titan IV/Centaur vehicle include two upgraded solid rocket motors, 

core vehicle, Centaur stage, payload faring, and satellite vehicle. The solid rocket 

motors, which power the initial takeoff, together contain a total of approximately 1.4 

million pounds of solid rocket propellant , consisting of ammonium perchlorate and an 

aluminum binder fuel. During a launch, these rockets fire for approximately 2.5 
NRO All4A0VED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • minutes, at which time they separate from the core vehicle and fall into the ocean. 

The core vehicle consist of two stages and uses liquid propellants consisting of a fuel, 

Aerozine 50 (50 percent hydrazine and 50 percent unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine, 

and an oxidizer, nitrogen tetroxide (N2 04). During a launch, the first stage burns for 

approximately three minutes then separates from the second stage. The second stage 

then burns for approximately four minutes and separates from the remainder of the 

space vehicle. Like the solid rocket motors, both stages fall into the ocean and are 

not recovered. The Centaur stage, containing liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen, and 

hydrazine, is used to boost the satellite into high energy orbit using one to three burns, 

after which it separates from the satellite but remains in orbit. 

Inter-related and interdependent actions are "connected" actions that would not occur 

but for the proposed action and therefore must be considered with the subject action. 

Inter-related and interdependent actions associated with the Titan IV/Centaur Program 

which may affect listed species include the transportation by air, rail, barge, and truck 

of Titan IV components, including propellant fuels, to Vandenberg. At the present 

time, transportation of propellant fuels by marine barge is not proposed and therefore 

not considered in this Opinion. 

EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON LISTED SPECIES • 

• 

Sources of potential impact to threatened or endangered species considered in this 

Opinion include those activities associated with the operational phase of the Titan 

1V/Centaur program. The degree to which listed species may be affected during any 

planned phase of this program are assumed to be dependent upon its proximity to both 

the launch site and the planned launch trajectory. Exceptions may include accidental 

events such as fire, propellant spills, explosions, and early inflight terminations. Since 

no earth moving or excavation activities are proposed during the construction phase, 

impacts to listed species are not anticipated from the construction of SLC-6. 

The Biological Assessment (Assessment) adequately describes the abundance and 

distribution of listed species in the vicinity of proposed activities on Vandenberg Air 

Force Base (Vandenberg) as well as offshore areas which may be exposed to noise and 

sonic booms associated with launch events. Additional information on listed species is 

provided below as appropriate. 

Sources of potential impacts to listed species from operational phases of this program 

include launch noise, sonic booms, and acidic deposition: 

Launch noise. Noise generated during the launch of a Titan IV vehicle will produce 

noise and vibrations which may have adverse affects on listed species, depending upon 

their proximity to the launch trajectory. Effects of intense, short-term vibration on 

animals of any species are largely unknown, however some information on the effects 

of noise is available. Results of studies of noise on several species of birds and 

3 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE D-29 

1 JUNE 2015 • mammals are summarized in Center for Marine Studies, 1980; Hunt, 1985; and are 

briefly reviewed in the Assessment. Exposures to noise are expected to be brief in 

duration (approximately 2 minutes) and occur at low frequencies. Minimum sound 

levels which may cause auditory effects in humans, including temporary hearing loss, 

occur at 115-220 dB. The Assessment estimates that temporary physiological damages, 

such a short-term hearing impairment, are likely within a three to five-mile radius of 

SLC-6. Although the Assessment concludes that launch noise from Titan 1V/Centaur 

launches will not exceed 110 dBA outside of the SLC-6 launch complex, conflicting 

modeling information submitted previously to the Service regarding approximate 

maximum noise levels from Titan IV launches from SLC-4 suggests that levels as high 

as 119 dBA may be detected at 1.8 miles (Figure 1). Startle responses in marine birds 

and marine mammals are known to occur at impulses of as little as 80 to 90 dB flat 

sound pressure levels (Bowles and Stewart, 1980). Based on information contained in 

the Assessment, noises of this intensity may occur within 20 to 30 miles of the launch 

site from Titan IV/Centaur launches. 

• 

Sonic booms. The threshold for temporary auditory damage from exposure to a single 

sonic boom has been found to occur in the range of 138 dB to 169 dB (Chappell, 1980). 

According to the Assessment, the maximum, worst-case, A-weighted sound level 

expected to be detected at San Miguel Island during a Titan IV/Centaur launch is 147 

dBA based on a predicted overpressure of 10 psf (Figure 2). Since this level is within 

the threshold for temporary auditory damage, listed species within range of detecting 

these levels may be adversely affected. 

Acidic deposition: During a Titan IV/Centaur launch, ignition products consisting of 

hydrogen chlorine gas (HC1), aluminum oxide (A1203), carbon monoxide (CO), and water 

(H20) are released. When combined with water, the HCI gas has a strong tendency to 

combine with the water and evaporate, forming a ground cloud. Twenty-six thousand 

gallons of deluge water will be used during each launch, with approximately 75% or 

20,000 gallons evaporating into the ground cloud. As the launch cloud condenses, it 

forms water droplets which scavenge the HCI gas, becoming hydrochloric acid. The pH 

of these droplets would be between 0.1 and 1.0. Based on information provided by the 

Air Force for a typical Titan IV launch (Environmental Solutions, 1988), peak 

concentrations of hydrogen chloride and aluminum oxides could reach 8 ppm and 38 

mg/m2, respectively, at distances of approximately 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) downwind 

of the launch pad (Figures 3 and 4). Predominant wildlife habitats in the vicinity of 

SLC-6 includes central coastal scrub, chapparal, introduced grasslands and 

riparian/wetlands. Peak concentrations are expected to persist for two to 15 minutes 

in any location depending upon wind conditions. 

Accidental events: Potentially adverse impacts to listed species may also occur in the 

event of a fire, explosion, accidental spill of propellant at the launch site or during 

transportation to Vandenberg, and early inflight terminations. No estimates of the 

probability for most of these events have been provided. 

4 
NRO APNROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • 

• 

Hypergolic propellant fuels such as hydrazine, unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine, 

Aerozine-50 (A-50), and nitrogen tetroxide (N204) are toxic. Nitrogen tetroxide, an 

oxidizer, exists in gaseous form and is listed as a Class A poison. The other hypergolic 

fuels exists as a highly flammable liquids. Transportation of these fuels to Vandenburg 

in support of the Titan IV/Centaur program is estimated at nine shipments of oxidizer 

and five shipments of fuel per launch, or at a launch rate of three per year, 27 

shipment of oxidizer and 15 shipments of fuel. The accident rate for hypergolic 

propellant shipments is about 1.56 per one million round trip vehicle miles traveled. 

Based on the proposed number of shipments for the Titan IV/Centaur programs, one 

accident may be expected in a seven year period. Since shipments come from 

manufacturing plants in Mississippi and Alabama, the expected accident, which may or 

may not result in a release of product, could occur anywhere along these routes. 

American peregrine falcon. Peregrine falcons historically nested at locations which 

are near or on Vandenberg Air Force Base. Reported historical nesting locations in 

this vicinity include Point Sal, Point Conception, south of Point Arguello, and all of the 

Channel Islands. There has been a recent increase in breeding peregrine falcons along 

the central California coast, and this expanding population appears to be moving south 

at a fairly rapid rate. Wintering peregrines are regularly seen at San Miguel and 

Anacapa Islands, and at least two pairs have attempted to nest at San Miguel this 

season. Peregrines have also attempted to nest near Jalama Beach and Point Arguello 

in recent years. There is, hence, a good chance of peregrines successfully nesting 

again on Vandenberg Air Force Base. 

Although peregrine falcons tend to be relatively tolerant of many human activities, 

prolonged disturbances near nest sites during the critical nesting period from about 

February 1 through August 1 may lead to the loss of productivity and/or site 

abandonment. Photographers, rock climbers, construction and timber harvest are 

examples of disturbances that if in close proximity to a nest site can lead to 

interference with incubation or parental care. Short-term disturbances also may lead 

to a loss of productivity. Cade (1960) observed several instances where incubating 

peregrines were startled and bolted off the nest, kicking eggs out of the scrape in the 

process. Detailed studies of responses of raptors to jet overflights and sonic booms by 

Ellis (1981) however, observed no significant adverse behavioral responses from 

peregrine and prairie falcons. Harmata et al. (1978) observed no significant reactions 

by prairie falcons during repeated disturbances by low flying aircraft and their sonic 

booms. Habituation to existing levels and frequency of noise and disturbance from 

sonic booms on Vandenberg and at San Miguel Island may minimize impacts if birds 

become established there and become accustomed to these events prior to nesting. 

Studies cited in earlier documents prepared by the Air Force in support of the Titan IV 

program have concluded no impacts are likely based on information on egg hatchabilityand physiological responses of chickens to carbide cannon booms (Cooper and Jehl, • 5 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 D-31 

• 

1980). However, studies of pesticide effects on chickens have demonstrated that 

unrelated bird species may react quite to pesticide contamination, both behaviorally 

and physiologically. It is likely that this is also true for effects of booms on different 

species eggs as well. Due to the persistence of DDT contamination, peregrine eggs in 

California are still thinner than normal. This increases the chances of egg crushing, 

hence, making meaningful comparisons with chickens even more questionable. 

Since peregrine falcons have recently re-established nesting in the Channel Islands, 

including San Miguel Island, there is a likelihood that a focused sonic boom may occur 

during the peregrine's critical nesting period. In the event the peregrines have reestablished nesting near Point Arguello, the likelihood that noise from a launch may 

occur during this critical time is also high. However, based on the results of studies by 

Ellis (1981) and others, we believe that adverse impacts for the most part are unlikely. 

The exception would be if birds were incubating eggs on Point Arguello within 

detection distance of elevated launch noises, or if a focused sonic boom occurred over 

the Channel Islands, especially San Miguel Island, while peregrines were incubating. 

Previous Titan IV programs have estimated that there is a 90-100% chance that sonic 

booms will occur over San Miguel Island during the spring (0-25% chance for booms 

over Anacapa Island). Noise levels from a focused sonic boom at San Miguel Island are 

estimated to be 147 dBA (Figure 2). The worst case scenario would be that a startled 

incubating peregrine would crack or break thin-shelled eggs. The likelihood of a 

peregrine breaking an egg after being startled by a sonic boom or launch is rather 

remote, and if it did in fact occur, would not pose a threat to the survival of the 

species as a whole. However, given that maximum noise levels between 113 and 119 

dBA may be reached at Point Arguello during a Titan IV launch from SLC-6, up to nine 

Titan IV launches (three from this proposal) per year are planned from south 

Vandenberg, and peregrines may have recently begun nesting in this area again, it is 

probably more likely that peregrines would be impacted on the mainland. Since 

peregrines have recently attempted nesting on the Channel Islands and are likely to 

attempt nesting near Point Arguello, if they have not done so already, further 

information on site specific affects of these anticipated activities would be highly 

desirable in order to more accurately assess impacts. 

California brown pelican. Brown pelicans are colonial nesters, using offshore islands 

for colony sites. Anacapa Island supports the only consistently active pelican nesting 

colony in the southern California bight (Point Conception to Punta Eugenia, Baja 

California). 

Like many seabirds, brown pelicans are very sensitive to noise and disturbance during 

the nesting season (Anderson and Keith, 1980). The degree to which noise and 

disturbance from Titan IV launches may cause adverse affects to seabird species is 

partially dependent on individual behavioral responses and stage of nesting, as well as 

the degree of habituation to each stimulus (Parsons and Burger, 1982). For example, 

6 
NRO COVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • 

• 

• 

the panic of one nesting or roosting bird may stimulate the reaction of several other 

birds. Disturbances at a late stage of nesting, when re-nesting is no longer possible 

(such as the late-incubation or hatchling) may also cause a greater impact (Anderson 

and Keith, 1980). 

Anderson and Keith (1980) found injuries to young brown pelicans due to predators at 

Anacapa Island occurred up until about three weeks of age, when downy young are 

ultimately able to defend themselves against potential predators such as Heermans' and 

Western gulls. During their studies, Anderson and Keith found that western gulls will 

attack even large (3-4 week old) chicks until either 1) regurgitation of fish occurred, 

diverting the predator from further attack on the young pelican, or 2) removal of the 

eyes or more often uropygial gland/entrails of the chick occurred. These investigators 

also observed western gulls eating small whole pelican chicks (1-3 days old) when adults 

had been flushed from the nests. Additional losses of chicks occurred due to tramplirg 

by flushing adults and larger, disturbed chicks and occasional impalement on cacti 

which surround the colony. 

Once brown pelican young are about four to six weeks of age, the most significant 

aspect of disturbance would probably be losses of food through regurgitation by the 

stressed chicks. Anderson and Keith (1980) have found that disturbances, especially 

early in the breeding season, may have lasting and profound behavioral effects. 

Historically, many islands off the west coast of Baja California were used as pelican 

rookeries (Jehl, 1973). All except Los Coronados have been abandoned as active 

nesting colonies, largely because of various types of human disturbance (Anderson, UC: 

Davis, pers. comm.). When disruption is of a less severe nature, disturbance-induced 

reductions in productivity result from 1) death of nestlings from hyper- or hypothermia 

and injury, 2) nest desertion by uneasy adults (this occurs more readily early in the 

nesting season), and 3) egg losses to overheating and to predation by gulls when adults 

are driven from the nest for extended periods (Anderson et al., 1976). The greatest 

potential for major disturbance occurs early in the nesting cycle, when pelicans are 

most prone to abandon nests. Even a one-time disturbance, if at a critical time in the 

breeding cycle, can cause abandonment of a colony or cohort within a colony (Gress 

and Anderson, 1981). 

Although the Air Force did not provide an estimate of the probability that breeding 

brown pelicans at Anacapa Island might be impacted by sonic booms during a Titan 

IV/Centaur launch, previous estimates for Titan launches from SLC-4 have predicted 

probabilities ranging from 0 to 23% (Engineering Science, 1988). Although studies on 

surrogate seabird species (gulls and cormorants) by Schreiber and Schreiber (1980) 

indicate a low probability of adverse response to sonic booms, it is difficult to 

correlate a shot-gun blast (which is a directional sound source) with that of a sonic 

boom. Accordingly, the Service remains concerned about possible adverse effects to 

this species. Given that some level of noise and disturbance is likely to occur at this 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE D-33 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• 

• 

important colony, further definition of the impacts of Titan IV missile launches would 

be desirable. 

California least tern. The Assessment adequately addresses available ecological and 

biological information on California least tern populations found within areas 

potentially affected by the Titan IV/Centaur program. Of the three colonies currently 

found on Vandenberg Air Force Base, only the Santa Ynez River mouth colony is likely 

to be affected by noise and/or acidic fallout during launches. This site is currently 

heavily impacted by human disturbances and, given the low reproductive successes of 

this colony in recent years, is probably more important to the species as a postbreeding and feeding area. 

The Santa Ynez River mouth is located approximately 7.5 miles north of the SLC-6 

facility. Post-breeding and possibly breeding terns may experience noise from launches 

and experience a startle effect. Given the reduced intensity of the launch noise at this 

distance from the site (Figure 1), impacts to post-breeding terns are likely to be shortterm and unlikely to cause significant effects. On the other hand, nesting terns are 

more likely to be adversely affected due to increased exposure of eggs or chicks to 

predators while away from the nest. However, based on preliminary studies of the 

effects of noise from Minutemen missile launches 6.6 miles from nesting tern colonies 

(Henningson, Durham and Richardson, 1981) and the anticipated level of launch noise at 

the Surf colony (100-104 dBA), the startle effects from launch noise and resulting 

vibrations should cause only slight disturbances and brief breaks in incubation which are 

within the range of normal behaviors. Toxic ground clouds may not effect this species 

due to their distance from the SLC-6 facility, however, the data addressing this 

potential are not thoroughly developed. Although the Service feels it is probably 

unlikely that significant effects to nesting terns from the Titan IV/Centaur program 

will occur, further information on impacts of Titan IV missile launches would be 

desirable. 

Unarmored threespine stickleback. Unarmored threespine stickleback are currently 

present in Honda Creek (approximately 1.5 miles north of SLC-6). Although fishes 

often have good hearing at Iow frequencies (Fay and Popper, 1980), attenuation of 

sound at the water's surface, among other factors, make it unlikely that sticklebacks 

will be significantly affected by noise from a Titan IV launch. Studies of the effects 

of sonic booms with amplitudes as high as 140 dB and underwater sounds with 

amplitudes of 130 dB suggest that a startle reaction will occur. This will likely be a 

short-term impact. 

The potential that a toxic ground cloud may have an adverse impact on the freshwater 

stream environment of this species is of greater concern. Studies of the effects of 

space shuttle exhaust plumes on fishes have documented gill damage and death of 

fishes within 400 m (0.3 miles) of the launch pad, and no effects to fishes situated 

6,100 m (3.7 miles) away (Hawkins et al., 1984). Studies of Space Shuttle launches at 

8 
NRO APPROSM) FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

Kennedy Space Center have documented damage to vegetation from exposure to 

exhaust ground clouds containing hydrochloric acid and aluminum oxide and have 

measured acidities of <0.5 pH within these clouds. Near-field acute vegetation damage 

was found up to 1.2 km (0.74 miles) from the launch pad; far-field effects due to 

movement of the clouds were spotty but were detected up to 22 km (13.64 miles) from 

the launch site (Schmalzer et al., 1985; Dreschel and Hall, 1985). The only study of a 

Titan IV launch conducted to date (cited in Environmental Solutions, 1989) suggests 

that, due to the smaller volumes of water used, impacts from Titan IV launches may be 

less detrimental. 

Since Honda Creek is located within 2 miles of the SLC-6 facility, it is possible that 

sudden or dramatic increases in pH in the Creek may occur. Modeling information 

provided by the Air Force (Environmental Solutions, 1989) indicates that the acidic 

deposition rate in the area of Honda Creek would be about 19.35 gallons per acre 

(Figure 5). Major assumptions made in this analysis included 1) the wind was blowing 

from the south at about 9.8 miles per hour; 2) the width of the stream was three feet; 

3) the depth of the stream was six inches; 4) the length of the affected stream was one 

kilometer; and 5) the width of the ground cloud was one kilometer when it reached the 

stream. Using these assumptions, the surface area of the affected stream was assumed 

to be 0.225 acres with a volume of 36,734 gallons. 

Assumptions about the existing water quality of Honda Creek were also made during 

this modeling analysis. Based on information from other streams in the area, the pH of 

the stream was assumed to be 7.7, the concentration of Ca2CO3in the stream was 250 

mg/I, the concentration of Na in the stream was 150 mg/1, and no fresh water would 

displace the water in the stream once the acid was deposited. 

Based on the above assumptions, the model predicts that the amount of acidic 

deposition that would fall into the stream is 4.35 gallons with a pH of 0.1. Combining 

this with the water assumed to be in the stream at a pH of 7.7, and assuming no 

neutralizing reactions take place, the pH in the affected stream may change from 7.7 

to 4.3 (Evans, Environmental Solutions, pers. comm.). 

The Air Force's analysis concludes that although levels of HC1 in the stream could be 

raised to 3.43 mg/I, the natural buffering capacity of the stream (due to the presence 

of Ca and Na) will probably minimize the change in stream pH. In fact, the Air Force 

has assumed that no change in pH will occur due to these buffering capacities due to 

presumed excesses in Na and Ca2CO3in the stream. While the Service concurs that 

some buffering is likely to occur, the lack of information on the rate of possible 

changes and almost exclusive use of assumed values make it impossible to conclude 

with any certainty that no effects to resident unarmored threespine stickleback are 

likely. In addition, the effects of deposition of up to 25 mg/m3of aluminum oxide in 

this system are completely unknown (Figure 4). 

9 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 D-35 

• Loss of sticklebacks from Honda Creek, although anticipated to be few in numbers, 

could hinder and potentially inhibit the recovery of this subspecies. Only a few 

populations of unarmored threespine stickleback remain, all of which are presently 

threatened by a variety of natural and/or human-induced modifications of their habitat. 

Loss of the Honda Creek population would further reduce the ability of this species to 

withstand threats to their habitat and increase the potential for a single event to 

greatly reduce their numbers. Given the distance of Honda Creek from SLC-6, the 

increased potential for creating clouds with elevated pH due to frequent fog conditions 

in this area, and the nearby location (1.3 miles) of SLC-4 with its own Titan IV 

Program, additional information on the impacts of Titan missile launches would be 

desirable. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

• 

• 

Cumulative effects are those impacts of future State and private actions affecting 

endangered and threatened species that are now reasonably certain to occur in the 

action area. Future federal actions, including new launch facilities and programs, will 

be subject to the consultation requirements established in Section 7 of the Act, and 

therefore, are not considered cumulative to the proposed action. With the exception of 

the following ongoing federal activities on Vandenberg Air Force Base, (which 

represent the cumulative baseline), there are no State or private activities which may 

be considered cumulative to the Titan IV/Centaur Program. 

In addition to the Titan IV/Centaur program, Vandenberg Air Force Base has been a 

base of operations for ongoing space launch activities associated with the Scout, Delta, 

Atlas, and other Titan programs. Estimates of the number of scheduled launches from 

these programs, other than the Titan IV, have not been provided to the Service. 

The cumulative effects of an additional three launches per year of the Titan 

IV/Centaur vehicle to a baseline of six launches per year will bring the total number of 

Titan vehicle launches to nine per year from south Vandenberg Air Force Base. This 

estimate includes an estimated 13 launches of the Titan II from SLC-4 over a 5 year 

period, and an estimated 25 launches of the Titan IV from SLC-4 over a 7 year period. 

The cumulative effects of these launches on threatened or endangered species are 

unknown. Since information on the cumulative effects of launches and sonic booms is 

sparse, we are unable to identify a threshold of disturbance, if it exists, that would 

result in significant impacts to listed species. We have assumed in this Opinion, based 

on existing information, that current levels of noise and disturbance are below these 

critical thresholds and we expect that impacts associated with the subject action are 

also below these levels. We have also assumed that short-term changes in the pH of 

Honda Creek due to acidic deposition from an individual launch will not jeopardize the 

continued existence of the stickleback. A much better understanding of the effects of 

an individual launch event are needed before the cumulative impacts of up to nine 

launches a year can be addressed. 

10 
NRO APPRND FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

The cumulative number of hypergolic propellant shipments to support the Titan IV 

program at SLC-4 and SLC-6 is estimated at 63 oxidizer shipment and 32 

fuel shipments per year from Mississippi and Alabama. Since the accident rate is 1.56 

accidents per million vehicle round trips, approximately one accident is estimated to 

occur every three years, presumably at any location between Vandenberg and the 

manufacturing sites. 

It should be noted that the above assumptions do not abrogate the need for the Air 

Force to monitor effects from their cumulative activities to better define the impacts 

on these listed species. Further information will be important to verify that, 

collectively, these actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

listed species which occur on the base. We anticipate that monitoring programs 

required for the Titan II and Titan IV Space launch vehicle modification and operation 

program (# 1-6-88-F-53) at SLC-4, and the monitoring programs addressed within the 

incidental take statement of this Opinion will satisfy information needs regarding 

affects of these programs to listed species. 

INCIDENTAL TAKE 

Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act prohibits any taking (harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such 

conduct) of listed species without special exemption. Under the terms of Section 

7(b)(4) and 7 (o)2, taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency 

action is not considered taking within the bounds of the Act provided that such taking 

is in compliance with this Incidental Take statement. Based on your Assessment, and 

the above analysis, we believe the subject action is likely to result. in some level of 

take in the form of harassment by noise and other disturbances during launches and 

potentially some loss of habitat due to toxic ground clouds. Based on the assumptions 

made in this Opinion, we do not anticipate any take in the form of mortality. No 

incidental take (i.e., mortality) is therefore authorized. In order to minimize the 

impacts of harassment of the species discussed herein, we specify the following 

reasonable and prudent measures: 

1) The Air Force shall develop and implement a monitoring plan, in consultation 

with the Service, to better quantify the impacts of noise to threatened and endangered 

birds from launches from Titan IV vehicles and mitigate, to the extent feasible, any 

take. 

2) The Air Force shall develop and implement a monitoring plan to better quantify 

the influence and effects of exhaust plumes from Titan vehicles on threatened and 

endangered species, and mitigate, to the extent feasible, any take. 

The following terms and conditions explain in detail how the foregoing measures are to 

be implemented: 

11 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 D-37 • 1) The monitoring plan to assess the impacts of launch noise and sonic booms shall 

consider both individual and cumulative affects from the Titan IV/Centaur program as 

well as other launch programs on the Base. In the event that taking of listed species is 

documented, (i.e. nest abandonment or failure), additional measures (i.e. scheduling to 

avoid critical periods) shall be implemented to avoid, minimize, or mitigate take. Such 

measures shall be coordinated with the Service and the California Department of Fish 

and Game. 

2) The monitoring plan to assess the short- and long-term impacts of deposition of 

HCl and A1203shall also be designed to consider the individual and cumulative affects 

associated with introducing these chemicals into areas, especially freshwater streams, 

occupied by listed species. As much as possible, methodologies used in studies of 

Space Shuttle launches shall be considered in order to allow comparison of data. These 

studies should be coordinated with monitoring of impacts to non-endangered fish and 

wildlife resources, especially candidate plants, within the range of deposition. In the 

event that taking of listed species or their habitat is documented, additional measures 

(i.e. planting additional cover, increasing stream flows) shall be implemented to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate take. Such measures shall be coordinated with the Service and 

the California Department of Fish and Game. 

• 3) The Air Force shall engage the services of a qualified raptor biologist and 

investigate the potential use of areas on south Vandenberg Air Force Base by the 

peregrine falcon. In the event that nesting activities are identified, the Air Force 

shall prepare a monitoring program to measure the impact of the Titan IV program on 

this species. This program shall be coordinated with the Service and the California 

Department of Fish and Game. 

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to 

further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit 

of endangered and threatened species. The term "conservation recommendations" has 

been defined as suggestions of the Service regarding discretionary measures to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical 

habitat or regarding the development of information. In furtherance of the purposes of 

the Act, we recommend: 

1) The Air Force should expand their ongoing least tern colony monitoring effort to 

include more frequent surveys of the three colonies within their jurisdiction. Methods 

of survey should be coordinated with the Service to ensure that information collected 

is comparable with that collected from other colonies. If necessary, fencing of 

colonies and/or predator control methods should be developed and implemented. • 

12 
NRO &MOVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• 

2) Given likely increases in numbers of southern sea otters expected to be found in 

waters offshore of Vandenberg Air Force Base in future years, these areas should be 

surveyed on a regular basis. Methods of survey should be coordinated with the Service 

to ensure comparability with surveys throughout the existing range. 

3) Due to the presence of suitable habitat for the least Bell's vireo on Vandenberg 

Air Force Base, especially in riparian corridors along San Antonio Creek, surveys should 

be conducted each season by a qualified ornithologist familiar with this species to 

determined if vireos are utilizing these habitats. As suggested above, these surveys 

should be coordinated with the Service. 

This concludes formal consultation on this action. Reinitiation of formal consultation 

is required if the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, if new information 

reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a 

manner or to an extent not considered in this Opinion, if the action is subsequently 

modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that 

was not considered in this Opinion, and/or if a new species is listed or critical habitat 

designated that may be affected by the action. 

Sincerely, 

Peter A. Stine 

Office Supervisor 

• 13 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 D-39 

LITERATURE CITED 

Anderson, D.W. and J.O. Keith. 1980. The human influence on seabird nesting success: 

conservation implications. Biol. Conserv. 18:65-80. 

, J.E. Mendoza, and J.O. Keith. 1976. Seabirds in the Gulf of 

California: a vulnerable international resource. Natur. Res. J. 16:483- 505. 

Cade, T.J. 1960. The ecology of the peregrine and gyrefalcon populations in Alaska. 

Univ. of Calif. Publ. Zool. 63:151-290. 

Center for Marine Studies. 1980. Potential effect of Space Shuttle Sonic booms on 

the biota and geology of the California Channel Islands: Research Reports. Tech. 

Rep. 80-1. 

• 

Cooper, C.F. and J.R. Jehl, Jr. 1980. Potential effects of Space Shuttle sonic 

booms on the biota and geology of the California Channel Islands: Synthesis of 

research and recommendations. Center for Marine Studies, San Diego State 

University. Technical Report 80-2. 14 pp. 

Dreschel, T.W. and C.R. Hall. 1985. Near-field deposition patterns of chlorides and 

particulates resulting from launches of the space transportation system at the John F. 

Kennedy Space Center. NASA, Tech. Memo. 89194, 21 pp. 

Ellis, D.H. 1981. Responses of raptorial birds to low level military jets and sonic 

booms. Institute for Raptor Studies. 59 pp. 

Engineering Science. 1988a. Biological Assessment for the Titan II and IV Space 

Launch Vehicle Modification and Launch Operation Programs at Vandenberg Air Force 

Base, California. Prepared for the U.S. Air Force. 

. 1988b. Final Environmental Assessment, Titan 1V Space Launch Vehicle 

Modifications and Launch Operations Program, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. 

Prepared for the U.S. Air Force. 

Environmental Solutions. 1990. Biological Assessment for Titan IV/Centaur Launch 

Complex, Vandenberg Air Force Base, March 1990. Prepared for the U.S. Air Force. 

Fay, R.R. and A.N. Popper. 1980. Structure and function in the teleost auditory 

systems, pp. 3-42 In: A.N. Popper and R.R. Fay (eds.) Comparative Studies of Hearing • in Vertebrates, Springer-Verlag, New York. 

14 
NRO AV.pr VVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNnth5 

• Harmata, A.R., J.E. Durr and H. Geduldig. 1978. Home range, activity patterns and 

habitat use of prairie falcons nesting in the Mojave Desert. U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, 89 pp. 

Hawkins, W.E., R.M. Overstreet, and M.J. Provancha. 1984. Effects of Space Shuttle 

Exhaust Plumes on Gills of some Estuarine Fishes: A light and electron microscope 

study. Gulf Research Reports 7(4):297-309. 

Henningson, Durham, and Richardson. 1981. Effects of Minutemen Launch on 

California Least Tern nesting activity, Vandenberg Air Force Base. 

Hunt, G.L. 1985. Offshore oil development and seabirds: The present status of 

knowledge and long-term research needs, Chapter 11 In: Oil In the Sea: inputs, fates 

and effects. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. 

Jehl, J.R., Jr. 1973. Studies of a declining population of brown pelicans in 

northwestern Baja California. Condor 75:69-79. 

Parsons, K.C. and J. Burger. 1982. Human disturbance and nestling behavior in blackcrowned night herons. Condor 84:184-187. 

• Schmalzer, P.A., C.R. Hinkle and D. Breininger. 1985. Effects of Space Shuttle 

Launches STS-1 through STS-9 on terrestrial vegetation of John F. Kennedy Space 

Center, Florida. NASA, Tech. Memo. 83103, 40 pp. 

Schrieber, E.A. and R.W. Schrieber. 1980. Effects of impulse noise on seabirds of the 

Channel Islands. In: Jehl, J.R.Jr. and C.F. Cooper (eds.). Potential effects of Space 

Shuttle sonic booms on the biota and geology of the California Channel Islands. Center 

for Marine Studies, San Diego State University, Tech. Rep. 80-1. pp. 138-162. 

Versar. 1987. Environmental Assessment for the Repair and Restoration of Space 

Launch Complex 4 at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. 

• 15 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE D-41 

1 JUN-E5 10 

SCALE IN MILES 

Cr, 

• SL.C. 

7 7,9 

ti 

Cre 

- 

100 

ere 

Poiyvt ConctprEicre, 

7,7 

C7e4 

• 

• 

.17r•VnCt vl Sou net,. tci 35 . 

•E:(1neel LC - 

FIGURE 1 

APPROXIMATE TITAN IV MAXIMUM 

NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS FROM SLC-6 

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE 
• 

D-42 

. ......._____ 

.i..—_, 

VANDENBERG 

AIR FORCE Oh a BASE Otomp 7c3 ,„:„

/ 

a . 

. ."---t1J S Ai,aA aARA ARA POINT :e',,. 'r" COUNTY rt ARGUELLO '''.. "7:',-, ' PI rirl / I 

', Y. ) 0 VENTURA ..- . 

• 

III aX3NTY 

..: ::. 

PROPOSED SLC-7 • :::::, 

CYPRESS RIDGES : :.::.:..: .: .: ..' . ......

. 

.. 

. 

. 

. .. :: ... 

.. 

.' ..... ' 77A,.... ..... .i.frk A *E2AFi'aLRA: ... ... :;:'::: g POINT i, 4. .. OJAI CONCEPTION 

-. C 

. \... s. 

. 

BA RBARA `"*- 

S A 14 1. '1/4 e /I A" 'YNRL .°,....411111 

FOCAL R EGION 

I000 w•. b........ 

.0 SAN MIGUEL ISLAND (sAktrABARBARA co.) SANTACRUZ ISLAND 7 (SANTABARBARACO.) 0.... :001, 41 

..

••.,\NN/11\ %

. .. 

: .: :•::.:,:.:. : • • : : : 

. 

,c1 

4"... 

ANACAPAISLAND 

. •. • (VENTURA CO.) 

SANTA ROSA ISLAND 

(SANTABARBARA COI 7431-1. CRANNEt. 

ISLANDS NAT OI NAL 

■ 

; 

0 Figure 2. 

ct.' 

04 i, WORST CASE TITAN IV/CENTAUR • le 

/ 0 10 20 MILES SONIC BOOM FOOTPRINT 

I 

 _

= I 

Sr,A ( F 

souper.: S If".7Sl im lylitwimA.14...vtiltelri, It tf•itlu N I Iry 41( 1 1!1114 111,4•1i4lt1 I OW) 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE D-43 

• 1 

1.000 

0.01 

• • 1 

100 

DISTANCE (KM) 

• • 

a_ - _6- 10 

)11110E: USAF. 10m) 

FIGURE 3 

PREDICTED GROUND LEVEL 

NCI CONCENTRATION PROFILE 

AS A FUNCTION OF 

DISTANCE FROM LAUNCH SITE 

NORMAL 1-1.UNC:-1 

10-- 

CSHA 

P=RMISSIBLZ-: F.:(POSURE 

/ LIMIT IC JUNG) 

SCALED IMPACTS 

FQR TTT.-%.N 2-10-7 

AND TITAN IV 

1.

0 

-- TITAN C D 

EAK , ..AltIf, 

UNSTABLE MIXING 

LAYER • MIXING 

LAYER DEPTH 600m 

TO CONVERT TO MILES. MULTIPLY KM BY 0.52 
REL-ekSE-- 

NORMAL LAUNCH 

D-44 

1 JUNE 2015 

-4 

TLV, AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL 

INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS 

8 HRSJDAY, HRSJWK, 

SCALED IMPACTS FOR TITAN 340-7 

AND TITAN IV 

A12 03 CONCEUTEI AT 

TITANilICSC 

P EAK0 110L11 

UNSTABLE MIXING 

LAYER • MIXING LAYER 

DEPTH 600m 

3 AI .5- 10 

• 

100 1.00i 

DISTANCE (KM) 

TO CONVERT TO MILES. MULTIPLY KM BY 0.52 

FIGURE al 

PREDICTED GROUND LEVEL 

AI203CONCENTRATION PROFT 

AS A FUNCTION OF 

DISTANCE FROM LAUNCH SI-1 
76.8 

16.0 

4.8 

2.4 

U.S. PS NrTZ NTLARY 

LOMPOC 

BOATHOUSE FLATS SITE 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2i 5 \ 

NORTH 

VAFB 

O 

Distance 

from 

SLC-6 

0 to 2 (2) 

2 to 4 0 

4 to 6 0 

6 plus 0 

Percent of total 

acidic deposition 

in ground cloud 

Estimated deposition 

per unit area 

(gallons/acre) 

19.35 

4.03 

1.21 

0.54 

o 

2 4 MILES 

wees arluzza=i 

SCALE 

FIGURE 5 

WIND SPEED = 9.8 MILES PER HOUR 

C,':IMPUTATION PERFORMED BY TRAJM (NASA 1983) 

sc.1.10:1 (ism !,/3 

NEAR-FIELD ACIDIC DEPOSITION 

SLC-6 SITE 

TITAN IV/CENTAUR LAUNCH 

SLC-7 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 

ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 

MISSION 

HILLS 

D-45 
NRO 21;2110ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• programs is approximately one accident every 3.2 years. Adding the risk from the proposed 

action to existing risk would result in a total accident rate of approximately one accident every 

2.3 years. In addition to this low accident rate, the vehicles are specially designed to resist 

rupture or spill, thereby further reducing the potential for adverse consequences. Risks for 

hypergolic fuel transportation are not calculated in the potential for fatalities, but rather in the 

potential for an accident to occur. There have not been any fatalities associated with USAF 

transport of hypergolic fuel. 

Comment No. 145: Findings of Significance and Consistency of Findings in Summary and 

Draft EIS Section 4.17 ("Unavoidable Adverse Impacts) 

Findings of significance are addressed in responses to Comment Nos. 141, 151, 153, 163, 

164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 175, and 185. 

Comment No. 146: Consistency of Summary and Section 4.17.1, Significant Unavoidable 

Adverse Effects 

• The conclusions of the Draft EIS Summary note that most potential environmental impacts 

would not be considered significant after implementation of mitigation measures. This is 

consistent with Draft EIS Section 4.17, Unavoidable Adverse Effects, where significant 

unavoidable adverse effects are limited to geology and soils (the potential impacts from a major 

regional earthquake), water use (ground water use), vegetation (local, not regional, significant 

impacts to Monardella undulata var. frutescens), air quality (impacts to stratospheric ozone), 

and health and safety (potential impacts from transport and handling accidents and healthrelated effects of ozone depletion). It should be noted that impacts to geology and soils and 

health and safety (transport and handling) are low probability events. In comparison to this 

limited number of concerns, impacts to vegetation (regional), wildlife, waste management, 

cultural resources, transportation, land use, and recreation were not considered to be significant 

unavoidable adverse effects. 

Comment No. 147: Induced Growth Demand for Ground Water 

As described in Draft EIS Section 4.2.1, Regional Impacts, estimates of worst-case growthinduced demands for ground water during the construction and operations phases of the 

proposed action are 290 and 305 acre feet per year, respectively. • 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-101 • 

• 

Comment No. 148: California Least Tern Egg Losses 

The analyses completed for the Draft EIS determined that least tern egg losses would not likely 

occur. As shown in Draft EIS Figure 4.4.1 (Titan IV/Centaur Sonic Boom Footprint), the 

intense portion of the sonic boom would be a considerable distance from least tern nesting 

sites. Schreiber and Schreiber (1980) analyzed the effects of impulse noise (such as sonic 

booms) on seabirds of the Channel Islands (area directly under the focus sonic boom area). 

Their analysis focused on Brandt's cormorants, western gulls, and Cassin's auklets, since 

these species represent common birds that nest on cliffs, on the ground, and in burrows, 

respectively. For the purposes of this analysis, the least tern is most like the western gull, 

since they both nest on the ground. Schreiber and Schreiber concluded that there was no 

potential sonic boom risk to the western gull for overheating, chilling, lcicking eggs, predation, 

or nest collapse. It would be expected that these results are applicable to the least tern. In 

addition, effects to least tern nesting activities from minuteman missile launches were analyzed 

by HDR Sciences (1989). This analysis noted that activity during the launch period was within 

the expected range of normal behavior and that the launch had no adverse effects on 

reproductive behavior. 

Jehl and Cooper (1980) performed experiments on domestic chickens and their eggs to 

determine the potential impacts from sonic booms. Their experiments did not reveal significant 

effects of simulated sonic booms on ovulation, oviposition, hatchability, or viability of chicks. 

In addition, there was no noticeable effect on the hatchability of thin-shelled eggs. Evans et al. 

(1979) also investigated sonic boom effects on bird eggs. They noted that sound pressure 

levels sufficient to break eggs are approximately one level of magnitude greater than those 

expected to accompany a Space Shuttle launch. In addition, they found no reason to believe 

that thin-shelled eggs would be damaged by sonic booms. 

Based on these analyses, and since the sonic booms associated with the Titan IV would not be 

as great as those produced by the Space Shuttle, least tern egg losses are not expected as a 

result of the proposed action. 

• 
NRO iTMOVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• Comment No. 149: Pinniped References Regarding Mother-Pup Separation 

The requested references, which find low risk of mother-pup separation in pinnipeds, are 

found in Draft EIS Section 4.4.1.3, Marine Mammals: 

Bowles, A., and Stewart, B. S. 1980. Disturbances to the pinnipeds and birds of San Miguel 

Island, 1979-80. In: Jehl, J. R. ; Cooper, C. F. , eds. Potential effects of Space Shuttle 

sonic booms on the biota and geology of the California Channel Islands: research reports. 

Prepared by the Center for Marine Studies, San Diego State University, in cooperation with 

Hubbs/Sea World Research Institute. Prepared for USAF, Headquarters, Space Division, 

El Segundo, California. Tech Rep 80-1. Section 4, pp. 99-137. 

Stewart, B. S.; Antonelis, G. A., Jr.; DeLong, R. L.; Yochem, P. K. 1988. Abundance of 

harbor seals on San Miguel Island, California, 1927 through 1986. Bulletin of Southern 

California Academy of Science 87(1):39-43. 

Comment No. 150: Gray Whales 

Draft EIS Section 4.4.1.3, Marine Mammals, notes that gray whales are known to pass within 

100 miles of the VAFB shoreline during the annual winter-spring migration periods. It is not 

necessary to time launches to avoid these periods due to the limited potential for impact. Noise 

would rapidly attenuate below the surface of the ocean and with distance from the source. 

Comment No. 151: Significance of Stratospheric Ozone Depletion 

The depletion of stratospheric ozone is identified as a potentially significant unavoidable 

adverse impact in Draft EIS Section 4.17.1.4, Air Quality. 

Comment No. 152: Cumulative Impacts to Ozone 

Draft EIS Section 3.5.3, Air Quality of the Stratosphere, discusses worldwide trends in 

impacts to stratospheric ozone depletion (Ozone Trends Panel 1988; EPA 1987, 1988, 1989). 

This section notes conclusions drawn from the Ozone Trends Panel and the Environmental 

Protection Agency documenting the extent of stratospheric ozone depletion. The impact 

analysis contained in Section 4.5.4, Stratospheric Ozone, utilizes the current level of depletion 

of stratospheric ozone as the baseline for calculating the 0.01 percent change in the rate of 

depletion and notes the potential results of this change. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-103 

• Comment No. 153: Significance of Visual Impacts to Jalama Beach County Park 

USAF recognizes the scenic quality and the user sensitivity of the Jalama Beach area The 

criteria adopted for determination of significance of visual impacts is contained in Draft EIS 

Section 4.8, Visual Resources, as follows: 

• A substantial, negative aesthetic effect for a large number of people. 

• Initial introduction of human elements into a pristine area. 

• Degrading the aesthetic value of an area with artificial illumination. 

As indicated in Draft EIS Section 4.8.1, Regional Impacts, construction of the proposed action 

at one of the undeveloped sites would not significantly alter the visual resource quality at 

Jalama Beach due to the distance from which the facilities would be viewed (approximately 8 

miles). At this distance, the proposed action would not be dominant in the landscape and 

would not obstruct public views of the coastline. Human elements now visible from Jalama 

Beach include offshore oil drilling platforms which are more dominant than project structures 

would be if constructed at an undeveloped site. • 

• 

Comment No. 154: Calculation of Potential Cancer Impacts 

As noted in Draft EIS Section 4.5.4, Stratospheric Ozone, operation of the proposed action 

would result in a small increase in the melanoma rate from 10 per 100,000 persons to 10.005 

per 100,000 persons. This translates to a risk level of 5 per 100 million persons, considerably 

below the commonly accepted risk rate of 1 in one million. Based on a world population of 

approximately 5.128 billion (Houghton Mifflin 1989), approximately 1,000 additional 

melanomas would be expected world wide as a result of the proposed action. 

Comment No. 155: Distribution of Growth-Induced Impacts 

Growth impacts in the Santa Ynez Valley, including Buellton, are addressed in detail in Draft 

EIS Section 4.12, Socioeconomics, where it is noted that the expected increase in population 

resulting from operations of the proposed action is expected to be approximately 550 persons 

in 1995. The beneficial and adverse impacts to socioeconomic resources are discussed in 

Section 4.12, which addresses additional requirements for public services and increased 

economic benefits in the region. The proposed action would provide long-term employment 

for skilled and professional personnel. The average wages associated with these jobs ($27,650 - 

for off-base military personnel and $45,220 for civilians) would place them in the upper 34 
NR02614111ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• percent of annual 1984 household income for Santa Barbara County (USDC 1985a). It is 

anticipated that this high wage rate and accompanying tax revenues would have a positive 

overall impact on the provision of public services. 

Comment No. 156: Summary of Potential Impacts to Human Health and Safety at the Proposed 

Bixby Ranch Development 

There has been no proposal for development of housing at the Bixby Ranch submitted to Santa 

Barbara County. The potential health and safety impacts to areas outside of VAFB, including 

the Bixby Ranch, are discussed in Draft EIS Section 4.11, Health and Safety, which provides 

a summary of the Risk Assessment undertaken for the proposed action (Environmental 

Solutions, Inc. 1989). The conclusions summarized from the Risk Assessment note that 

present safety measures are sufficient to mitigate the potential risks to public health and safety 

from implementation of the proposed action based on current land use conditions. Additional 

information regarding potential health and safety impacts to the public are contained in 

responses to Comment Nos. 200 and 201 and in Appendix C of this document, Summary of 

Risk Assessment. 

• Comment No. 157: Mitigation Measures for Vegetation Impacts. 

The proposed mitigation measures for vegetation impacts are described in Draft EIS Section 

4.3.4, Mitigation Measures. Proposed measures are extensive in nature due to the habitat value 

of the area and include: 

• Specimen recovery by interested scientific parties. 

• Construction pre-planning to avoid sensitive areas. 

• Staking of sensitive areas for avoidance during construction and to minimize 

overall habitat loss. 

• Biological monitoring during and after construction. 

• Topsoil stockpiling. 

• Revegetation with endemic plants. 

• Soil stabilization measures. 

• Erosion control and restoration plan. 

• Acidic deposition monitoring. 

• Exotic plant invasion control. 

Additional mitigation measures, including potential compensation for lost habitat, may be 

developed in consultation with federal and state agencies as described in response to Comment 

No. 41. • 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-105 

• Comment No. 158: Status of Anniella pulchra 

The form of the California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) local to the project area has not been 

classified as a species of concern by the California Department of Fish and Game. However, 

local forms of this species rmy be of concern in other regions of the state. 

Comment No. 159: Status of Hazardous Materials Response Plan 

The Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Area Plan was published in June 1988 by 

the Santa Barbara County Office of Emergency Management (SBCOEM). This document is 

currently undergoing revision for planned publication in late summer 1990 (Personal 

communication with SBCOEM 1990). 

Comment No. 160: Hypergolic Propellant Transport Accident Rate 

See response to Comment No. 144 for information on the hypergolic propellant transport 

accident rate. 

Comment No. 161: Existing Vandenberg Air Force Base Economic Influence on 

Santa Ynez Valley 

The most comprehensive description of the relationship between VAFB and surrounding 

communities available at the time of analysis was contained in: 

USAF 1987. Economic resource impact statement for Vandenberg Air 

Force Base, fiscal year 1987, prepared by Cost Branch, Comptroller 

Division, 4392nd Aerospace Support Wing, Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

California. 

Updates to this document are available from USAF (4392nd Aerospace Wing, Comptroller 

Division, Vandenberg Air Force Base). Additional information regarding place of residence 

for the VAFB workforce is available from the 1980 Census of population. The census Journey 

to Work statistics (U.S. Department of Commerce 1985b; U.S. Department of Commerce 

1985c) show that less than four percent of the VAFB work force lived in the Santa Ynez 

Census County Division (CCD) in 1980. 
NRO MOCOVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • Comment No. 162: Description of Increases in Ground Water Overdraft 

Draft EIS Section 4.2.1, Regional Impacts, notes that the potential increases in ground water 

overdraft attributable to project construction and operations are 290 and 305 acre-feet per year, 

respectively. These increases represent approximately 0.2 percent additional demand on 

ground water resources, a comparatively small amount. In addition, Draft EIS Section 4.2.1 

notes that, while small, these increases in demand are significant due to existing overdraft. 

Mitigation measures are described in Draft EIS Section 4.2.4, Mitigation Measures, and 

discussed in the response to Comment No. 83. 

Comment No. 163: Significance of Impacts to Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub 

The criteria developed by Santa Barbara County for significance of impacts to vegetation such 

as Venturan coastal sage scrub are broadly defined as disturbance to, or loss of a known 

resource via one of the following: 

• • Grading and/or construction activities 

• Vegetation removal 

• Human and/or domestic animal encroachment 

• Chemical pollution 

• Noise pollution 

• Landscaping with non-native invading plant species 

(Santa Barbara County Department of Resource Management 1989). 

Under Santa Barbara County criteria, any disturbance or removal of Venturan coastal sage 

scrub (by the methods noted above) would be determined to be significant. Applying these 

criteria to the impacts at the proposed or alternative sites would result in a determination of 

significance by Santa Barbara County. The analysis contained in the Draft EIS utilized a 

different set of criteria and is consistent with these criteria in determining that these impacts 

would not be significant since they represent disturbance to less than one percent of the 

combined communities of central coastal scrub and Venturan coastal sage scrub present on 

VAFB. 

Comment No. 164: Significance of Impacts to Central Coastal Scrub 

As noted in response to Comment No. 163, any disturbance or removal of vegetation such as 

central coastal scrub would be determined by Santa Barbara County to be significant. Applying 

these criteria to the impacts at the alternative sites would result in a determination of significance 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-107 

by Santa Barbara County. The analysis contained in the Draft EIS determined that these impacts 

would not be significant since they represent less than one percent of the combined communities 

of central coastal scrub and Venturan coastal sage scrub. 

Comment No. 165: Mitigation Measures for Monardella undulata var. frutescens 

Mitigation measures proposed for the loss of endemic vegetation are contained in Draft EIS 

Section 4.3.4, Mitigation Measures, and are addressed in the response to Comment No. 157. 

Comment No. 166: Significance of Potential California Least Tern Egg Losses 

As stated in response to Comment No. 148, least tern egg losses are not expected as a result of 

the proposed action. 

Comment No. 167: Significance of Potential Hearing Lout° Sea Otters and Pinnipeds 

The potential for hearing loss in sea otters and pinnipeds is addressed in Draft EIS Section 

4.4.1.3, Marine Mammals, where it is noted that best available information indicates that 

permanent hearing loss is not likely. Expectations are that impacts which may occur to hearing 

would be short-term (Chappell 1980). In addition, mitigation measures have been proposed, 

to ensure protection of the resource (Draft EIS Section 4.4.5, Mitigation Measures). The Draft 

EIS documents that potential short-term hearing impacts would not affect species viability and, 

therefore, would not be significant. See responses to Comment Nos. 42 and 67. 

Comment No. 168: Significance of Potential Launch Impacts to Pinnipeds on San Miguel Island 

The potential for mortality to pinniped pups is discussed in Draft EIS Section 4.4.1.3, Marine 

Mammals. Best available scientific information points to the limited probability of mother-pup 

separation occurring to pinnipeds on San Miguel Island as a result of launch-related noise 

(Stewart et al. 1988). In consultation with NMFS, a launch monitoring program has been 

proposed, to document potential impacts to the resource (Draft EIS Section 4.4.5, Mitigation 

Measures) and determine necessary modifications to mitigation measures. See response to 

Comment No. 1. • 
NRO'AftP8ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• 

Comment No. 169: Significance of Potential Impacts to Burrowing Owl Habitat at 

Boathouse Flats Alternative Site 

Although the burrowing owl has been observed near the Boathouse Flats site, Draft EIS 

Section 4.4.2.3, Boathouse Flats, notes that, due to the present degraded condition of the 

grassland habitat at this site, and the widespread occurrence of this habitat and its associated 

species elsewhere in the VAFB region, the loss of this habitat is not expected to significantly 

affect the viability of the species. Draft EIS Section 3.3.1, Regional Environment, notes that 

grassland acreage on VAFB totals approximately 18,650 acres. Table 3.3.1 notes that the 

Boathouse Flats site is made up of 130 acres of non-native grassland, which is approximately 

0.7 percent of this type of non-native grassland on VAFB. 

Comment No. 170: Significance.of Potential Impacts to Brown Pelicans From the 

Boathouse Flats Alternative Site 

The criteria for significance of impacts to wildlife are contained in Draft EIS Section 4.4, 

Wildlife. Section 4.4 notes that impacts to wildlife would be significant if they: 

• Substantially diminish habitat for a terrestrial or marine species. 

• Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or its habitat. 

• Interfere substantially with the movement of resident or migratory wildlife species. 

• Interfere substantially with reproductive behavior. 

• 

Draft EIS Section 4.4.3.1, Marine Birds, notes that a temporary dispersal of California brown 

pelicans could occur as a result of construction activities. This dispersal is expected to be 

short-term, with the birds seeking alternate roost sites on offshore rocks in the Point 

Pedernales and Rocky Point areas or on the sandy beach near the mouth of the Santa Ynez 

River. This impact is insignificant when compared to the criteria stated above, since it would 

be short-term and alternative roost sites are available nearby. 

Comment No. 171: Significance of Potential Impacts to Pinnipeds From the 

Boathouse Flats Alternative Site 

A significant impact would occur if harbor seals were to permanently abandon areas near the 

Boathouse Flats site. However, as indicated in Draft EIS Section 4.4.3.2, Marine Mammals, 

there is no clear evidence that this abandonment would occur. Additional information 

regarding harbor seal response would be developed through the monitoring program described 

in response to Comment No. 1. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-109 

• Comment No. 172: Mitigation Measures for Pinniped Breeding Season 

Draft EIS Section 4.4.1.3, Marine Mammals, discusses potential launch-related impacts to 

pinnipeds on San Miguel Island. On the basis of a maximum of one launch during the 

breeding season, breeding statistics, and normal mother-pup behavior (Stewart et al. 1988), the 

risks and potential consequences of mother-pup separation are small. In light of this finding, it 

is not necessary to restrict launches during this period. In addition, potential impacts to 

pinnipeds from project launches during breeding season would be minimized through the 

proposed monitoring program. 

Comment No. 173: Significance of Air Ouality Impacts 

The criteria that were established to determine significance of potential air quality impacts are 

contained in Draft EIS Section 4.5, Air Quality and Meteorology. An impact is considered 

significant if it causes: 

• Violation of an ambient air quality standard. 

• Contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation. 

• Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 

As noted in the text of Section 4.5, these criteria would not be violated. 

Using Santa Barbara County standards for significance of 2.5 pounds per hour for nonattainment pollutants and 5.0 pounds per hour for attainment pollutants, emissions from the 

proposed action would be considered insignificant since threshold limits would not be violated. 

Calculated values (from Draft EIS Table 4.5.2, page 4-59) are as follows: 

Emission Level 

Criteria Pollutant (Pounds per Hour) 

Nitrogen Oxides 1.16 

Sulphur Dioxide 0.004 

Carbon Monoxide 0.17 

PM10 0.02 

Reactive Organic Compounds 0.05 

• 
NRO ,V,FTOVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUN t 2015 

• Comm,:nt No. 174: Use of CFC-22 

Comment noted. 

Comment No. 175: Significance of Stratospheric Ozone Impacts 

The incremental cancer risk falls below the commonly acceptable level of one excess cancer per 

one million persons used for environmental risk analysis. The potential for increased cancers 

is noted in Draft EIS Section 4.5.4.4, Environmental Consequences of Stratospheric Effects, 

where potential effects are calculated on a world-wide basis. The expression of the incremental 

cancer risk that may occur as a result of the proposed action as 5 per 100 million persons is a 

commonly accepted method of describing risk. It is appropriate in this utilization, as it 

communicates the magnitude of the risk in an easily understandable form. See response to 

Comment No. 141. 

Comment No. 176: Discussion of Casmalia Waste Disposal Facility in Cumulative Impacts 

Including a discussion of the status of the Casmalia Class I hazardous waste disposal site 

would not be applicable to the proposed action. There are no plans to utilize this facility as a 

disposal site for potential project wastes. 

Comment No. 177: Significance of Visual Impacts 

See response to Comment No. 153. 

Comment No. 178: Analysis of Potential Manzanita Road Borrow Site 

Throughout the Draft EIS, the potential Manzanita Road Borrow Site is discussed to the extent 

necessary to evaluate expected impacts at that location. Due to its limited size and its location 

on the interior of VAFB, it is not prominent in the discussions contained in Chapter 4.0, 

Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures. The site was included in surveys for 

cultural resources, vegetation, and wildlife. It is highlighted in the discussion of potential 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-111 

impacts to cultural resources since the cultural resources inventory determined that potentially 

important resources have been recorded there. The pages and sections where the Manzanita 

Road Borrow Site is discussed or referred to are: 

Page Section Title 

2 23 Project Construction Activities 

25 Project Construction Activities 

2-57 Geology and Soils 

2-68 Cultural Resources 

3-33 Local Environment 

3-49 Wildlife 

3-112 Prehistoric Resources 

4-110 Cypress Ridge 

4-111 SLC-6 

4-113 Boathouse Flats 

4-114 Vina Terrace 

4-119 Vina Terrace 

Comment No. 179: Meaning of Last Sentence on Page 4-127 

• The sentence, "Health and safety impacts related to construction of the proposed action are not 

anticipated to present a higher risk potential than what would be expected for similar types of 

projects." was included in the regional impacts discussion of health and safety (Draft EIS 

Section 4.11, Health and Safety) to impart to the reader that construction of the proposed action 

does not present unusual risks to the public, and that impacts to health and safety are similar to 

those encountered in other large construction projects. Additional explanation regarding 

construction risks is contained in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-19). 

Comment No. 180: Expression of Hyperolic Fuels Transportation Accident Rate 

See response to Comment No. 144 for information on hypergolic transportation accident rate. 

Comment No. 181: Potential Excess Cancer Rate 

The excess cancer rate shown for melanomas on page 2-70 of the Draft EIS is in error. The 

correct rate is 5 per 100 million persons, as shown on Draft EIS pages 4-75 and 4-134. The 

corrected text is contained in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-9). 

• 
NRO*PflOVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • Comment No. 182: Summary of Risk Assessment 

The Risk Assessment (Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1989) is a technical document and is 

summarized in Draft EIS Section 4.11, Health and Safety, in easily understood language, 

consistent with the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 (-1-1t Part 

1500.8 et seq.). It is presented at a depth of detail appropriate to the significance of the impacts 

(40 CFR, Part 1502.2(b)). In addition, the Summary from the Risk Assessment is provided in 

Appendix C of this document. If more information is desired, the Risk Assessment is available 

from: 

HQ Space Systems Division 

HQ SSD/DEV 

P.O. Box 92960 

Los Angeles, California 90009-2960 

ATTN: Mr. John Edwards 

Telephone: (213) 643-0934 

Text to be inserted into the Draft EIS addressing the availability of the Risk Assessment is 

contained in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-20). • Comment No. 183: Regional Employment Multiplier 

The Draft EIS calculates indirect employment for construction and operations in the following 

fashion: 

Direct Employment Indirect Total 

Employment Multiplier Employment EmplQyment 

Construction 370 0.41 150 520 

Operations 400 0.41 165 565 

The source of the employment multiplier used is the Fiscal Year 1987 Vandenberg AFB 

Economic Resource Impact Statement (USAF 1987). The multiplier is based on empirical -

observation of employment at VAFB and the calculation of secondary jobs created (SJC) 

within the region of economic impact . In fiscal year 1987, VAFB employment from military 

funding was 10,466, comprised of military (3,936), civilian (1,479), contract civilian (4,992), 

and other civilian (50). 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-113 

• The SJC total of 4,309 was calculated as follows (USAF 1987): 

SJC = RPAY x (M-11 + RCONS x M RMAT x M 

PRS PRS Pw 

Where: 

M = Gross Income Multiplier (2.7759) 

PRS = Trade Service Sector Sales per Worker ($73,160) 

Pw Wholesale Sector Sales per Worker ($112,980) 

RCONS = Estimated Labor and Services Expenditures Off-base in Economic Impact 

Region ($12,776,442) 

RMAT = Estimated Materials and Equipment Expenditures Off-base in Economic Impact 

Region ($15,333,444) 

RPAY = Estimated Payroll Expenditures Off-base in Economic Impact Region 

($154,247,881) 

These calculations result in a relationship between employment created within the region and 

base employment of 4,309/10,446 (SJCJBase Employment), resulting in an employment 

multiplier of 0.41. The Santa Barbara County multiplier would be expected to be different 

since it applies to the entire county. • Comment No. 184: Evaluation of Housing Impacts 

Utilizing the data referenced in the Draft EIS, potential housing impacts to Lompoc and Santa 

Maria (expected locations for the majority of the in-migrants) can be evaluated in terms of 

percent change in vacancy rates. In January of 1988, the combined Lompoc and Santa Maria 

housing statistics showed a total of 31,705 housing units, with 30,312 units occupied and 

1,393 vacant (California Department of Finance 1988), with a vacancy rate of 4.4 percent. The 

proposed action would create the demand for approximately 305 housing units during peak 

construction and 315 for operations. Subtracting these estimates from the total vacant units 

results in a projected vacancy rate of approximately 3.4 percent during both construction and 

operations. This value is higher than the minimum vacancy rate standard of two percent 

developed by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as providing residents of 

housing market areas with adequate rental choices (HDR 1981). 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUN I21615 

• Comment No. 185: Significance of Impacts to Community Services 

The criteria utilized to determine the significance of impacts to community services are 

contained in Draft EIS Section 4.12, Socioeconomics, as follows: 

Substantial growth or concentration of population. 

Displacement of a large number of people. 

The need for substantial new housing. 

The need for additional utilities distribution facilities. 

Shortages in public supply of water, energy, and/or services. 

As described in Section 4.12.1.1, Cypress Ridge, socioeconomic impacts are expected to 

be relatively small. Population growth is expected to be one percent or less of projected 

1995 populations of impacted areas. This potential growth is dispersed throughout local 

communities and is less than historical growth rates, where from 1980 to 1986 Lompoc, 

Santa Maria, and Solvang each experienced average annual growth rates of approximately 

3.1 percent, 4.9 percent, and 4.3 percent, respectively. Demand for housing during 

construction is expected to be approximately 15 percent of existing vacant units in Lompoc and 

Santa Maria, which would decrease underutilization of this resource without large displacement 

of persons or the need for substantial new housing. Operations-related housing demand is 

likely to increase the need for single family housing units. The latitude to accommodate this 

type of demand is evident in land use plans where land is zoned for future single family 

residential growth (Santa Barbara County Cities Area Planning Council, 1985; 1987). In 

addition, the City of Lompoc controls rezoning of land and may determine not to rezone 

additional areas. If this were to occur, growth would shift to a different area within the region. 

As noted in Draft EIS Section 4.12.1, Regional Impacts, related demands for additional public 

utilities and services are not expected to require the construction of new water, waste 

treatment, energy generating, or distribution facilities. Incremental demands for additional 

public services such as police and fire staff are expected to be limited (see Table 4.12.2, 

Operations Employment Public Service Impacts) and offset by growth in the tax base as a 

result of new residents. 

Comment No. 186: Potential Impacts to Land Use 

See response to Comment No. 185. • 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-115 • Comment No. 187: Opinion on Nonconcurrence of Impacts 

Comment noted. Commenter's opinions of nonconcurrence regarding mitigation of impacts 

and long-term effects are addressed in responses to specific comments. 

Comment No. 188: Significance of Impacts to the Lompoc Terrace Ground Water Basin 

As noted in Draft EIS Section 4.2.2, Local Impacts, the demand for an additional 45 acre-feet 

of water, while minor in volume, would be significant, as the Lompoc Terrace aquifer is in 

overdraft condition. 

Comment No. 189: Significance of Impacts from Project-Induced Growth 

• 

See response to Comment No. 185. 

Comment No. 190: Significance of Impacts Related to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion 

See response to Comment No. 141. 

Comment No. 191: Significance of Impacts to Wildlife 

See responses to Comment Nos. 148, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 and 171. 

• 
Very truly yours, 

King Patrick Leonard 

Planning Director 

NF 1A FOR RELEASE LETTER 12 

15(Zi7ZW Oa 

LOIVE13130 

VALLEY OF FLOWERS 

September 19, 1989 

Mr. Robert Mason 

H.Q. Space Division/Dev 

P.O. Box 92960 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 

Dear Mr. Mason: 

• 

Thank you for providing a public hearing and review of the SLC-7 project Draft EIS in 

Lompoc last week. 

Our concern is that the construction workers population estimate of 25% Lompoc, 75% 

1192] Santa Maria, is not an historically sound assumption. we believe the split is more likely 

to be 50%-50%, plus or minus 5%. 

Our comments of May 16, 1989 should be considered as you proceed, particularly as 

related to County road monies/Gann spending limit vs. already poor road conditions 

surrounding Lompoc. 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. 

KPL:mv 

cc: Jeremy Graves, Associate Planner 

CITY HALL, 100 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, P.O. BOX 8001, LOMPOC, CA 93438.8001 

(805) 736-1261; FAX: (805) 736-5347 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-117 

1 JUNE 2015 • RESPONSE TO LE ITER 12 

Received From: King Patrick Leonard, Planning Director, City of Lompoc 

Comment No. 192: Construction Worker Population Ratio 

The percentages stated in Draft EIS Section 4.12, Socioeconomics (Lompoc Valley, 25%, 

Santa Maria Valley, 75%), were not in reference to the settlement patterns of construction 

workers but refer to the distribution of indirect jobs that would result from local construction 

expenditures. 

• 
NRO2AfirgROVED FOR RELEASE LETTER 13 

1 JUNE 2015 

VANDENBERG VILLAGE 

• COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 

DIRECTORS: 

J. W. Sutherland 

H. E. Grantz 

P. C. White 

R. L. Fisher 

L. P. Manton 

MANAGER: 

R. W. Brett 

August 28, 1989 

Pride In Community Involvement 

HQ Space Systems Division 

P.O. Pox 92960 

Worldways-Postal Center 

Los An„7:eles, California 90009-2960 

ATTH: John Edwards 

Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Construction and Operation of Space Launch Complex 7 

Water is perhaps the most critical environmental issue 

in this re5ion, yet it receives scant mention in three separate 

locations in this E.I.R. 

This E.I.R. describes a consequence of this project 

as increasinc: the water usage in the Lompoc Valley by 176 

acre-feet per year (section 4.2.3.2). However, it completely 

fails to address the environmental impact of this project on 

the local water basin - the Lompoc Plain aquifer which is 

severely overdrafted. 

This aquifer was overdrafted 7990 acre-feet durilv: 

the last six water years (July 1 through June 30), a very critical 

situation. The City of Lompoc is committed to provide water 

from this same overdrafted aquifer for the Allan Hancock Campus, 

the WYE area, Spaceport museum and for the several hundred 

additional homes under construction or approved for construction. 

This aauifer is so overdrafted and over-committed that there is 

serious doubt that it can provide the water reouired for this 

project. This must be covered in this E.I.R. 

The additional, water consumption that would result from 

this project 7reatly exceeds the threshhold of significance 

established by Sa:lta Barbara County. 

[193] 

3757 Constellation Road • Vandenberg Village, California 93436 • (805)733-2475 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-119 

• 

• 

HQ Space Systems Division August 28, 1989 

Page 2 

This E.I.R. must be expanded to discuss and define 

the specific impacts and their mitiR:ation on both the Lompoc 

Plain aquifer and the Uplands aquifer due to this project. The 

increasing overdraft of the Lompoc Plain aquifer results in 

additional water beim c; drained from our Uplands aquifer as a 

consequence. 

For specific details on the extent of this overdraft, 

I refer you to Table 7 on pap,- e 32 (copy attached) the eleventh 

annual report, dated June 14, 1989 on the Water Supply 

Conditions of the Santa Ynez Water Conservation District. 

This was prepared by 

Stetson Enzineers Inc. 

224 Avenida Del :4ar, Suite D 

San Clemente, California 92672 

(714) 492-2777 

The sections of the subject E.I.R. that relate to 

water are totally unacceptable. They must be rewritten and 

expanded to define the environmental impact on the Lompoc Plain 

aquifer. 

This environmental impact is of critical concern to 

all residents of the Lompoc Valley, 

[194] 

C27 

Howard E. Grantz 

President, -Board of Directors 

Vandenberg Village Community 

Services Distridt 

cc Encl. (1) 
NRO2A1F2PROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• 

Table 7 

ESTIMATED ANNUAL CHANGE IN GROUND-WATER 

STORAGE BENEATH THE-LOMPOC PLAIN FOR THE 

PAST 10 YEARS AND CURRENT YEAR (1988-89)1 

Water Year2 

Change in 

Storage 

(Acre-Feet) 

Accumulated Dewatered 

Storage at End of 

Water Year 

(Acre-Feet) 

1977-78 14,420 

1978-79 2,670 11,750 

1979-80 -390 12,140 

1980-81 -1,070 13,210 

1981-82 -930 14,140 

1982-83 3,680 10,460 

1983-84 -1,630 12,090 

1984-85 -2,480 14,570 

1985-86 -510 15,080 

1986-87 -150 —7'77° 15,230 

1987-88 -870 /1cRIE-FEer 16,100 

1988-89' -2,350 J 18,450 

• 

Based upon devatered storage estimated by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 

all values rounded. 

2 July 1 through June 30. 

3 Projected. 

32 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-121 • 

• 

RESPONSE TO LE 1 ER 13 

Received From: Vandenberg Village Community Services District 

Howard E. Grantz, President, Board of Directors 

Comment No. 193: Discussion of Impacts to the Lompoc Plain Aquifer 

As described in Draft EIS Section 3.2.1.2, Ground Water, the Lompoc Valley contains the 

City of Lompoc and surrounding communities which receive their water from both the Lompoc 

Plain and Lompoc Upland ground water basins. Since both basins are water sources, it 

follows that the additional 176 acre-foot demand for water created by in-migrants to the 

Lompoc Valley due to operations of the proposed action would be supplied from both the 

Lompoc Plain and Upland ground water basins (see Draft EIS Section 41.1, Regional 

Impacts). Calculations of the potential additional demands to the two aquifers were combined 

to accommodate the uncertainties regarding the exact distribution of population increases related 

to the proposed action. See response to Comment No. 253 for additional information 

regarding ground water conditions. 

Comment No. 194: Expand Discussion of Impacts to the Lompoc Plain and Lompoc Upland 

- AquifersAs indicated in response to Comment No. 193, the Draft EIS discusses impacts to the Lompoc 

Plain and Upland aquifers with as much detail as possible given the uncertainties about the 

potential choice of residence by project-related in-migrants. The results of the analysis 

contained in Draft EIS Section 4.2.1, Regional Impacts, show that the combined impacts to the 

Lompoc Plain and Upland aquifers, while not large as a fraction of demand, are significant due 

to the current overdraft conditions in these aquifers. Mitigation measures for water resources 

are discussed in Draft EIS Section 4.2.4, Mitigation Measures. Additional mitigation measures 

are discussed in response to Comment No. 83. 

• 
NROIVRROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 LETTER 14 

• BIXBY RANCH COMPANY 

Caitfornta Ltmiced Partner hlp 

Fred H. Bixby. Founder • 1875-1952 

Kenneth C Bornholdt 

Senior Vice I)uident 

& General Counsel 

September 8, 1989 

HQ Space Systems Division 

P. 0. Box 92960 

Worldways Postal Center 

Los Angeles, California 90009-2960 

Attention: Mr. John Edwards 

Re: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF SPACE 

LAUNCH COMPLEX 7 

Gentlemen: • In May of 1988 at the NEPA scoping stage for Space 

Complex 7 (SLC-7) Bixby Ranch Company (Bixby) provided detailed 

comments on the environmental issues that should be addressed 

in the SLC-7 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 

Bixby's central concern was then and remains today that the Air 

Force consider fully and carefully the health and safety risks 

to present and future occupants of the Bixby Ranch property 

that immediately adjoins South VAFB, downwind and downrange of 

the four alternative Titan IV/Centaur launch sites. In Bixby's 

scoping letter dated 13 May 1988 (attached as Letter 10 at page 

A-83=of the DEIS) Bixby raised a number of important questions 

including the following: 

What are acceptable risk levels? How were those levels 

derived or developed? How do those risk levels compare to 

other similar hazardous operations (e.g., nuclear power 

facilities) in terms of impacts on surrounding property? 

What are the uncertainties with these risk levels? 

As the Air Force addressed these and other questions, Bixby 

advanced several subjects for very specific consideration in 

the EIS including: 

523 W. Sixth Street, Suite 316 - Los Angeles, California 90014 • 213 624-8591 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUN $0 Systems Division 

September 8, 1989 

Page 2 

2-123 

BIXBY RANCH COMPANY 

13 The EIS should analyze the impact of potential 

accidents on surrounding land uses currently 

existing and land uses foreseeable during the 

operational lifetime of SLC-7. 

15 The EIS should include a discussion of all mitigation 

measures which will limit the impacts of the project 

on the health, safety and welfare of the present and 

future human and wildlife populations on the base and 

surrounding area to a level of non-significance. 

18. The EIS should include the size, shapes and locations 

of probable hazard footprint areas, based upon all 

possible launch factors, which will encompass all 

possible hazards associated with blast, sonic boom, 

noise, toxic fumes, debris impact and other hazardous 

situations. 

Bixby's letter formally offered the opportunity to the Air 

Force contractor, Environmental Solutions, Inc., "to meet with 

us, visit our property and review our development plans." 

The response to Bixby's concerns in the DEIS is woefully 

inadequate and clearly fails to satisfy the Air Force's 

statutory obligations. The DEIS does little more than announce 

that future development of the Bixby Ranch p pFerty would place 

"structures and persons . . . within the launch range hazard 

zone for operation at either the proposed or alternative sites, 

as well as other, currently active space launch complexes at 

South VAFB" (DEIS at p. 4-157). The DEIS then simply and 

impermissibly relegates that acknowledged problem to a separate 

proceeding in a separate time frame by stating: 

its recently updated Safety and Hazard Risk Assessment, 

---=the USAF concluded that development at Bixby Ranch or 

other privately owned properties east of VAFB would be 

incompatible with the future of space operations and 

safety at VAFB. As a result, the USAF has begun a 

detailed study of the real estate interests involved in 

order to define a potential land acquisition, both of the 

Bixby Ranch property and other affected private lands near 

VAFB. The purpose of such a program would be to protect 

the USAF polar orbit capability for as long as it is 

needed. The USAF will continue to oppose any incompatible 

development through the local planning and zoning 

process. 

[195] 

• 

[196] 

(DEIS at p. 4-157). • 
[197] 

NRC24,9PROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE IND1pace Systems Division 

September 8, 1989 

Page 3 

BIXBY RANCH COMPANY 

The additional launches could impact potential use of the 

Bixby Ranch properties. The federal government lacks the 

authority to regulate land use on non-federal lands to 

prevent encroachment of incompatible uses into launch 

Range Safety Zones, such as would occur with development 

of the Bixby Ranch. Therefore, under independent action, 

the USAF is engaged in preliminary activities to acquire 

lands which, under other ownership, could adversely affect 

the USAF mission at VAFB. 

(DEIS at p. 4-160). 

Immediately following the last quoted text, the DEIS 

inexplicably announces that none of the alternative SLC-7 sites 

require mitigation measures respecting land use impacts. That 

this is not correct is clearly established by a document 

recently released by the Air Force which, curiously, is not 

mentioned at all in the DEIS references. The omitted document 

does not speak blandly of "incompatible uses," but rather of 

unacceptable human health and safety risks on the Bixby Ranch 

property. Surely such unacceptable human risks require Air 

Force mitigation measures for land use impacts. 

The Air Force Must Address 

Risks to Present and Future Human Populations 

on Adjoining Lands 

The DEIS is fullsome in its treatment of risks to VAFB 

base personnel at other complexes and on-site contractors in 

all aspects of construction and operation of SLC-7, but it is 

muclo4less than that in dealing with risks to human populations 

dowritange and downwind of the base's boundaries. Only cursory 

[1981 attention is paid to emergency procedures for off-site 

populations during launch events. There is brief mention of 

clearing offshore areas of commercial and recreational vessels 

and of recommendations made. for removal of non-essential 

personnel from offshore oil and gas platforms (DEIS at p. 4-

174), and there is also mention of an agreement between VAFB 

and the County Parks Department, the County Sheriff, and the 

California Highway Patrol to close Jalama Beach County Park 

during launch events (DEIS at p. 3-126 to 3-127). 

It is noteworthy and troubling in light of the apparent 

[199] judgment that has been reached about dangers to human 

populations on Bixby Ranch that no approach has ever been made • 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1juNEHM5Dace Systems Division 

September 8, 1989 

Page 4 

BIXBY RANCH COMPANY 

to Bixby about any agreement to protect human occupants present 

on Bixby's property. The DEIS should, therefore, explicitly 

state than no evacuation agreement has been reached with Bixby 

to protect human occupants of Bixby's property. 

Equally troubling is the failure of the DEIS meaningfully 

[200] to address the health and safety risks to future residents of 

the planned cluster residential development on Bixby Ranch. 

The segments of the DEIS quoted above do state that such a 

development would be, in the judgment of the Air Force, 

incompatible with Vandenberg's space mission, but no 

information or analysis is provided on the nature and extent of 

the perceived risks or how they might be ameliorated. For 

[201] example, the Bixby request for hazard footprint information was 

ignored totally. All that is provided is the conclusion of 

incompatibility as determined by a "Safety and Hazard Risk 

Assessment" which is cryptically summarized in the DEIS (DEIS 

at pp. 4-127 to 4-137). Despite the DEIS offer to provide such 

Assessment, Bixby's request in its 13 May 1988 scoping letter 

that it be furnished copies of all documents used as references 

in the EIS and Bixby's recent specific requests in letters 

dated 9 August 1989 and 28 August 1989 (copies attached), such 

Assessment has not been made available to Bixby. Thus, Bixby 0 [202] has been totally denied the opportunity to comment on an 

important conclusion in the DEIS. As a result, the DEIS 

process is fatally flawed. 

Bixby has been furnished another significant document that 

does indeed address the human health and safety impacts at 

Bixby Ranch. In a "White Paper on Bixby Ranch Update," stamped 

15 July 1988 but furnished to Bixby by the Air Force under a 

cover letter of 14 October 1988 (Bixby White Paper), the 

conclusion was reached that: 

developed Bixby Ranch would present a quandary to the 

Center; full-scale evacuation would undoubtedly be 

impractical, so the options would be to accept an 

unprecedented degree of risk, or defer the operation for 

better wind conditions. Launch delays while waiting for 

favorable winds would be inordinately expensive, and in 

practice a whole range of vital launch azimuths would have 

to be eliminated. Accepting the risk is simply 

untenable - while most flights are successful, and a 

"winning streak" might hold for several launches, 

eventually a disaster will occur that the Air Force can 

not tolerate. 

(Bixby White Paper at p. 10) • 
2-126 

NRO Alt em t, WV 

1JUNE !IL 5 

INWiyision 

BIXBY RANCH COMPANY 

For some reason the Bixby White Paper was not mentioned in the 

DEIS nor included among the 16 pages of documents referenced in 

Chapter 8 of the DEIS. In order that it may at least become 

part of the record, a copy is attached to this comment letter. 

Attaching the Bixby White Paper to this letter, of course, does 

not redress the Air Force's failure to make the information and 

analysis available in the NEPA public commenting process. 

In light of the conclusions in the Bixby White Paper the 

clear inference in the DEIS that over water launch azimuths at 

Vandenberg of 150 to 201 degrees are safe is incorrect and 

should be clarified (See DEIS at p. 1-5). The Bixby White 

Paper shows that launch azimuths within those boundaries create 

unacceptable levels of risk to the public on Bixby property 

under Air Force launch criteria. Likewise, the statement that 

VAFB is the only location where southerly launches of large 

boosters can be made at acceptable risk levels is not true when 

compared to the conclusions reached in the Bixby White Paper 

that such launches reach unacceptable levels of risk (See DEIS 

at p. 2-2). Finally, why would the Air Force conduct an 

acquisition study for the Bixby and other property if hazards 

to public safety can be maintained at "acceptable levels"? 

These inconsistencies on core health and safety concerns must 

be addressed to meet the Air Force's NEPA obligations. 

The Air Force Must Provide for 

Mitigation of Adverse 

Environmental Impacts 

NEPA in Section 102(2)(C)(ii) imposes on federal agencies 

the-requirement to prepare EISs for federal actions 

sigrAficantly affecting the human environment and requires that 

those EISs deal with "any adverse environmental effects which 

cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented." The 

binding regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality 

fleshing out this language expressly oblige federal agencies to 

address mitigation measures. (40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(f), 

1502.16(h)). 

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which includes 

California) has underscored the importance of the mitigation 

requirement and the need for full EIS treatment of mitigation 

measures. Methow Valley Citizens Council v. Regional 

Forester, 833 F.2d 810, 819 (9th Cir. 1987) ("The Forest 

Service's EIS contains scattered pages in which they enumerate 

[203] 

[204] 

[205] 

[206] 
NROAEUR ELErrision ")-127 

1JUNESAMe- mber 8, 1989 

Page 6 

BIXBY RANCH CC:\IPANY • possible mitigation measures and identify mitigation 

goals . . .[These are] lacking both a detailed description of 

required or possible mitigation measures, and any analysis as 

to the effectiveness of these measures"); Oregon Natural 

Resources Council v. Marsh, 832 F.2d 1489, 1494 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(Because the wildlife mitigation plan here merely lists 

measures to be used and includes neither an analysis nor an 

explanation of effectiveness, it is inadequate to satisfy the 

NEPA or Counsel [sic] on Environmental Quality mitigation 

guidelines"); Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association 

v. Peterson, 795 F.2d 688 (9th Cir. 1986). 

In the DEIS for SLC-7 the Air Force's omission is more 

egregious than that of any of the agencies in any of the above 

cited cases. The DEIS blithely states that no mitigation is 

required for land use impacts (DEIS at pp. 4-160 and 4-161). 

This, of course, is plainly wrong as the White Paper clearly 

demonstrates. The DEIS itself also demonstrates the error in 

its mention of the "independent action" and "detailed study" to 

be undertaken to acquire property interests near VAFB that 

otherwise would be incompatible with the Air Force's Vandenberg 

mission. Further, the fact the Air Force has begun a "study" 

of the possibility of purchasing Bixby's incompatible interests 

does not, in fact, minimize any potential environmental impact 

(See DEIS at pp. S-8, 2-71 and 2-78). The DEIS should not 

merely speak of a future study, the outcome of which is totally 

uncertain, and all references to that study should be deleted 

(See DEIS p. 2-71, Sec. 2.4.13 and the second sentence of 

paragraph 2 of DEIS p. 2-78, Sec. 2.5.13). Finally, the 

statement in the DEIS that "no mitigation measures are proposed 

for Land Use" (Sec. 2.5.13 at DEIS p. 2-84) is totally 

unwarranted. Instead the DEIS should state that the Air Force 

must acquire such land interests as are needed to remove the 

adverse effects on the USAF mission at VAFB. The actual 

acquisition of incompatible land interests is a mitigation 

measure not a cumulative impact, and a "study" is neither one. 

In fact, the study of the Bixby property is done and the only 

appropriate mitigation measure for that property in light of it 

is to acquire the incompatible land interests or change the 

launch azimuths to eliminate the hazards. 

Although the Air Force is contemplating some mitigation 

measures despite failing to recognize them as such, those 

measures are inadequate and are impermissibly proposed to be 

the subject of a separate, future proceeding. The following 

are only a few of the matters that should have been considered 

by the Air Force in the DEIS itself and that should be subject 

to NEPA's public commenting process: 

[207] 

[208] 

• 12D91 

[210] 

[211] 

• 
2-128 

NRO AFIRF@WEW--TAFsfaith-iP15isrision 

1 JUNE2elnember 8, 1989 

Page 7 

BIXBY RANCH COMPANY 

What, after all, is the hazard footprint and, within 

that footprint, what are the specific risks to present and 

prospective uses of impacted privately owned land? 

What measures are necessary to warn and otherwise 

protect the owners and occupants of potentially impacted 

private lands? 

To what extent will it be necessary to evacuate 

identified private lands during launch events and what 

measures should fairly be made respecting evacuations such 

as giving timely launch notices and compensating impacted 

landowners? 

Under what circumstances and with respect to what 

specifically identified lands will there be a need for a 

taking of private property interests in order to 

accomplish the Air Force's space mission while protecting 

human health and safety? 

In instances where such takings must occur, what 

should be the nature and extent of the takings with 

respect to each potentially impacted privately owned 

parcel of land? 

With respect to the possible future residential 

development on Bixby Ranch, the Air Force's mitigation 

obligations ought to be no less than those obligations imposed 

on the Navy when it considered the possible relocation of its 

Naval Oceanographic Program from Prince George's County, 

Maryland. In Prince George's County v. Holloway, 404 F. Supp. 

1181 (D.C. Dist. 1975), the court held that the Navy failed to 

comply with NEPA when it failed to address "disturbing 

questions" about the availability at the proposed relocation 

site of adequate housing and schools for low- and moderateincome groups and racial minorities. In speaking to the Navy's 

NEPA obligations the court stated: 

Where, as here, adverse environmental effects are noted, 

the federal agency, as part of its statutory obligation to 

evaluate alternatives, must consider possible methods for 

ameliorating or mitigating the environmental impact at the 

site chosen. 

404 F. Supp. at 1187. 

[212] 

[213] 

[214] 

[215] 

[216] 

[217] 
NRO APN 

1 JUN 

WEIRWUWision 

tember 8, 1989 

Page 8 • 

2-129 

BIXBY RANCH COMPANY 

The court specifically rejected the Navy's handling of the 

housing and schooling concerns separately from the EIS process 

that focused on the relocation project as a whole: 

One of the primary purposes of the Act was to prevent the 

very type of fragmented and compartmentalized analysis 

that occurred here. Instead, the statute directs that the 

agency employ a more integrated and comprehensive approach 

which takes account of the overall effect of the various 

-projects. 

404 F. Supp. at 1186. 

Surely, from the perspective of NEPA's explicit concern 

for impacts on the human environment, the Navy's need to 

consider the housing requirements of relocated personnel does 

not differ significantly from the Air Force's need to consider 

the health and safety implications for future residents of a 

housing development adjacent to South VAFB within the hazard 

zone. These housing impact questions are both clearly part and 

parcel of the total project impacts required to be considered 

by the two branches of the armed services. 

The Alternative Safety Risks 

at Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral 

Must be Analyzed 

The DEIS discussion of alternatives is deficient because 

there is no analysis of the comparative safety of launches from 

Cape Canaveral and from VAFB. In several places the DEIS makes 

conplusory statements that crucial polar orbits cannot be 

"sagely" achieved at Cape Canaveral which is purportedly 

constrained to azimuths between 35 and 120 degrees. In 

contrast the DEIS claims that VAFB allows "over-water" launch 

azimuths of 150 to 201 degrees, which by inference are branded 

"safe" (See DEIS at p. S-2, 1-5 and 2-35). That inference of 

safety is, however, totally destroyed by the Bixby White Paper 

as to VAFB launches within the referenced azimuths. 

Thus, the DEIS presents only unexplained, unanalyzed overwater assumptions of safety. What is required instead is a 

thorough analysis and comparison of the precise human health 

and safety risks at Cape Canaveral and VAFB. The unsupported 

conclusions in the DEIS are clearly insufficient. 

1218] 

• 

[219] 

[220] 
2-130 

NRO A 

1 JUNE 

er 8, 1989 

• BIXBY RANCH COMPANY 

The Air Force Must Take Account of 

Environmental Advantages of 

the SLC-6 Site 

If the proposed project is to go forward, the comparative 

environmental impacts expected at the four alternative sites 

strongly favor choosing the site of the existing SLC-6 

facility. Entirely apart from arguments grounded on seeking to 

gain some benefits for the taxpayers for an expensive facility 

that has been moth-balled since the day of its completion, the 

use of the SLC-6 site would have the least impact on the 

environment. The choice of Cypress Ridge, Boathouse Flats, or 

Vina Terrace would disturb presently undeveloped lands and 

would also impair a valued visual resource from both offshore 

vessels and on shore sites such as Jalama Beach County Park. 

In contrast the SLC-6 site has already been altered by 

development, and Titan IV/Centaur launch facilities installed 

there would not be visible from Jalama Park (DEIS at pp. 3-97 

to 3-99 and 4-101 to 4-104). The high values ascribed to 

California's remaining natural coastal landscapes argues 

strongly that only the most compelling of needs should result 

in their being sacrificed. 

The only environmental impacts identified in the DEIS that 

are unique to SLC-6 involve the partial demolition of the 

existing facilities and the disposal of wastes generated by 

that demolition. Clearly the most significant of those impacts 

would be the need to dispose of hazardous waste generated by 

flushing hypergolic-contaminated fuel and oxidizer systems 

using a total of 82,000 gallons of liquid chemical. Although 

the residual liquid would have to be treated as a hazardous 

waste, the DEIS indicates that "if handled properly, the 

hazardous waste generated during the flushing activity would 

not leave significant impact on the local environment" 

(DEIS at p. 4-89). 

Thus, the DEIS discloses no compelling argument against 

choosing the SLC-6 site and discloses no non-environmental 

reason favoring the other sites that would warrant the 

environment sacrifice that would ensue were any of the other 

sites chosen. 

[221] 

[222] 
KCB/vj a 

V r trul 

Ke neth C . z ornhol 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNEFIQ04)ace Systems Division 2-131 

September 8, 1989 

Page 10 

BIXBY RANCH COMPANY 

The Deficiencies in the DEIS 

Oblige the Air Force to 

Prepare a Supplemental DEIS 

[223] 

In view of the serious deficiencies in the Air Force's 

compliance with NEPA the Air Force should complete its "study" 

(or admit that the Bixby White Paper is that study) fashion 

appropriate mitigation measures based on that study's outcome, 

and prepare an appropriate supplemental DEIS. Such is mandated 

by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations whenever 

"there are significant new circumstances or information 

relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed 

action or its impacts" (40 C.F.R. §1502.9(c) (1)(ii); See Stop 

H-3 Association v. Dole, 740 F.2d 1442, 1463-65 (9th Cir. 

1984) (holding that new information obligated the Secretary of 

Transportation to prepare a supplemental EIS in connection with 

a proposed highway)). Here the Air Force is clearly obliged to 

complete the gathering of the new information essential to 

fashion mitigation measures and then set forth in detail what 

mitigation measures are required and an analysis demonstrating 

their effectiveness. See Stop H-3 Association v. Dole, 740 

F.2d at 1463 ("A federal agency has a continuing duty to gather 

and evaluate new information relevant to the environmental 

impact of its actions, even after the release of an EIS.") 

Once a supplement is prepared the Air Force must circulate 

and file it in the same fashion as the DEIS unless alternative 

procedures are specifically approved by the Council on 

Environmental Quality. 40 C.F.R. §1502.9(c)(4). 

• 

[224] 

[225] 

* * * 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DEIS and 

renew our previous offer to meet and review the serious safety 

issues that have been raised by this project but as yet not 

properly analyzed as to the Bixby property. 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 WHITE PAPER 

ON 

BIXBY RANCH UPDATE 

1 5 JUL 1988 

I. OBJECTIVE. The objective of this paper is to present a perspective on the 

effects of a housing development on the Bixby Ranch adjacent to Vandenberg 

AFB, and to update the safety hazards assessment previously accomplished in 

1983. The discussion following concludes that the potential hazards are more 

severe than those projected in earlier studies, due principally to a shift 

from Space Shuttle to expendable boosters of the Titan family, along with a 

significant increase in the total space vehicle launch frequency. We conclude 

that a residential cluster on Bixby property is basically incompatible with 

the national defense mission and should be resisted if the Air Force is to 

maintain the geographically unique Vandenberg AFB space launch port for high 

inclination/polar satellites. 

II. BACKGROUND. 

• 

• 

1. BIXBY RANCH. The 23,700 acre Bixby property is comprised of two original 

Spanish land grants: the Jalama Ranch and the Cojo Ranch. There are 1800 

acres additional on the ocean side owned by Chevron which the Bixby owners are 

negotiating for, which could bring the total property to 25,500 acres. It is 

zoned as 'Agricultural Preserve' (the Chevron parcel zoning also allows for 

oil production facilities) and is used today for cattle grazing. The Santa 

Barbara Countal Coastal Plan and Coastal Zoning Ordinance provide for cluster 

residential development on 2% of gross acreage. If a development plan is 

approved, Bixby could develop as many as 510 units on 510 acres including the 

Chevron parcel. Figure 1 shows the relationship of the Bixby property to the 

base with a marker indicating the likely location of the cluster, roughly 10 

miles southeast of the launch facilities on Vandenberg. The Figure 1 also 

shows the location of Jalama Beach County Park, which for safety reasons is 

evacuated routinely for certain space launch azimuths today. 

The foremost goal of Safety is to provide positive protection to life and property through controls on a missile or space booster launch. A real-time 

missile flight safety system has been developed and used for years to provide 

positive protection within prescribed Impact Limit Lines (ILL). The system is 

designed to trace, predict, and display vehicle flight performance in order to 

contain debris from destruct action within this ILL. The ILL must diverge 

outward from the main ground trace of the vehicle to account for debris 

scatter, wind effects, time delays for human response and relaying a destruct 

signal, and normal performance deviations of the vehicle itself. Inside of 

the ILL, positive protection cannot be guaranteed; for that reason, the ILL is 

constructed to exclude population centers to the extent possible, with special 

control measures such as evacuation for any remaining within it. The proposed 

Bixby development falls inside the ILL for most of the space launch systems at 

Vandenberg. The implications of this are described in more detail in the Risk 

Analysis section below. 

2. PRIOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN A development plan was proposed by the Bixby 

owners in the 1081 time frame for 470 residential units on 470 acres. The Air 

Force pursued three courses of action to counter this encroachment threat. 

First the Air Force objections to the proposed development were presented to 
DEVELOPMENT 

• 

2-133 

BASEBOUNDARY 

• 

CI 

Z 

LL1 

CD 

LL1 

....I 

Co■ 

5 

• .„,c 

cc. 

co 

V 

i 0 ..a 

E Cb Ct 

CP C2 

= = all et ail so 

es = 2 

3.c c.) c• 

cu co oc 

..a 
• NRO2APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • 

local government representatives. The objections on the basis of public.safety 

were given at hearings before the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission, the 

Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and the California Coastal 

Commission. Separate meetings were held with staff members of the county and 

state commissions. 

A second action was to meet directly with Bixby Ranch Company representatives, 

allowing a "one-on-one" discussion without debating the differences in public. 

Mutual concerns were discussed with a view toward finding a resolution of the 

development issue acceptable to the Air Force and Bixby. Lastly, headquarters 

(SAC, AFSC, and AF) were advised of the encroachment issue impact on capability 

at Vandenberg AFB and the possibility that a restrictive easement through 

condemnation proceedings would be required. The Bixby development plan was 

withdrawn by Bixby in 1983 because it did not meet the "clustering" requirement 

of the County Coastal Plan and Ordinance. The Air Force adopted the following 

approach in 1984 for Bixby Development: 

(a) Establish a planning "wedge" in the outyear MCP. 

(b) Take no further action pending Bixby submission of a revised plan. 

(c) Make the "utmost effort to discourage and defeat a development plan 

through efforts with local government." 

3. CURRENT BIXBY DEVELOPMENT. Bixby Ranch has reinitiated development 

planning and visited the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 

Installation (SAF/RI) office this past April to discuss the situation. 

Vandenberg AFB officials have not yet been contacted, nor has the Santa Barbara 

County Planning Commission received a new draft plan. We understand that the 

development concept involves nearly 500 single residences, 70 multi-family 

units, a golf course with a large adjacent lodge, and an airstrip. Very 

briefly, Bixby'-s process would involve submittal of a development plan to the 

county with a request to change the zoning to "ARC-Agricultural-Residential 

Cluster Overlay District," a type permitted by the Santa Barbara County Coastal 

Plan and Coastal Zoning Ordinance. The development plan would be accepted or 

denied by the County within one year, and numerous public hearings would be 

held during that time, and subsequently as the various subdivision maps are 

produced and acted on. The toning change and approval of specific construction 

elements within the plan would come from the County. The California Coastal 

Commission would also have approval authority for various elements of the'plan. 

The Bixby development project would probably require at least two or three 

years from first notice to the county until necessary approvals can be obtained 

from the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors and the California 

Coastal Commission. 

III. HAZARD DISCUSSION. 

1. LAUNCH MODEL. Prior to the Challenger disaster in January of 1986, the 

Vandenberg space launch schedule was heading toward a workload involving three 

or four Space Shuttle launches per year, a smattering of smaller boosters such 

as Scout, and a phase-out through the 1980's of Atlas, Thor, and Titan family 

expandable boosters. The man-rated Shuttle -- which before January 1986 was 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-135 • 

• 

• 

estimated to have a probability of failure one order of magnitude lower than 

for the large expendable booster types -- still created enough risk to a 

development project at Bixby Ranch that such a project was deemed 

incompatible. Most of the Shuttle exit azimuths were in an easterly direction 

and the impact limit line encompassed Bixby and other property out to Gaviota 

pass, about 25 miles down the coastline. 

Today's projection into the 1990's shows increasing use of expendables, with 6 

to 10 Titan II, Titan IV, and Titan IV/Centaur launches per year. 

Additionally, the likelihood of commercial expendables is growing, involving 

Atlas and Thor-family vehicles and new low-cost boosters such as those being 

developed by the American Rocket Company. The Air Force is also aLudying the 

need for very large vehicles at Vandenberg AFB in the 1990's, capable of 

payload of 90-100 thousand pounds, with projected high launch rates. 

Summarizing, the launch rates in the 1990's are expected to be higher compared 

to projections made in 1981-1983. The vehicles will be complex launch systems 

like the Shuttle without the man-rated features. Because there is no other 

geographic location in the continental United States that permits launching in 

a southerly direction without overflying populated areas, Vandenberg AFB 

capabilities must be preserved. Bixby Ranch development is incompatible with 

the future mission model for Vandenberg APB. 

2. II-FATHER. The hazards associated with booster flights can be assigned to 

four categories; debris, toxic exposure, secondary effects (smoke and fire), 

and sonic effects. Each of these is directly affected by prevailing weather 

conditions at the time of the prelaunch or launch activity. 

The prevailing winds over Vandenberg are out of the west-northwest more than 

90% of the time. Figure 2 depicts the east-west component of annual winds from 

the surface to 70,000 feet. Residents of this coastal region are familiar with 

trees and shrubs that all have a permanent leaning with branches canted to the 

southeast. Surface winds tend to be from the northwest, shifting around more 

to due west and increasing altitude. 

With such prevailing winds, debris from a booster explosion is carried toward 

the southeast quadrant. While the impact locations of the fragments depend on 

many factors, the denser atmosphere at lower altituces will exert the most 

influence on debris transport due to winds, and lighter fragments will be 

carried farther from the "vacuum" impact point than heavier pieces. For a 

Titan IV-class vehicle and the geometry of the launch site and Bixby 

development site, the period of endangerment will generally fall between 50 and 

80 seconds of flight, and the significant fragments would be spread through a 

region on the order of 20 miles long and 6 or 8 miles wide. Figure 3 shows the 

debris dispersion for selected pieces from a destruct at about 50 seconds of 

flight with average winds, banana-shaped by the influence of the wind. The 

debris hazard is of vital importance in this examination, and is treated in 

more detail in the Section IV - Risk Analysis. 
CO SO gill' Cr) C•4 v•" 

UNFAVORABLE 

2-136 

• 

LU 

—J 

CO •st 

CC 

0 

LL. 

OVED FOR RELEASE 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-137 

Titan boosters release toxic products to the atmosphere during normal 

performance which must be considered, and can release very large amounts in a 

catastrophic abort situation. During normal flight, the solid motors of the 

Titan 34D/Titan IV emit about 30,000 pounds of hydrogen chloride, a toxic gas 

that irritates the throat and respiratory system. If an explosion on or near 

the pad occurs, 200,000 pounds or more of HCL gas will be released in a short 

period of time, plus more than 10,000 pounds of vaporized, uncombusted liquid 

fuel and oxidizer, which are particularly hazardous. Because the AF Surgeon 

General has declared that the vapor from liquid propellants is potentially 

carcinogenic, public emergency exposure limits have been reduced for the fuel 

by factors of 80 to 120. Given the low level prevailing wind direction on 

South Vandenberg, toxic products from Titan facilities will be blown generally 

in the direction of the proposed Bixby development. 

In addition, an explosion on or near the pad will initiate brush fires which 

will create a huge volume of smoke, less harmful but extremely irritating. 

The brush fires around the Titan pad following the accident in May, 1986 

burned for over a day before being extinguished. Smoke was carried many miles 

to the southeast, and complaints were received from Jalama Beach and communities further down the coast. 

A vehicle could conceivably be destroyed at a point early enough in the trajectory where the debris cannot yet reach Bixby, but high enough in altitude 

such that the toxic gases are not a problem. Ground fires and smoke from 

impacting debris are still a serious concern in that case, and fires can 

consume many thousands of acres in the area's semi-arid environment before 

being brought under control, depending on the time of year. 

Another frequent Vandenberg weather phenomenon, temperature inversion, enhances the transport of toxic propellants and smoke. These inversions, with 

bases between 900-1400 feet AMSL, act as a cap or lid over the ground layer, 

inhibiting vertical mixing. The net result is higher toxic concentrations 

carried further downwind when an inversion is in place. 

Titan boosters generate considerable noise at liftoff, and mandated protection 

for the general public generally extends 5 or 6 miles out from the pad, not a 

serious problem with respect to Bixby. However, a catastrophic abort could 

result in a high-order detonation of the solid propellants, creating a shock 

wave. The shock wave could break windows up to 10 miles away, presenting 

hazards to persons near them. Furthermore, the very frequent temperature 

inversion condition at Vandenberg could focus the blast overpressure and 

increase the range of broken windows by a large factor. 

3. RISK MANAGEMENT. The degrees of risk presented by debris, toxic, and 

blast overpressure are analyzed prior to launch using the actual weather conditions at both the Eastern and Western Test Ranges. If the risks are too 

high, the Center Commander will defer or scrub the operation until weather 

conditions change for the better. At Vandenberg AFB, conditions have been 

known to perkist because of the unusual climatology, and missions have 

occasionally been scheduled and rescheduled numerous times to finally gain 

approval. Today's constraints mainly involve the city of Lompoc and its 

environs, to the northeast of the launch pad area, and do not present a major 

handicap to launch operations. The Bixby development, on the other hand, 

being downwind and downrange of the launch complexes, introduces an element of 

• 

• 
2-138 

c> ct „rest c, 

C*4 

It II I 

Lc) 4:D .=) 4:=> 

LC; 

ED FOR RELEASE 

7 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

extremely high significance to risk management and acceptance. 

IV. RISK ANALYSIS. 

2-139 

1. DEBRIS HAZARDS. The mechanism of greatest risk to people is from debris. 

ar it can rain down without warning. Ordinary houses do not afford much protection from fragments. The debris impact pattern can only be described in a 

probab.lity distribution sense. A booster can self-destruct, or destruct 

- commands can be sent to it by a Range Safety Officer observing an anomaly or 

off-course performance. 

The ILL concept introduced above in Section II needs some further elaboration. The ILL establishes the boundary of positive control, but because it is 

defined long in advance of the launch it takes into account only the expected 

winds, maximum turn rates, nominal performance envelopes, and average margins 

for response delays. It is necessarily developed under the assumption that 

catastrophic destruction will occur at each point along the trajectory. 

For the actual launch, an analysis of the risks must be undertaken .for all ,of 

the people and property remaining within the ILL using the real failure rates 

and measured winds. The analysis must include people at tracking and instrumentation sites, power plants. the outside observers, and the off-base public. 

The analysis must show whether the launch can proceed, if certain areas need 

to be evacuated, or if the operation should be delayed awaiting more favorable 

conditions. 

The major tool used to estimate these risks for ESMC and WSMC is the Launch 

Area Risk Analysis (LARA) computer program. LARA is a highly sophisticated 

program that integrates the specific flight trajectory with failure rates, 

wind conditions, lift and drag characteristics, debris distributions, and 

velocity changes from the explosion, to provide risk estimates on the ground. 

LARA provides individual and cumulative risks for all sites, and employs a 

library of populations as well as compensating for four levels of sheltering 

protection. LARA it provides the best estimate obtainable with what we know 

about modeling the process today. One can submit conservative inputs to LARA 

to arrive at a conservative estimate. For our studies in this paper, we have 

used average annual winds and the known failure rates of the launch vehicles. 

Moreover, the debris fragments are based on vehicle contractor analysis and 

exposure times are consistent with on-azimuth vehicle failures. 

2. RISK ACCEPTANCE AND MORTALITY COMPARISONS. LARA is a vitally important 

tool for the Commander at launch time. An understanding of the meaning of the 

estimates it provides can be obtained from Figure 4. which lists the levels of 

risk from several hazards encountered in daily life. Note that the risks are 

scaled for convenience to an annual basis per 100,000 population. The bracket 

at the top of the list shows the range of risks that would be encountered 

regularly, using average winds and realistic failure rates, if Bixby were 

developed to a population of 1700 or more. By contrast, with roughly 50 

persons total, Bixby undeveloped presently contributes less that one unit on 

this scale. 

The arrows to the right in Figure 4 indicate risk levels predicted by LARA for 

workers on a specific oil platform for a Titan launch in October. 1987. The 

platform population of slightly over 100 workers presented a risk of 68 on 

this scale, unacceptable for launch approval. Evacuated down to 10 persons, 

8 
LU 

Cl) 

LU 

_J 

uJ 

CC 

Or. 

0 

U_ 

0 

w 

O 

• 

Lc, 46, 

0 

z 

2-140 

EVACUATED TO 10 WORKERS a 7 ON SCALE 

Li 

....1 

CM 

CC 

I— 

O.. = Li C.> 

(...) = 

Z t/3 

0 Y Ci Z 

Y 

CC CJI cc .0 Gr") 

z 1"4 ft. 0 1.•-•4 

= CC C3 . 

, 1.— cc 

.... Z 

Ea 411) CC I=OD 

0 

CL I. 

■ S ..... C., 0 1 

,,, 0 es 4b 

..= .2 %,... v-. 0 0. 

4 li 

.5 2 g 15 ri, g 

. co c., . = m 

g'.. . .2 

g x cc = ._ z ..t ; 

1 1 

(R (R ;4 R 

cv 

co Lo cr) 

CD 

•—• 

—aa, 

7:3 

CO 

tr, g< AC 2 ri ., .

C13 = ••••• .0 ..... — 

CD CI7 = Cl/ 0 CD . cft ca 

Ce3 E 7•5/=/ 

*CS l•- fti 

C •'• - .) -- .a (") 023 0 CC 

0° ›,CD.CC° 1:" 

4:4"/S a... 

6".CD E 16 

•= LI

E 

 ;.3.4..1 

• = 2 cc CD , ..... ti,__.... — = =c,f.,50_0=== < = 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-141 • 

• 

the risk esposure was reduced to the equivalent of about 7, and approval was 

given to launch. (NOTE: the request to evacuate and follow through was made 

possible by the lease agreements involving Vandenberg AFB operations managed 

by the Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service.) 

For an Atlas operation in January of 1988 LARA indicated a risk to Lompoc that 

exceeded 50 when converted to this scale. The launch was scrubbed, restarted 

the next day, and the winds had shifted enough that the risks to the same area 

had dropped to 0.02 equivalence. 

A developed Bixby Ranch would present a quandary to the Center; full-scale 

evacuation would undoubtedly be impractical, so the options would be to accept 

an unprecedented degree of risk, or defer the operation for better wind conditions. Launch delays while waiting ior favorable winds would be inordinately 

expensive, and in practice a whole range of vital launch azimuths would have 

to be eliminated. Accepting the risk is simply untenable -- while most flights 

are successful, and a 'winning streak' might bold for several launches, 

eventually a disaster will occur that the Air Force can not tolerate. 

3. SPECIFIC TRAJECTORY EXAMPLES. Sample LARA-derived products are shown in 

Figures 5 and 6 for two Titan operations. These are risk-contour plots 

indicating the influence of average winds over the Bixby area time-of-hazard. 

'Unacceptable' on these charts means that the risks are in the upper bracket 

of Figure 4 and are in excess of an amount the Center Commander has ever 

approved in the past. Such risks would place the general public at a risk 

above their exposure in daily living. 

As discussed above, the prevailing winds are such that the true 'line of 

acceptability' for the winds on launch day would be displaced to some extent 

east or west of the 'average.' However, it may not move very far in either 

direction, and the number of days waiting for favorable conditions is indeterminate. For some azimuths and launch window constraints, it is much longer 

than just a few days. 

The critical space missions in the next decade require a projection of the 

frequency of use of various azimuths for the several Titan programs in the 

1990's. By examining a series of LARA runs done originally for evaluating the 

hazards to offshore oil rigs, we estimate that 90% of all the Titan launches 

in the mid-90's would have the 'unacceptable' boundary enclosing the proposed 

Bixby development project for average wind conditions. 

• 

10 
2-142 

• 

• 

V 

F

R

OM S C L 4- 160 deg 

A

ZIMUTH 

11 
12 

2-143 • 

• 
NRO3AROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • 

V. CONCLUSIONS. 

The Bixby Ranch property is situated downrange and downwind from Vandenberg 

such that the hazard level is unquestionably high for the space launch 

business. It is difficult to imagine a worse location for a substantial number 

of people from the risk standpoint. 

Over the years, we have become much more sophisticated in estimating risks at 

Vandenberg, and the inherent conservatism of the process has given way to a 

high degree of refinement in the way of models and computer programs. We do 

not believe it is overly conservative to state that a Bixby development would 

have far-reaching consequences on the space launch programs at Vandenberg AFB. 

Because Vandenberg is the only viable polar launch base in the continental 

U.S., the Bixby development would be a major impediment to the national 

military space program. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-145 

RESPONSE TO LEITER 14 

Received From: Bixby Ranch Company (September 8, 1989) 

Kenneth C. Bornholdt, Senior Vice President and General Counsel 

Comment No. 195: Meeting with Bixby Ranch Company 

On November 22, 1988, personnel from USAF and the project environmental contractor, 

Environmental Solutions, Inc., met with Bixby Ranch personnel (Kenneth Bomb°ldt and John 

Baucke) to visit the Bixby Ranch and discuss Bixby Ranch Company concerns. 

Comment No. 196: Consideration of Real Estate Interest Acquisition in Separate NEPA Document 

• 

The CEQ Regulations (40 CFR Part 1508.25) provide guidelines for determining if actions 

are sufficiently interconnected to require evaluation in a single environmental document. 

Actions should be considered in a single environmental document if they are: (1) connected, 

(2) cumulative, or (3) similar. The appropriateness of consideration of real estate interest 

acquisition separately from the proposed action can be determined by the application of these 

guidelines. 

Connected Actions. Actions are connected if they: 

(i) Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental 

impact statements. 

(ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously 

or simultaneously. 

(iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger 

action for their justification. 

• 

The construction and operation of the proposed action would not automatically trigger the 

necessity to obtain an interest in lands near South VAFB. There is no conflict between the 

proposed action and current land use plans, policies, or controls for the area of concern. The 

proposed action can proceed without any prior or simultaneous actions regarding such real 

estate interests. The project to acquire interest in lands south of VAFB predates the proposed 

action and is predominantly driven by launches from SLC-3 and SLC-4. Construction of a 

cluster development on Bixby Ranch property near Jalama Beach would severely inhibit 

launches from those SLCs, but would have a limited effect on the proposed action. 
NROiTAROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

The proposed action can proceed without the acquisition of real estate interests in properties 

adjacent to South VAFB, since current population levels and population levels in the 

reasonably foreseeable future present acceptable risks. Only those projects that are reasonably 

definite and contemporaneous with each other need be considered in an EIS. If the Bixby 

Ranch or other properties adjacent to South VAFB were to be developed to a level far greater 

than current agricultural zoning allows, then the risks to the general population could increase 

to an unacceptable level. At this time, consideration of substantially higher levels of population 

is speculative, since a plan for development has not been submitted to the County of Santa 

Barbara or other government agency. Also, there are physical impediments to development, 

including the provision of services to the area, such as major road improvements and the 

supply of potable water. Any development plan is subject to considerable social and political 

controversy and could be denied during the agency review and approval processes required by 

the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission, the Santa Barbara County Board of 

Supervisors, and the CCC. While the Bixby Ranch Company may contemplate going forward 

with a development, they have not done so to date, and it is not especially likely that the 

necessary zoning changes will be enacted to enable them to do so. 

These two potential actions are not interdependent parts of a larger action that depend on the 

larger action for their justification. These actions are not, for example, parts of a highway 

network that have utility only when considered as a part of the larger grouping. Each of these 

potential actions has independent utility and would represent a usable and reasonable 

expenditure without other considerations. Modification of SLC-6 or construction of a new 

complex to meet the objective of the proposed action represents a needed addition to the 

nation's space launch capability and is independent of the adjacent landowner's contemplated 

but not yet proposed plans. However, the real estate interest acquisition project will continue 

to be pursued whether or not the proposed action is implemented. 

Cumulative and Similar Actions. In addition to not being connected, the potential real estate 

interest acquisition falls outside the scope the Draft EIS since it is neither cumulative nor similar 

to the proposed action. Together, the two actions are not expected to result in cumulatively 

significant impacts as they are dissimilar. One proposes the construction of a space launch 

complex, and the other proposes to acquire an interest in lands adjacent to South VAFB to 

protect the current mission at VAFB, regardless of implementation of the proposed action. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-147 

• 

• 

Comment No. 197: Mitigation Measures for Land Use Impacts 

As stated in Draft EIS Section 4.11.5, Mitigation Measures, it was determined in the Risk 

Assessment (Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1989) that, at current population levels, USAF 

safety procedures mitigate risks to the public to an acceptable level. To prevent future potential 

high density residential development on the Bixby Ranch and other nearby properties, USAF 

has begun a detailed study of acquiring real estate interests in these properties. This action 

would prevent an unacceptable level of cumulative risk to the populations living in those areas. 

Otherwise, USAF could restrict launches to days with favorable wind conditions. 

Additional information for insertion into the Draft EIS regarding mitigation measures for land 

use impacts is contained in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (page 3-21). 

The commenter does not provide a reference for the USAF document he referred to which 

addresses risks to the Bixby Ranch property. Therefore, a response to this portion of the 

comment cannot be made. 

Comment No. 198: Emergency Procedures for Offsite Populations 

Emergency procedures are discussed in Draft EIS Section 3.11.1, Regional Environment, at a 

level of detail that is consistent with the findings of the analysis undertaken for the Risk 

Assessment (Environmental Solutions, Inc., 1989), per CEQ Regulations (40 CFR Parts 

1500.1, 1500.2, 1500.4, 1501.7, 1502.1, and 1508.26). See response to Comment No. 159 

for the status of the local emergency response plan. 

Comment No. 199: Evacuation Agreement Between USAF and Bixby Ranch 

Since Bixby Ranch is located in Santa Barbara County, emergency procedures, including 

potential evacuations, are coordinated through the County as described in Draft EIS Section 

3.11, Regional Environment. These procedures are considered adequate for reasonable 

protection of the public in the unlikely event of an accident. 

Comment No. 200: Health and Safety Risks to Future Bixby Ranch Residents 

Health and safety risks to current population levels and populations in the reasonably 

foreseeable future are addressed in the Draft EIS, Section 4.11, Health and Safety, and were 

found to be low. These risks are maintained at a low level since, as a part of its decision to 
NRO2ARPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• launch a vehicle, USAF evaluates risks to the general public at both the individual and 

collective levels and takes appropriate measures to avoid or minimize risks. Established USAF 

safety procedures for launches from VAFB are the following: 

Launches are not conducted when an individual member of the general 

public would be exposed to a risk of injury or death greater than one in 

one million. 

When collective risk from a single launch approaches 30 in one million (or 

three in one hundred thousand), WSMC/SE takes special precautions to 

protect the population at risk. 

Utilizing this risk-minimizing approach, USAF ensures that risks to the general public are 

maintained at very low levels for both individuals and the collective population, regardless of 

population size or density. 

Individual Risks 

• 

• 

The highest allowable level of individual risk for a member of the general public to become 

a casualty during a launch at VAFB is one in one million. To ensure that risks are below 

this level, a one in one million casualty expectation contour (defining a Caution Zone) is 

established several weeks prior to a launch. The Caution Zone is defined using conservatively 

high estimates of wind effects and failure probability. Shapes and sizes of Caution Zones vary 

considerably for different ambient wind conditions, vehicles, and trajectories, but are typically 

oval or teardrop in shape, with a width of approximately one mile and a downrange extent of 

three to five miles. Caution Zones are generally contained within VAFB boundaries, and may 

extend to parts of the ocean where populations are controlled (for example, oil production 

platforms). 

On the day of launch, the Caution Zone is reevaluated to confirm that it protects against an 

individual one in one million risk for the actual wind profile and failure rate associated with the 

planned launch. This analysis and defining the Caution Zone are accomplished by using highly 

sophisticated computer programs such as Launch Area Risk Analysis (LARA), which accounts 

for the factors that are known to influence debris scatter and impact patterns (see response to 

Comment No. 201). Because the one in one million debris individual risk contour is generally 

contained within VAFB boundaries, the off-base risk exposure is generally far below this value 

by one or more orders of magnitude (i.e., risks as small as one in ten million or less). Persons 

located on-base, such as the press and launch support crew, may be exposed to slightly higher 

individual risks during launches. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-149 • For purposes of comparison of launch risks to commonly accepted risks, the following table 

shows individual annual risks of death from a variety of causes and an individual's risk of 

death or injury fiom launch operations. To make this comparison, it is necessary to convert the 

risk from a single launch to risks that may accumulate over a year. In a worst-case analysis, it 

is conceivable, although highly unlikely, that a member of the general public could be at or near 

the edge of the Caution Zone (which defines the one in one million risk line) for a total of 10 

launches in one year. If this were to occur, the individual would be exposed to the upper 

bound of permitted risk (one in one million) 10 times during the year, resulting in an 

accumulated risk of one in one hundred thousand, as shown in the table below. 

ANNUAL SOCIETAL RISK RA1ES 

Mortality Risk Cause Risk/Year(1) 

Heart 325.0/100,000 

Cancer 192.0/100,000 

Stroke 64.0/100,000 

Pneumonia 27.0/100,000 

Oil Platform Workers 25.0/100,000 

Motor Vehicles 20.0/100,000 

Home Accident 14.0/100,000 

Homicide 8.6/100,000 

Work Accident 5.2/100,000 

Airplane Crashes 3.0/100 ,000 

Worst-Case Accumulated Launch Risk 1.0/100,000 

(1 )Units are expected deaths 

As the table shows, even in a worst-case situation, the maximum acceptable individual risk 

permitted by USAF over one year is one-twentieth of the risk of death from an auto accident 

for the same time period. This clearly illustrates that risks from launches represent a small 

incremental increase in an individual's total risk. 

Collective Risks 

Although the risks from a single launch to individual members of the public are small and 

typically much less than one in one million, USAF also considers the collective risks to 

persons within conceivable reach of debris. 
NRO AP1KROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

Collective risk is the summation of the individual risks that persons would be exposed to 

during a launch. For example, if one million persons were strung out along the periphery of 

the Caution Zone on a launch, each with an individual risk of one in one million, the 

expectation is that, on the average, there would be one casualty for that launch. 

Historically, no member of the public has been injured as a direct result of debris from a launch 

accident in roughly 70 years of combined ESMC (located in Cape Canaveral, Florida) and 

WSMC operations. Excluding the direct launch support personnel (who are under a separate, 

higher collective risk limit), normal WSMC/SE operating procedures restrict launch conditions 

or control populations to maintain the collective risk to the public for a given launch to below 

approximately 30 in one million. 

Table 2.1 (Summary of Collective Risks from VAFB Launches in 1989) shows the actual 

collective risks to the public that have resulted from VAFB launches in 1989. This table shows 

that, in 1989, collective risks for most individual launches approached zero and for the entire 

year were 2.741 in one million, well below even the 30 in one million action level established 

for a single launch. 

Additional material for insertion into the Draft EIS regarding health and safety risks is 

contained in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS (pages 3-10 and 3-11). 

Response to Comment No. 201: Hazard Footprint 

Health and Safety Risks to current population levels and populations in the reasonably 

foreseeable future are addressed in the Draft EIS, Section 4.11, Health and Safety. These risks 

were found to be low. However, the Santa Barbara County Local Coastal Plan allows higherdensity residential development of the Bixby Ranch and other nearby properties. The process 

of securing rezoning and permits for higher-density residential development has not begun. To 

prevent this type of development, USAF has begun a detailed study of acquiring real estate 

interests in these properties. A study undertaken in support of potential real estate interest 

acquisition provides "hazard footprint" type of information for hypothetical future populations 

in areas south and east of South VAFB (TENERA 1990). 

The ENERA report provides a summary of the methodology used to determine risks to 

off-base populations and examples of the risks that would be incurred to hypothetical future • populations from a variety of launches. Prior to a launch, USAF assesses the potential effects 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-151 

• 

• 

TABLE 2.1 

SUMMARY OF COLLECTIVE PUBLIC RISKS 

FROM VAFB LAUNCHES IN 19890) 

VEHICTP MISSION TYPE DAIb OFF-BASE RISK(2) 

Minuteman III Ballistic 1/25/89 0 

Minuteman III Ballistic 2/22/89 0 

Minuteman III Ballistic 31/90 0 

Peacekeeper Ballistic 3/19/89 0.044 x 10-6 

Small ICBM Ballistic 5/11/89 0 

Minuteman In Ballistic 7/6/89 0 

Minuteman LEI Ballistic 7/11/89 0 

Titan II Orbital 9/5/89 2.64 x 10-6 

Peacekeeper Ballistic 9/14/89 0 

Minuteman IR Ballistic 9/26/89 0 

AMROC Ballistic 10/5/89 0 

Minuteman DI Ballistic 11/7/89 0.03 x 10-6 

Delta Cobe Orbital 11/18/89 0 

Cumulative Collective Risk for 1989 2.714 x 10-6 

87-271 (7/5/90) 

(1)Source: USAF 1990. 

(2)Units are expected casualties which include deaths and injuries. 

• 
NRO MBIROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• 

of the launch to off-base populations. As a result of this assessment, the launch may proceed 

as planned, be modified in terms of trajectory or other factors, require off-base population 

control, or be postponed. The hazards associated with a launch are: impacting hardware 

normally jettisoned during flight, debris impact resulting from a malfunctioning or destroyed 

vehicle, toxic chemical exposure associated with dispersing propellants, shock waves from an 

explosion, and sonic effects. "Hazard footprint" type information is descriptive of the debris 

impact resulting from a malfunctioning or destroyed vehicle (launch anomaly). This type of 

hazard is assessed by developing an impact limit line (ILI ) and simulating a launch anomaly on 

the LARA computer program. 

The ILL is a boundary which defines the area within which WSMC/SE attempts to provide 

positive protection from launch risks. Whenever possible, launches are allowed only when the 

predicted patterns of debris from potential destruction of a launch vehicle are contained within 

the ILL. The ILL is located by using the outer limit of predicted debris patterns generated 

during previous analyses of a collection of launch azimuths and modifying the line to exclude 

major population centers. Since the ILL describes the area within which most debris from a 

launch anomaly would be contained, it could be considered a "hazard footprint." 

The LARA program divides the area bounded by the I1.1 into many subareas and calculates the 

risk in each of these subareas from a given launch. Important variables included in the LARA 

calculation include: 

• Population densities in subareas within the ILL 

• Wind direction and velocity 

• Launch azimuth 

• Vehicle type 

• Launch site 

The LARA program evaluation includes identification of areas of unacceptable risk within the 

ILL. The risks associated with each subarea are totaled to provide a cumulative risk associated 

with the launch. The output of the LARA program is the expected casualty (Ec) (including 

both injury and death) associated with a particular launch. As described in response to 

Comment No. 200, Ec values associated with launches are very low. Given the Ec for a 

particular launch, USAF may determine to proceed as planned, modify the launch in terms of 

trajectory or other factors, require off-base population control, or postpone the launch. 

The TENERA report includes some examples of LARA evaluations for a variety of vehicles 

and launch azimuths from existing and proposed launch complexes on South VAFB. Their 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-153 

analysis shows that, because of the relative nearness of the four alternative sites on South 

VAFB, a launch anomaly would produce similar results with regard to risks to a hypothetical 

Bixby Ranch residential development, regardless of the launch site chosen. 

Figure 2.1, Results of LARA Analysis for Launch Azimuth of 192 Degrees from Cypress 

Ridge Site, shows the results of a LARA analysis of a possible Titan IV launch assuming a 

launch azimuth of 192 degrees and completion of the hypothetical Bixby Ranch development. 

The illustration shows that the analysis of these launch conditions did not result in the 

identification of areas of unacceptable risk to future hypothetical off-base populations. 

Figure 2.2, Results of LARA Analysis for Launch Azimuth of 153 Degrees from Cypress 

Ridge Site, shows the results of a similar launch, with the exception of a southeasterly launch 

azimuth of 153 degrees. Under these conditions, portions of areas south and east of South 

VAFB would present USAF with unacceptable risk under current safety standards if the Bixby 

Ranch development were to occur. As indicated above, since risks to hypothetical future 

populations do not appear to be sensitive to launch site location within South VAFB, these 

results can be expected to be the same for any of the TCLC alternative sites. • 

• 

Comment No. 202: Availability of Risk Assessment 

The Draft EIS provided information at a level of detail necessary to understand the potential 

risks to public health and safety. The Risk Assessment was sent to Bixby Ranch Company on 

September 8, 1989, to provide additional requested information. Per Bixby Ranch Company 

request, additional comments on the Draft EIS were accepted for incorporation into the Final 

EIS after the designated end of the public comment period. A Summary of the Risk 

Assessment is provided in Appendix C. Other references cited in the Draft EIS are available 

and may be obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552), consistent with 

CEQ Regulations (40 CFR Part 1506.6). 

Comment No. 203: White Paper on Bixby Ranch Update 

The White Paper (USAF 1988a) is a preliminary land use planning document that provides 

summary-level risk information about a number of VAFB programs and speculates about 

hypothetical impacts from potential future land development to existing programs at SLC-3 and 

SLC-4. The White Paper is provided in Appendix B. The Risk Assessment was undertaken 

and provided to the public to address these risks specifically for the proposed action and, as 

such, is a more recent and complete source of information than the White Paper. 
2-154 

C) 

0 

co 

D FOR RELEASE 9 .P1_,F Pp, 

JupE) 2'01L1- - 

----AREA St !OWN/ 

SANTA 

BARBARA 

PACIFIC OCEAN 

VANDENBERC: CHANNEL ISLANDS 

NORTH 

VAFB 

AIR I 

C'CHAN 

PEACH 

PARK 

LEGEND 

: 246 i 

■ EXISTING SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 

FORCE 

• SLC-3 

■ SLC-4 SOUTH 

VAFB} 

❑ ALTERNATIVE SITE 

LOMPOC VANDENBERG AiR FORCE BASE 

BOUNDARY 

FINAL ES CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

AREA OF POTENTIAL BIXBY RANCH 

DEVELOPMENT 

VINA TERRACE SITE 

BOATHOUSE FLATS SITE 

PT. 

A ''.; GU EL LO 

I

/ - 

CC 

<C 

-3 

›- 

iT 

0 /--- 

0 

T 

0 

Z 

3 

BASE 

• PO c"--) 

APPROXIMATE IMPACT 

IMIT LINE (101 

JALAMA BEACH 

COUNTY PARK 

BIXBY 

RANCH 

(HOLLISTER 

ANCH 

WESTERN LNG 

PT. CONCEPTiON 

FIGURE 2.1 

PACIFIC 

OCEAN RESULTS OF LARA ANALYSIS 

FOR LAUNCH AZIMUTH 

OF 192 DEGREES 

FROM CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES 

SOURCE: TENERA 1990 TCLC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
2-155 

2015 

AREA SHOWN 

SANTA 

BARBARA 

PACIFIC OCEAN 

CHANNEL ISLANDS 

NORTH 

VAFB NO SCALE 

BEA(L.H 

PARK 216 

FORCE 

• SLC-3 

• ac-4 SOUTH 

P7 VAFB1 

LOMPOC 

PEDERNALES 

LEGEND 

• EXISTING SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 

❑ ALTERNATIVE SITE 

--- VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE 

BOUNDARY 

AREA OF POTENTIAL BIXBY RANCH 

• DEVELOPMENT 

• 

• ■• 

UNACCEPTABLE RISK AREA IN AVERAGE 

WINDS CONDITIONS (510 ACRES - 1,700 

PEOPLE) 

PT 

ARGUELLO 

0 JALAMA BEACH 

• COUNTY PARK 

APPROXIMATE IMPACT 

MIT LINE 

1Qt 

WESTERN LNG 

PT. CONCEPTION 

FIGURE 2.2 

0 c 

1 2 3 4 5 MILES 

RESULTS OF LARA ANALYSIS 

FOR LAUNCH AZIMUTH 

OF 153 DEGREES 

FROM CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

TCLC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SOURCE: TENERA 1990 
NRO2AF518ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• Comment No. 204: Launch Risks 

Launching Titan IV vehicles from South VAFB at azimuths from 150 to 210 degrees presents 

an acceptable risk to public health and safety at current and reasonably foreseeable future levels 

of population. See response to Comment No. 200. The White Paper (USAF 1988a) 

addresses the potential for higher levels of risk based on a hypothetical development scenario. 

It does not identify unacceptable levels of risk to VAFB operations at current population levels. 

Comment No. 205: Launch Risks 

See response to Comment No. 204. 

Comment No. 206: Property Acquisition Study 

Launch-related hazards exist at acceptable levels, given current population of the Bixby Ranch 

and adjacent areas. The hypothetical Bixby Ranch development would increase population 

levels markedly. Activities at VAFB are integral components of the national defense, so the 

USAF must plan for future contingencies even if they are not "reasonably foreseeable," as 

required by NEPA. Acquisition of real estate interests near South VAFB is one of several 

ways USAF can prevent development from encroaching and adversely impacting mission 

capabilities. The environmental impacts from potential real estate interest acquisition will be 

addressed in a separate NEPA document (see response to Comment No. 196). The USAF has 

opposed high density development of the Bixby Ranch property since plans were originally 

discussed in 1981 and has pursued three courses of action to prevent such development. First, 

USAF objected to proposed plans at hearings before the Santa Barbara County Planning 

Commission, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, and the California Coastal 

Commission. Second, USAF met with Bixby Ranch Company representatives to determine if 

a resolution to the development issue was possible. And last, USAF began to consider 

acquisition of an interest in properties near South VAFB. 

• 

After the Bixby Ranch plan was withdrawn in 1983, USAF adopted the following approach to 

the potential land acquisition: 

• Establish a planning budget in a future year's military construction program. 

• Take no further action pending Bixby Ranch Company submission of a 

revised plan. 

• Continue to oppose development plans through the local planning process. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-157 

• Bixby Ranch Company has not submitted a development plan. If such a plan were submitted, 

it would be subject to the local planning process as described in response to Comment No. 

196. 

In the meantime USAF has prepared a separate environmental assessment on a land interest 

acquisition program encompassing the Bixby Ranch properties. That document was published 

on July 20, 1990. 

Comment No. 207: Mitigation Measures for Land Use 

At present and reasonably foreseeable levels of population in areas near South VAFB, no 

mitigation measures are required. If high-density residential development were to occur in the 

Bixby Ranch or other nearby properties, additional mitigation measures may be necessary as 

discussed in response to Comment No. 197. 

To provide an accurate record, it should be noted that the court cases cited here have been 

overturned on merit by the Supreme Court of the United States. Methow Valley was 

overturned in Methow Valley Citizens Council v. Regional Forester, 109 S. Ct. 1835 (1989). 

Oregon Natural Resources Council was overturned in Oregon Natural Resources Council v. 

Marsh, 109 S. Ct. 1851 (1989). Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association was 

overturned in Northwest Indian Protection Association v. Peterson, 108 S. Ct. 1319 (1989). 

Comment No. 208: Mitigation Measures for Land Use 

The independent action referred to in the Draft EIS is not a mitigation measure for the proposed 

action but, as mentioned in response to Comment No. 206, is one approach that USAF is 

utilizing to prevent potential encroachment near South VAFB. These properties are currently 

compatible with the proposed action, although they would become less so with VAFB's 

mission if they were significantly developed. See response to Comment Nos. 197 and 207. 

Comment No. 209: Consideration of Land Acquisition in Separate NEPA Document 

• Environmental impacts of the proposed action are fully discussed in Draft EIS Chapter 4.0, 

Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures. The Draft EIS does not suggest that 

preliminary USAF activities to acquire land interests near South VAFB are mitigation measures 

for land use impacts of this present proposed action. Land acquisition around VAFB would be 
NR038 D,ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUlg521015 

• for the purpose of preventing future encroachment which could impact launches from all of the 

SLC's, not to mitigate potential impacts from the proposed action. See response to Comment 

No. 196. 

Comment No. 210: Mitigation Measures for Land Use Impacts 

See response to Comment Nos. 197 and 206. 

Comment No. 211: Mitigation Measures for Land Use Impacts 

The analyses to support the potential acquisition of real estate interests near South VAFB have 

not yet been undertaken. Acquiring incompatible real estate interests would only be necessary 

if a plan for development were produced and approved and such development presented 

unacceptable risks to the general public. See response to Comment Nos. 197 and 207. 

Comment No. 212: Hazard Footprint 

• See response to Comment No. 201. 

Comment No. 213: Emergency Procedures for Offsite Populations 

See response to Comment No. 198. 

Comment No. 214: Evacuation of Lands Near South VA1-13 

At the current level of development and at reasonably foreseeable future levels, evacuation of 

these lands is not anticipated. 

Comment No. 215: Acquisition of Lands Near South VAFB 

The necessity to acquire real estate interests near South VAFB to prevent future encroachment 

from development will be determined under separate NEPA documentation, as described in 

Draft EIS Section 4.13.1, Regional Impacts. See response to Comment Nos. 196 and 206. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-159 • 

• 

Comment No. 216: Acquisition of Lands Near South VAFB 

See response to Comment Nos. 196 and 206. The necessary real estate interests near South 

VAFB would be defined in a separate action. 

Comment No. 217: Mitigation Measures 

See response to Comment No. 197. Additional information for insertion into the Draft EIS 

regarding mitigation measures for land use is contained in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS 

(page 3-21). 

Comment No. 218: Mitigation Measures 

The legal decision cited in the comment refers to the necessity to consider the impacts to 

housing and schools resulting from an influx of military personnel into an area. The 

development of the proposed action presents a different set of considerations, as impacts to 

potential future residents are, by definition, hypothetical. See response to Comment Nos. 197 

and 217. 

Comment No. 219: Launch Risks at VAFB and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) 

CCAFS is discussed as an alternative in Draft EIS Section 2.2.2.1, Existing Government 

Sites. CCAFS is eliminated from consideration in detail since, as indicated, safe launch 

azimuths are limited to between 35 and 120 degrees, which do not support the mission 

requirements described in Section 1.3, Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. VAFB 

currently supports polar orbit launches with acceptable levels of risk. These impacts are 

discussed in proportion to their importance, per CEQ Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500.1, 

1500.2, 1500.4, 1501.7, 1502.1, and 1508.26). The White Paper referenced in the comment 

does not address existing levels of risk, or the additional increment of risk posed by launches 

from the proposed action. Its purpose is to discuss potential future additional risks related to 

the entire VAFB space program (and particularly SLC-3 and SLC-4) which could occur as a 

result of hypothetical development on lands adjacent to South VAFB. 

• Comment No. 220: Launch Risks at VAFB and CCAFS 

See response to Comment No. 219. 
NRO'""1"OVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • Comment No. 221: Selection of SLC-6 

See response to Comment No. 139. 

Comment No. 222: Selection of SLC-6 

See response to Comment No. 139. 

Comment No. 223: Supplemental Draft EIS 

As noted in response to Comment Nos. 196 and 206, the acquisition of real estate interests 

near South VAFB will be analyzed under other NEPA documentation since the potential actions 

are clearly separable. Since new circumstances or information have not come to light, it is not 

necessary to prepare a supplement to the Draft EIS. 

Comment No. 224: Gather and Evaluate New Information 

• As noted in Draft EIS Section 2.5, Summary of Mitigation Measures, USAF recognizes the 

necessity of continuing to gather information about potential launch-related impacts to biota 

through a monitoring program. As additional environmental information is obtained, USAF 

will consider it in accordance with AFR 19-7 (Environmental Pollution Monitoring). 

Comment No. 225: Draft EIS Supplement 

As described in response to Comment No. 223, a supplemental Draft EIS will not be necessary 

to fulfill the requirements of NEPA. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 LETTER 15 

2-161 

• 

BIXBY RANCH COMPANY .••■•■•■ 

Fred H. Bixby, Founder • 1875.1952 

L 0 1111; I II ; 5 1, 17: !Ito 

ximwmcBorxhoidt 

$eiskr rife PrWent 

&GmeraCoompel 

October b, 1989 

Mr. Robert C. Mason, AICI2 

HQ SSD/DEV 

P. O. Box 92960 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 

Re: Risk Assessment Supplement to 

Draft EIS for SLC-7 at 

Vandenberg AFB (September 1989) • 

• 

Doar Mr. Masan: 

We have reviewed the above-referenced document with the 

SLC-7 Draft EIS and have concluded (i) that it does not support 

[226] the conclusions reached in the Draft EIS (e,g., see: pp. S-2, 

2-69, 4-130) that Vandenberg AFB is the environmentally 

preferred site and all health and safety impacts are analyzed 

therein, and (ii) that it does not in any way cure the defects 

[227] noted in Bixby's comment letter dated 8 September 1989. For 

the reasons stated herein, when the Risk Assessment is read 

together with the Draft EIS and the White Paper on Bixby Ranch 

Update dated July 15, 1988 ("Bixby White Paper"), the Draft EIS 

is clearly incomplete and inadequate for several reasons. 

The principal defect in the Draft EIS exists because the 

Risk Assessment assumes in all the risk analyses contained 

[228] therein, that the Air Force launch policy employing LARA would 

prohibit a launch where adverse wind direction and speed 

conditions would result in debris falling in "undesirable" 

(i.e., populated) areas (see! p.p. 2-13, 4-15 and 7-1). 

Accordingly, the Risk Assessment calculated probabilities of 

risk solely by analyzing the probability of error in the LARA 

[229) computer program itself (see: p.9-2). Thus, the conclusion of 

no significant adverse risks to populations on Bixby Ranch is 

easily reached given the low probability of computer error in 

LARA (see: p. S-7). However, none of that can be squared with 

the Bixby White Paper, and the Draft EIS is clearly flawed in 

its failure to address this stark clash in two Air Force 

documents. 
NROWI3ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

BIXBY RANCH COMPANY 

What the Air Porce concluded in the Bixby White Paper 

is that because Bixby is directly downwind and down range of 

Vandenberg AFB most of the time due to prevailing unfavorable 

wind speeds and direction, that LARA would have permitted 

Titan launches under existing Air Force launch policy only 10% 

of the time when the Bixby property is developed (see: p. 10). 

Furthermore, the Air Force stated in the Bixby White Paper that 

being able to launch space vehicles only 10% of the time makes 

operations at Vandenberg AFB (including SLC-7) "inordinately 

expensive" and therefore makes acceptance of the risk of 

development on Bixby Ranch "untenable" (see: p. 10). Absent 

in the Draft EIS is any discussion of Che economy of using 

Vandenberg AFB to launch space vehicles only 10% of the time 

over a developed Bixby Ranch, which could very well be 

significantly less than using an alternative site either on or 

off Vandenberg AFB, even though other cost factors for those 

sites may be higher. This omission constitutes a fatal flaw in 

the Draft EIS. 

• 

[232] 

[233] 

It is also significant to note that the evacuation 

procedures mentioned in the Risk Assessment do not apply to 

Bixby Ranch (see: p. 2-14), and, therefore, that the Air Force 

does not know at any point in time how many people there may 

be or where on the Bixby property for any given Titan launch. 

Accordingly, no accurate population count can be made for the 

Bixby property to input into LARA and meaningfully apply the 

Air Force launch policy and make a safe launch. Thus, the 

basic assumption used in the Risk Assessment for the Bixby 

property is totally invalid for lack of any population data. 

In addition to these principal defects, we have the 

following comments concerning other inadequate and incomplete 

features of the Risk Assessment, which, in turn, render the 

Draft EIS which relies upon it likewise defective: 

• 

1. 

[2341 

[235] 2 

3. 

[236] 

There is no analysis done of the public risk from the 

launch of a Titan IV/Centaur in terms of casualty 

expectancy. 

What were the assumptions made concerning existing and 

future population densities surrounding Vandenberg AFB? 

It is unclear what the precise launch azimuths of SLC-7 

will be. the launch danger area (the Impact Limit Line) or 

hazard zone LARA applies to, or what specific property 

ownerships are within these areas. 

[231] 
Ver rs, 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-163 

BIXBY RANCH COMPANY 

[237] 4. Sonic boom effect was not addressed. 

5. We note that the Risk Assessment provided to us is dated 

"September 1989", while the Draft EIS released in 

[238] July 1989 referred to a risk assessment made prior to July 

1989. 

The last point evokes the question whether the Draft EIS 

was based on an earlier version of the Risk Assessment than 

that provided to us by the Air Force's letter dated 

8 September 1989. If so, all commenters on the Draft EIS 

should be provided all changes that were made in the Risk 

Assessment subsequent to the version considered in the Draft 

EIS, an explanation of the reasons for those changes, and an 

additional time period within which to comment thereon. 

In conclusion, we believe substantial analytical work And 

revisions to the Draft EIS need to be undertaken to comply with 

NEPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 

We appreciate your cooperation in giving us until 

October 9 to comment on the Risk Assessment and your commitment 

to have these comments and your responses made part of the 

Final EIS. 

[239] 

Ke neth C. Bornholdt 

KCB/vja 

• 
NRO2A11364)ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • RESPONSE TO LEI-I.ER 15 

Received From: Bixby Ranch Company (October 6, 1989) 

Kenneth C. Bornholdt, Senior Vice President and General Counsel 

Comment No. 226: VAFB as Environmentally Preferred Site 

The referenced document, "Risk Assessment Supplement to the Draft EIS for SLC-7 at 

Vandenberg AFB, September 1989," was provided to the commenter at his specific request. 

USAF recognizes that, as cited in the Draft EIS, the title of the Risk Assessment may have 

been confusing to some readers. It is not, in fact or in legal effect, a "supplement" to the Draft 

EIS or a "revised draft" as contemplated under the CEQ Regulations, 40 CFR Part 1502.9(a). 

As stated in the first sentence of the original September 8, 1989, transmittal letter to the 

commenter, it is "the SLC-7 Risk Assessment referenced in the Draft EIS for SLC-7." The 

Risk Assessment is not part of the Draft EIS, but is a technical background study which 

supports the less detailed analysis and conclusions on such risks which are presented in that 

Draft EIS. The "September 1989" Risk Assessment document was simply the finalized 

version of the risk assessment study which had been accomplished prior to publication of the 

Draft EIS. Data and conclusions from that original version of the risk assessment study were 

used in the Draft EIS. The September 1989 version sent to the commenter did not differ 

materially in data or conclusions from those used in the Draft EIS. The Final EIS (Chapter 

3.0) references the updated September 1989 version (page 3-22). 

Contrary to the suggestion in the comment, the Draft EIS did not come to the conclusion that 

VAFB "is the environmentally preferable site." Instead, the Draft EIS described a narrowing 

process by which reasonable alternatives were chosen to accomplish the Air Force's objective 

of safely supporting space launches which could place military satellites into polar orbits. For 

reasons elaborated in the Draft EIS, that process concluded by proposing four alternative Titan 

IV/Centaur launch sites on South VAFB. Of those, conversion of SLC-6 was identified (page 

S-9 of the Draft EIS) as the alternative with the lowest level of environmental impacts. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-165 

• 

• 

Comment No. 227: Comments From Bixby Ranch Company Dated September 8, 1989 

Comments on the Draft EIS received from Bixby Ranch Company dated September 8, 1989, 

are fully addressed in this Final EIS. 

Comment No. 228: Basis for Analyses in Risk Assessment 

The assessment of various kinds of risks to public health and safety are based on the use of the 

LARA model, as well as many other assumptions detailed in the Risk Assessment. The 

utilization of the LARA model in determining potential risks to public health and safety is 

limited to the launch anomaly event and the burning debris pathway. Risks from normal 

launches and operations utilize other modeling assumptions. See response to Comment No. 

196. 

Comment No. 229: Calculations of Probabilities of Risk 

As noted in response to Comment No. 228, the use of LARA and its associated probability of 

error is a modeling assumption only for risks related to a launch anomaly (see response to 

Comment No. 201). The calculation of probabilities for other risks, such as those from normal 

launches and operations events, are based on other operational assumptions. For example, the 

discussion of the Particulate and Gas Dispersion Pathway (Risk Assessment, Chapter 4.0) is 

not based on LARA error at all, but on worst-case events and atmospheric conditions. 

Conclusions contained in the Draft EIS are based upon various assumptions and conditions, 

many of which are not related to LARA. See response to Comment No. 196. 

Comment No. 230: White Paper 

As noted in response to Comment No. 203, the White Paper (USAF 1988a) is a land use 

planning document that evaluates the potential base-wide impacts from potential future 

population encroachment near South VAFB. As such, it addresses different issues than the 

Draft EIS. See response to Comment No. 196. 

Comment No. 231: Potential Operation Restrictions on Proposed Action • The White Paper (USAF 1988a) indicates that 90 percent of all Titan launches in the 1990s 

(including those from SLC-4 East and West, as well as from the proposed action) would pose 
NRO2A6ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

t unacceptable risks if areas near South VAFB were developed. The conclusion reached for 

these three launch sites does not translate into a 90 percent level of unacceptable launch 

conditions from the proposed action, since it would be located west of SLC-4 and would 

support different missions. In addition, as noted in response to Comment No. 200, risks to 

public health and safety are acceptable at current and reasonably foreseeable future levels of 

population. See response to Comment No. 196. 

Comment No. 232: Evacuation Procedures 

As noted in response to Comment No. 199, evacuation procedures are coordinated by Santa 

Barbara County. 

Comment No. 233: Input into the LARA Model 

Since the LARA model is run in a real-time mode for specific launches, the population 

estimates used as input would reflect levels at that pointin time. The LARA model runs would 

utilize conservative population estimates, taking into consideration evacuation measures, if any. 

Analyses contained in the Risk Assessment are valid since they were not dependent on specific 

LARA model runs or population estimates, but rather on the potential error contained in LARA 

calculations. See response to Comment No. 196. 

Comment No. 234: Casualty Expectancy 

The analysis of risk to public health and safety in the Risk Assessment is presented in an easily 

understandable form in Table S.1 in the Risk Assessment (Summary of Relative Potential Risk 

SLC-7 Operations). Risks are shown as low, moderate, and high (relative to each other). It is 

not necessary to address risks in terms of casualty expectancy. See Appendix C for a reprint of 

the Risk Assessment Summary. 

Comment No. 235: Assumptions on Population Densities 

• 

The methodology used in the Risk Assessment did not require the calculation of population 

densities for areas near VAFB. The methodology was based on calculating impact conditions 

at the area of concern and comparing those impact conditions to hazard criteria. For example, 

for the Particulate and Gas Dispersion Analyses (Risk Assessment, Chapter 4.0), doses were 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-167 

calculated for various events and downwind distances for areas such as Bixby Ranch. These 

doses were then compared to exposure limits to determine if limits were violated. No such 

limits were violated for areas outside of VAFB. See response to Comment No. 196. 

Comment No. 236: Launch Azimuths 

• 

Precise launch azimuths are mission-specific, so were not available at the time of preparation of 

the Draft and Final EIS. See response to Comment No. 201. 

Comment No. 237: Sonic Booms 

The potential impacts of sonic booms are addressed in Draft EIS Section 4.7, Noise. It is not 

necessary to duplicate this analysis in the Risk Assessment. 

Comment No. 238: Risk Assessment Version 

The Risk Assessment analyses were complete prior to the release of the Draft EIS, but 

publication was delayed until September 1989. See response to Comment No. 226. 

Comment No. 239: Risk Assessment Version 

The Risk Assessment dated September 1989 is the document on which the Draft EIS was 

based. As noted in response to Comment No. 238, the Risk Assessment analyses were 

complete prior to release of the Draft EIS, but publication was delayed until September 1989. 

See response to Comment No. 226. 

• 
[245] 

• 

NRO ASR ;111 

1 JUNE 2015 

LETTER 16 

VED FOR RELEASE 

WRITTEN STATEMENT 4-27,37 /96C7 

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

PROPOSED TITAN IV/CENTAUR SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 7 

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA 

R401 1. We agree that there are sites in this general area/vicinity. 

2. The Air Force Base has not authorized testing of the sites, nor, 

[241] 

has it chosen a site for this project. 

P4213 

Phase I is all that was conducted in this area. There was excavation 

done by the Core of Engineers, but not in any archaeological form. 

[243] 

1 

4. Some of these sites have burials, we do not know which sites have the 

burials because there has been no testing, and there is a need for 

this testing. 

[244]15. No Phase II was done in this area. 

You may suggesta time and place for a meeting with regard to the 

above issues at any time; however, lust give us prior nnfifirtiOn. 

Submitted by: The Tribal Elders Council 

M el ArmeTa, CZiairman, Tribal Elders Council 6 1 

David D. Dominguez rman, Santa Ynez Band of 

Mission Indians • 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-169 

RESPONSE TO LE1 IER 16 

Received From: Tribal Elders Council - Manuel Armenta, Chairman and David D. Dominguez, 

Chairman, Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians 

Comment No. 240: Presence of Cultural Resources 

Comment noted. Native American monitors were present during field inventories and site 

testing. 

Comment No. 241: Status of Site Testing 

• 

Draft EIS Section 1.5.2.4, Status of Proposed Action, indicates that a surface inventory for 

cultural resources has been completed for the proposed and alternative sites. Neither 

determinations of NRHP eligibility nor effects testing for sites identified in the inventory has 

occurred. The site chosen for development of the proposed action will be determined after 

review of the Final EIS and will be published in the ROD. Testing would be performed 

following the publication of the ROD. 

Comment No. 242: Status of Site Testing 

Limited subsurface testing for NRHP eligibility and effects has been performed for some areas 

associated with the proposed action, in support of geotechnical investigations undertaken by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Consultations with California SHPO regarding potential 

impacts to cultural resources resulted in "No Effects" opinions. 

Comment No. 243: Status of Site Testing 

The information generated during cultural resources inventories, described in Draft EIS Section 

3.9, Cultural Resources, does not support conclusions about either the presence or absence of 

burial sites within the cultural resources study area. Prior to site construction, subsurface 

testing for cultural resources and construction monitoring would be conducted as necessary, as 

described in Section 1.5.2.4, Status of Proposed Action. 
NRO2AMROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

1 Comment No. 244: Phase II 

Comment noted. 

Comment No. 245: Potential Cultural Resources Meeting 

Local Native Americans would participate in subsurface testing programs, consistent with the 

regulations described in Draft EIS Section 1.5.2.4, Status of the Proposed Action. 

Notification would be given prior to project-related meetings with Native American peoples. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE LETTER 17 

1 JUNE 2015 2-171 

• WRITTEN STATTEMENT 

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

PROPOSED TITAN IV/CENTAUR SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 7 

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA 

My statement about the proposed Titan IV Centaur launch site project 

centers around two subjects: 

[246] 

[247] 

1.Can the tremendous thrust of the Titan IV Centaur upon launch cause 

movement in the earthquake faults that are in the area? Will an earthquake and or liquifaction occur as a result of the seismic vibrations 

induced upon the earth surface? 

2.Will the U.S.Air Force be responsible for property damages caused by 

the launch pressures, sounds, and vibrations? With the increase in 

thrust of the Titan IV Centaur the potential for broken windows, 

cracked concrete, broken dishes and panic among people is increased 

also. • 

Submitted B : Maurice "Greg" Cooper 

805 N. Seventh st. 

Lompoc, Ca. 93436 

Please give to Air Force representative or mail to: HQ Space System 

Dlvision/DEV, Attention: Mr. John Edwards, Post Office Box 92960, 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960. Written staements must be received • no later than September 11, 1989. 
NRO f2PPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• RESPONSE TO LEIIER 17 

Received From: Maurice "Greg" Cooper - Lompoc, California 

Comment No. 246: Launch-Related Earthquakes 

• 

An earthquake is caused by the abrupt release of slowly-accumulated strain at depth on a fault 

system. Although the thrust of the Titan IV/Centaur seems to be tremendous, the vibrations 

caused by that thrust would be insufficient to cause fault rupture. Therefore, earthquakes 

would not be directly attributable to launch activity. 

Comment No. 247: Responsibility for Launch-related Property Damages 

The Risk Assessment performed for the proposed action (Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1989) 

analyzed the likelihood of property damages such as structural damage and window breakage 

and found the risks to be small for areas outside of VAFB. Persons experiencing property 

damage allegedly resulting from launch activities at VAFB may file claim against the United 

States in accordance with the Federal Tort Claims Act and AFR 112-1, Claims and Tort 

Litigation. 

• 
f 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE LETTER 18 

1 JUNE 2015 2-173 

(4011, c I fthiit.-E4vs Cr: 

Li990c 

VV (`c oyv 

v't6 

crylt, 411 

vte, tiA/ 

• 

0 ^.0.1 r,t, 

1Y l))1.1;t,-`17 IVILIS 

[248] 

ri 01/ 

/711 

2 i.i.1)-1)../ 

vow IJ AV" ii,L- /..1 1,i i )44 : , T vr (y

) 

11-/L-) /0 U-1/1,11Lz 

atiti i,LN, ii (1. 

• 
NROTAFFIROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• RESPONSE TO LEITER 18 

Received From: Nancy Flanders - Lompoc, California 

Comment No. 248: Desalinization Plant 

See response to Comment No. 83. 

• 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE LETTER 19 

2-175 

1 JUNE 2015 

[249] 

• 

WRITTEN STATEMENT 

U. S. Air Force Proposed Titan IV/Centaur Launch Complex 7 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California 

9/1/89 

Dear Sirs: I support the construction of this project. It will create 

new jobs both in its construction and in its operations. It is a progressive 

step in the "missile country" mission established for our nation at VAFB. The 

local economy is linked in both attitude and economically to the base's 

objectives. 

There was only one speaker at the public EIS hearing in Santa Barbara on 

August 31. I am not fully informed on the Chumash "Western Gate" concerns, but 

I believe they will be outweighed by national defense concerns. However, I believe 

that some sensitivity should be expressed in this area. One idea I've had would 

be to dedicate VAFB property south of SLC-7 as a "cultural" reserve. This 

dedication could serve the Air Force by establishing a buffer strip of land on 

the south base yet appease the native American concerns. Additionally, assistance 

in developing a local indian heritage center (at Jalama Beach??) could be a 

focal point for all archaeological fundings on the base. 

Submitted b 

Name: -wr: nce E. LileS, : iness Manager 

Address: a l Union 413, I.B.E.W., 415 Chapala Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 

Submit to: Attn Mr. John Edwards 

HQ SSD/DEV 

P. 0. Box 92960 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 • Comments must be received no later than Sept. 11. 1989 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JAP§015 • RESPONSE TO LE 1 I ER 19 

Received From: Lawrence E. Liles - Santa Barbara, California 

Comment No. 249: Mitigation Measures for Cultural Resources Impacts 

As noted in Draft EIS Section 4.9.4, Mitigation Measures, the mitigations for cultural 

resources impacts associated with the proposed action would be developed in consultation with 

the California State Office of Historic Preservation. They would be consistent with applicable 

laws and regulations, including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as 

amended, and the ACHP regulations for the Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 

800), which encourage participation by local governments, Native American tribes, and the 

public. Within this context, comments are particularly sought from the Elders Council of the 

Santa Ynez Reservation, the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, and other interested parties 

to ensure full discussion of cultural resources mitigation measures. In addition, it is 

recommended that a NRHP district be established on South VAFB be to provide a more 

comprehensive treatment of cultural resources in the area. Since cultural material from VAFB 

is curated at the University of California at Santa Barbara, the scientific community would also 

be involved in discussions regarding the development of a heritage center if it were to contain 

cultural materials. 

• 
4 Sincerelf yoUrs 

X 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE LETTER 20 

1 JUNE 2015 John J. Markon 

1532 West North Avenue 

Lompoc, California 93436 

October 3, 1989 

Mr. John Edwards, Air Force Space Systems 

P.O.Box 92960 WPC 

Los Angeles. Ca. 90009 

Dear Mr. Edwards: 

In a situation where Lompoc is on the verge of water 

rationing, the Air Force would further exacerbate the shortage 

with up to 700 additional acre feet expended annually, during 

SLC 7 construction. According to the draft EIR, the 1500 new 

construction workers and families would use over 300 acre feet 

annually. The construction site would use almost 400 acre feet 

more. 

Lompoc's problem is basically one of uncontrolled 

development, where the problems of water shortage, school crisis 

and traffic congestion are only mitigated after the fact. The 

reality being that the resultant mitiaation is only lip service 

and our town is now in trouble in all three of these areas. 

The time has come for any future development to solve the 

concomitant problems BEFORE and not after the fact. If the Air 

Force would desire acceptance by Lompoc residents of this 

extreme intrusion into our mutual water supply, let them first 

[250] do something to improve the water supply BEFORE any construction 

is started. 

Praise by local business is accorded the nine million 

dollar boost the construction would give the local economy. 

Residents, however, do not benefit and only suffer from the mess 

and the overstressing of Lompoc's resources. Is the greed for 

business and commercial profit worth the destruction of our good 

life style? As a resident who loves this valley, I say no. 

The Air Force has no need to cater to local business and 

should build only where it is appropriate and not a stress upon 

local resources. Failing to first find a way to solve our water 

problem, the Air Force should build instead in Florida, where 

12511 fortunately the water tables are better. SLC-7 in Lompoc would 

only further contribute to the environmental disasters caused by 

Lompoc's development. 

cc: Senator Cranston 

Congressman Lagomarsino 

Jt,hn J. arkon 

2-177 
NRO2W-AROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• RESPONSE TO LE I I ER 20 

Received From: John J. Markon - Lompoc, California 

Comment No. 250: Water Supply Improvement 

See response to Comment No. 83. 

Comment No. 251: Desirability of Florida as Titan IV/Centaur Launch Site 

As described in Draft EIS Section 2.2.2.1, Existing Government Sites, Cape Canaveral Air 

Force Station/Cape Kennedy was evaluated as an alternative to the proposed action (page 

2-36). This alternative was rejected since the Titan IV/Centaur cannot safely achieve near-polar 

orbits and satisfy mission objectives from this location. 

• 
- _AW_Sit-Lc__-Setide.41.3 CCIL dirk-raiLL--W-El4-- _ 014 5 

/ 

SIL 4_4.2 . a• 0.° / Or---/612dif 

• . AMP 

[252] 

tattA_4- c Cz4 "i— 

n N iarx.rytar__ 

(931134. 

Submitted By: 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE LETTER 21 

1 JUNE 2015 2-179 • WRITTEN STATTEMENT 

UNI thD STA 1ES AIR FORCE 

PROPOSED TITAN IV/CENTAUR SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 7 

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA 

z4r 

Please give to 

DIvision/DEV, 

Los Angeles, 

no later than 

Air Force representative or mail to: HQ Space System 

Attention: Mr. John Edwards, Post Office Box 92960, 

CA 90009-2960. Written staements must be received 

September 11, 1989. 
• 

NRO2WOROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• RESPONSE TO LE11ER 21 

Received From: Michael E. McClure - Lompoc, California 

Comment No. 252: Construction of Proposed Project 

Comment noted. 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE LETTER 22 

1 JUNE 2015 

Mr. J.C. Picciuolo 

4185 Vanguard Drive 

Lompoc, CA 93436 

2-181 

Department of the Air Force 

Headquarters Space Systems Divsion/DEV 

Attn: Mr. John Edwards 

Post Office Box 92960 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 

31 August 1989 

• 

Dear Sir: 

I request that the following be considered as part of 

the formal public comments on your Draft EIS for Space Launch 

Complex 7 at Vandenberg Air Force Base. 

I am concerned that the Draft EIS does not adequately 

address the impact on water resources in the region. 

Specifically, I have identified a possible misstatement in 

the draft which may require correction or clarification after 

appropriate research has been done by your staff. 

On page 3-22 of your Draft (Vol. I), where the Lompoc 

Terrace ground water basin is discussed under the section 

heading Ground Water, the following sentences appear: 

"These distinct boundaries keep the basin almost 

entirely within South VAFB" -and- "Presently, South 

VAFB is the only user of water from the basin." 

Your implication seems to be that water drawn from the 

Lompoc Terrace basin by VAFB does not affect other ground 

water resources in the area. A study dated 1963 is cited 

by you as the authority for this information. 

[253] 

I would like to draw your attention to a much more current 

study, The Tenth Annual Engineering Survey Report on Water 

Supply Conditions of the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation 

District 1987-1988, dated June 2, 1988, produced by Stetson 

Engineers Inc. Cn page 24 of this study, the following sentence 

appears: 

"The Lompoc Plain basin is in direct hydrological 

continuity with the Lompoc Upland and Lompoc Terrace 

basins." 

Your EIS should incorporate the most current information 

available. 

Sincerely, • 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE12015 • RESPONSE TO LE FIER 22 

Received From: J.C. Picciuolo - Lompoc, California 

Comment No. 253: Impacts to Lompoc Terrace Ground Water Basin 

The approximate physical boundary of the Lompoc Terrace aquifer (almost entirely within 

South VAFB) is shown to emphasize that VAFB is the only organization that directly 

withdraws water from the Lompoc Terrace aquifer. The Stetson report (Stetson 1988) does 

indicate that there is hydrological continuity between the Lompoc Plain Basin and the Lompoc 

Terrace Basin. In addition, it indicates that current test drilling being undertaken by the U.S. 

Geological Survey may "revise the present understanding of the subsurface geology" (Stetson 

1989). 

• 

Additional detail regarding the hydrologic relationship between the the Lompoc Plain, 

Lompoc Terrace, and Lompoc Upland aquifers is provided in a 1982 analysis by Earth 

Sciences Associates (Earth Sciences Associates 1982). This detailed analysis also indicates 

the hydrological continuity between the three aquifers. The report indicates that ground water 

gradients are toward the Lompoc Plain from both of the other aquifers. The Lompoc Terrace 

and Lompoc Uplands aquifers lose approximately 400 and 1,300 acre-feet per year, 

respectively, to the Lompoc Plain aquifer (Earth Sciences Associates 1982). It is anticipated 

that, with the relatively large storage capacity of the Lompoc Terrace aquifer (approximately 

60,000 acre-feet), and the relatively small draw-down (approximately 380 acre-feet per year for 

construction and approximately 260 acre-feet per year during operations), the hydrological 

continuity between the Lompoc Terrace aquifer and the Lompoc Plain aquifer would not be 

disturbed in the foreseeable future. As described in response to Comment No. 83, 

construction and operations demand for water would be reduced to the extent practicable by 

conservation practices and recycling. 

• 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 LETTER 23 2-183 

September 8, 1989 

• 

Gentlepeople: 

Please take SLC 6 out of mothballs, and do not do #7 -- I was 

[254] unable to attend the August 30 meeting in Lompoc -- #7 will 

cause too much air pollution from new autos for the people 

who will be hired for the work -- I believe I recall it will be 

a 4-year period. In addition, our enviornment cannot tolerate 

that much water loss for construction and operation. The land 

[255] will be even more violated than it is now. 

This is somthing that I really ao not believe we need to spend 

all that money on -- and where will it come from, with 

Mr. Bush's "read my lips" lines, and now his "drug war"? vi— 

t., 

[256] NO -- please -- go to SLC6, not 7. Thank you, 

HS. MPRY REPO 

610 EAST PINE PVE 31 

I 4=1- LOMPOC. CA 53436 

• 
NRO All*VOVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• RESPONSE TO LE ITER 23 

Received From: Mary Gaines Read 

Comment No. 254: Air Pollution from Automobile Emissions for Project Alternative Sites 

As discussed in Draft EIS Section 4.12.1, Regional Impacts, there are expected to be 150 

fewer employees during the construction phase for the conversion of SLC-6 than for the 

development of the Cypress Ridge, Vina Terrace, or Boathouse Flats sites. 

As stated in Draft EIS Section 4.5.2.2, SLC-6, the selection of the SLC-6 conversion would 

avoid most of the construction-related air quality impacts associated with the undeveloped 

sites, including some of the automobile emissions. 

Additional information for insertion into the Draft EIS regarding construction-related air 

quality impacts for construction at the alternative sites is provided in Section 3.2 of this Final 

EIS. • Comment No. 255: Ground Water Use 

See responses to Comment Nos. 83, 193 and 194. 

Comment No. 256: Selection of SLC-6 

See response to Comment No. 139. 

• 
-revealed that hazardous operations at the 

Cypress Ridge site would cause the shutdown and evacuation 

of SLC-6. The WSMC safety engineer present confirmed that 

certain operations at Cypress Ridge would "interdict" Si/C-6 

IP • 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE LETTER 24 1 JUNE 2015 2-185 

WRITTEN STATTEMENT 

UNI1 ED STA itS AIR FORCE 

PROPOSED TITAN IV/CENTAUR SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 7 

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA 

7 September 1989 

In a meeting at Vandenberg AFB on 23 August 1989, B. Gen. 

Honeywill was asked by a civilian range safety engineer if 

it was the Air Force's intent to "close the door" on SLC-6 

by its selection of Cypress Ridge as the SLC-7 site. The 

operations. 

• [2571 

The DEIS addresses the potential for closure of Jalama 

beach but does not identify the potential impact on 

If NASA intends to use SLC-6 for future Shuttle or Shuttle C 

operations, should not the EIS identify the impact the Cypress 

Ridge site would have on their operations and schedule? 

Submitted By: Donald D. Smith 

245-A Burton Mesa Blvd. 

Lompoc, California 93436 

• 

Please give to Air Force representative or mail to: HQ Space System 

Dlvision/DEV, Attention: Mr. John Edwards, Post Office Box 92960, 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960. Written staements must be received 

no later than September 11, 1989. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-186 • RESPONSE TO LEITER 24 

Received From: Donald D. Smith - Lompoc, California 

Comment No. 257: Potential Impacts to SLC-6 

There are no current plans for the utilization of SLC-6 for either the Space Shuttle or Shuttle C. 

If SLC-6 were to be utilized in the future and the proposed action constructed at one of the 

undeveloped sites, operations of SLC-6 would be coordinated with those at the other site, per 

USAF safety regulations. Since the use of SLC-6 for the Space Shuttle or Shuttle C is 

speculative at this time, it is not addressed in the Draft or Final EIS. See response to Comment 

No. 139. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • 

• 

2-187 

2.2 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 

The CEQ regulations require that diligent efforts be made to involve the public in preparing and 

implementing NEPA procedures (40 CFR Part 1506.6). These regulations require that a public 

hearing be held to solicit comment on the Draft EIS if there is substantial environmental 

controversy concerning the proposed action. In accordance with these requirements, public 

hearings were held at 7:00 p.m. on August 30 and 31 in the Grossman Gallery of the Lompoc 

Public Library, Lompoc, California, and in the Santa Barbara County Superintendent of Schools 

Auditorium in Santa Barbara, California. 

This section contains the transcripts of the public hearings as submitted by the Certified Shorthand 

Reporter. The comments contained in the public hearing transcripts are numbered consecutively, 

and the responses are keyed to those numbers. This section is structured so that the transcript for 

each hearing is followed by the comments made at that hearing and the responses to those 

comments. Where a comment warrants changes or additions to the text of the Draft EIS, it is so 

noted in the response, and the additional material is contained in Chapter 10 (Addenda and Errata 

to the Draft EIS) of the Final EIS. 

NUMBER OF COMMENTS COMMENTS MADE AT PUBLIC HEARINGS 

Local Agencies 

5 Lompoc Community Development Department, 

Jeremy Graves, Planner 

1 Vandenberg Village Community Services, Harold Grantz, 

President, Board of Directors 

Native American Organizations 

6 

7 

Elaine Schneider, Representative, Chumash Cultural 

Heritage Association, Santa Ynez Indian Reservation 

Reggie Pagaling, associated with the Chumash Cultural 

Heritage Association, Santa Ynez Indian Reservation 

Businesses/Organizations 

2 National Space Society, James Spellman, Jr. 

Individuals 

3 W. S. Mullins • 4 LeRoy Scolari 

NOTE: No comments at the public hearings were made by members of federal, state, or county 

agencies. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUr4E1M15 

so 

• 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-189 

• 

2.2.1 LOMPOC, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC HEARING 

2.2.1.1 Lompoc, California Public Hearing Transcript 
NRay"■MROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• 
PUBLIC HEARING 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

SYSTEMS COMMAND 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT FOR PROPOSED 

TITAN IV/CENTAUR SPACE 

LAUNCH COMPLEX 7 

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, 

CALIFORNIA 

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 

Wednesday, August 30, 1989 

7:00 P.M. 

Lompoc, California 

REPORTED BY: 

ELLEN Q. BRESSI 

CSR No. 7184 CER7771-7E3 

OR!CINAL 

Associales 

CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS - 

5450 TELEGRAPH ROAD, SUITE 100 • VENTURA, CA 93003 • (805) 658-2777 

2509 EAST THOUSAND OAKS BLVD., SUITE 464 • THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91362 • (805) 496-4044 

133 EAST DE LA GUERRA STREET, SUITE 420 • SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 • (805) 682.6636 

NO. 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-191 

ORIGINAL 
2-192 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

4111 1 PUBLIC HEARING 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

2 SYSTEMS COMMAND 

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1989 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR 

PROPOSED TITAN IV/CENTAUR SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 7 

10 VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 GROSSMAN GALLERY, LOMPOC PUBLIC LIBRARY 

501 EAST NORTH AVENUE 

19 LOMPOC, CALIFORNIA 

7:00 P.M. 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 REPORTER BY: 

ELLEN Q. BRESSI 

25 CSR. No. 7184 • 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-193 

• 

1 APPEARANCES: 

2 

3 COLONEL MIKE McSHANE, Military Trial 

Judge, designated as presiding officer by 

4 the Office of the Judge Advocate General in 

Washington 

5 

LIEUTENANT GENE BRANCH, Administrative 

6 officer 

7 COLONEL MIKE HAYNER, Western Space 

and Missile Center at Vandenberg Air Force 

8 Base; Space Launch Complex 7 Program Manager 

9 COLONEL BILL LEOHNARD, Design, 

construction and environmental anaylsis of 

10 Systems Command facilities and programs at 

Vandenberg Air Force Base 

11 

JOHN EDWARDS, Manager of the 

12 environmental analysis for Space Launch 

Complex 7 

13 

DAN EVANS, Environmental Solutions, 

14 Incorporated, Air Force contractor conducting 

the environmental analysis for Space Launch 

15 Complex 7 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 • 25 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO klAOVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • 1 PUBLIC SPEAKERS: 

2 HOWARD E. GRANTZ 

JAMES SPELLMAN, JR. 

3 W.S. MULLINS 

LEROY SCOLARI 

4 JEREMY GRAVES 

ELAINE M. SCHNEIDER 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

0 13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 • 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-195 

1 JUNE 2015 5 • 

1 LOMPOC, CALIFORNIA 

2 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1989 

3 7:05 P.M. 

4 -o0o5 

6 COL. McSHANE: Good evening, ladies and 

7 gentlemen. My name is Mike McShane. I'm a 

8 full-time Military Trial Judge for Air Force 

9 Courts Marshall. I've been designated by the 

10 office of the Judge Advocate General in Washington 

11 as Presiding Officer for tonight's public hearing 

41/1 

12 upon the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

13 I want to start out by advising you 

14 that the National Environmental Policy Act and 

15 Implementing Regulations require federal agencies to 

16 carefully analyze the potential environmental impacts 

17 of proposed actions, and to use those analyses in 

18 arriving at decisions or recommendations on whether 

19 and how to proceed with those actions. 

20 The Air Force has prepared and 

21 distributed, in accordance with applicable 

22 regulations, a Draft Environmental Impact statement 

23 addressing a proposal for the construction and 

24 operation of a Titan IV/Centaur Space Launch Complex 

25 in support of the Department of Defense Space 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-196 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 6 • 1 Program. That's what we're going to be talking about 

2 here tonight. 

3 I am not here as an expert on this 

4 proposal, nor have I had any connection with its 

5 development. I'm not here to act as legal advisor 

6 as to the Air Force Experts who will address this 

7 proposal. My purpose is simply to insure that we 

8 have a fair, orderly hearing, and that all who 

9 wish to be heard have a fair chance to speak. 

10 Let me just take a moment to explain 

11 how tonight's hearing will proceed. This isn't going 

12 to be a debate nor a referendum or vote upon the 

13 proposal itself. There will be no demonstrations, 

14 nor should you signify your agreement or disagreement 

15 with a speaker's position by applause or other 

16 expressions of approval or disapproval. That adds 

17 nothing to the hearing record and simply wastes your 

18 valuable time. In fact, this may be the only time 

19 available for your personal input to our government's 

20 decision making process. 

21 What this informal hearing is 

22 intended to provide is a public forum for two-way 

23 communications, with a view to improvement of the 

24 overall decision making process. You notice I 

25 said "two-way communications." Part 1 of that 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-197 

1 JUNE 2015 7 • 

• 

• 

1 calls for you to listen carefully to what the Air 

2 Force experts say as you are briefed on the 

3 proposal and its anticipated environmental 

4 consequences. 

5 After the briefing you'll be able 

6 to ask questions to clarify, in your minds, any 

7 points made in the briefing or in the Draft 

8 Environmental Impact statement. Part 2 of this 

9 process is for you to tell the Air Force experts 

10 what you think to give Air Force decision makers 

11 the benefit of your knowledge of the local area 

12 affected by the proposal and any environmental 

13 hazards you perceive. 

14 I'd like to emphasize that this is 

15 a proposal and nothing that's already been 

16 decided, approved or funded. Our hearing isn't 

17 for the purpose of justifying anything, but rather 

18 to identify and assess pertinent impacts, 

19 including your personal perspective of those 

20 impacts. 

21 If you have not already done so, 

22 please fill out one of the registration cards that 

23 we have back there. You may indicate on the 

24 registration card if you would like to ask a 

25 question or make a statement. 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-198 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 8 

• 

1 We'll have a recess later on, and 

2 after that recess we'll collect those cards and I 

3 will recognize members of the public for the 

4 purpose of putting a question to these Air Force 

5 experts that we have, or making a statement about 

6 the proposal. Don't be shy or hesitant to ask a 

7 question or make a statement. This is an informal 

8 hearing and there are no dumb questions. 

9 I want to help insure that all who 

10 wish to speak have a fair chance to be heard, so 

11 please help me enforce the following ground rules: 

12 

1110 13 

14 

15 

16 

First, only speak after I recognize 

you and please address your remarks to me. 

Second, speak slowly and clearly, 

starting out with your full name, your 

address and the capcity in which you 

17 appear. That is, as a public official 

18 a designated representative of a private 

19 association, or as a person speaking 

20 solely in his or her individual capacity. 

21 We have a court reporter here, 

22 Mrs. Ellen Bressi, and she has to make 

23 a verbatim record of these proceedings. 

24 So please speak slowly and clearly so 

25 she can do her job properly. 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-199 

1 JUNE 2015 9 • 

1 Third, if you have any questions 

2 for the panel, ask the questions one at 

3 a time. I will allow a reasonable number 

4 of questions. 

5 Fourth, as put out in the public 

6 notice, individuals will be allowed five 

7 minutes to speak, and those representing 

8 groups will be allowed 10 minutes to speak, 

9 and elected public officials will be 

10 allowed 10 minutes to speak. If there's 

11 time remaining, after everyone has had an 

410 12 13 

opportunity to speak, I can recall anybody 

who wishes to make additional comments. 

14 Fifth, honor any requests from 

15 me that you cease speaking. 

16 Sixth, do not speak while another 

17 person is speaking. Only one person will 

18 be recognized at a time. 

19 And finally, I'm sure that this 

20 is a no smoking area, so everyone will 

21 appreciate your cooperation with that 

22 rule. 

23 As we go along here, it is possible 

24 that there will be questions that these Air Force 

• 

25 representatives will be unable to answer. That could 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
• 

2-200 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 10 

1 occur for one or two reasons: First, although 

2 there's a good deal of expertise assembled here, they 

3 will not attempt to answer questions tonight unless 

4 they are confident they can do so accurately. And 

5 second, there may be questions that have national 

6 security implications and these must be reviewed 

7 further before answers are provided. If these should 

8 occur and the question is relevant, I can assure you 

9 it will be addressed in the final document and all of 

10 you may request copies of that final document., 

11 If we run out of time before 

12 everyone gets to speak, you are invited to fill 

13 out a written statement. I think those are 

14 available there in the back of the room. You will 

15 note that the statements can be submitted at any 

16 time prior to the 11 September 1989, by mailing 

17 them to the address which is listed on that 

18 written statement. 

19 Regardless of whether you put your 

20 statement on the record tonight or mail it in 

21 later, it will be carefully considered and made 

22 part of the record of these proceedings. It will 

23 have equal weight and will receive the same 

24 careful consideration, whether it's made during 

25 tonight's hearing or afterward. 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-201 

11 • 

• 

• 

1 I want to thank everybody who's 

2 turned out here tonight. Your presence is 

3 commendable in that it reflects a great interest 

4 in your community and in those things that are 

5 important to it. Let me assure you that your 

6 interest is the primary purpose for us being here. 

7 It's now my pleasure to introduce 

8 Colonel Leohnard who will brief tonight's 

9 proposal. 

10 COL. LEOHNARD: Thank you, Colonel McShane. 

11 As mentioned, I'm Bill Leohnard and 

12 I'm the Director of Acquisition Civil Engineering 

13 at Space Systems Division. My Directorate is 

14 responsible for the design, construction, and 

15 environmental analysis of Space Systems Command 

16 facilities and projects constructed at Vandenberg 

17 Air Force Base. And this includes the project for 

18 which we're here this evening, the proposed space 

19 Complex 7 for the Titan IV/Centaur space launch 

20 vehicle. 

21 Before I go any further, I'd like to 

22 introduce the rest of the people at the head table. 

23 First is Lieutenant Branch who's going to be acting 

24 as our administrative officer this evening. To his 

25 right is Colonel Mike Hayner who is with the Western 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-202 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

12 

• 

• 

• 

1 Space and Missile Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base 

2 and is the Space Launch Complex 7 Program Manager. 

3 To his right is Mr. John Edwards, a member of my 

4 staff and the manager of the environmental analysis 

5 for the Space Launch Complex 7. And to his right is 

6 Mr. Dan Evans, representing Environmental Solutions 

7 Incorporated, the Air Force contractor conducting the 

8 environmental analysis for this proposed contract. 

9 We will try to answer questions you 

10 may have about the Environmental Impact Analysis 

11 Process, the proposed action, or the Draft EIS, 

12 but if questions become too technical, we don't 

13 know the answers, or time is limited, let me 

14 assure you they will be addressed fully in our 

15 Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

16 (Slide Change.) 

17 COL. LEOHNARD: I will now explain the 

18 Environmental Impact Analysis Process and how it 

19 is conducted, and give you an overview of the 

20 propsed action and the general findings of that 

21 Draft EIS. 

22 The National Environmental Policy 

23 Acts, or NEPA, is implemented by the President's 

24 Council on Environmental Quality Regulations. 

25 NEPA requires that the federal agencies analyze 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-203 

1 JUNE 2015 13 • 

• 

• 

1 potential environmental impacts of a proposed 

2 project and carefully consider alternatives to 

3 the proposed project, including the no-action 

4 alternative. These analyses are then used to 

5 make decisions and recommendations on whether and 

6 how to proceed with the project. 

7 As shown on the screen, the 

8 Environmental Impact Analysis Process is started 

9 when the Air Force project proponent requests 

10 environmental impact analysis from Air Force 

11 environmental planners. The project proponents do 

12 this at an early stage in project planning to 

13 determine the extent of the environmental 

14 documentation needed, whether it be a Categorical 

15 Exclusion, Environmental Assessment or an 

16 Environmental Impact Statement. 

17 The regulations of the President's 

18 Council on Environmental Quality allow Categorical 

19 Exclusions for classes of action that do not 

20 individually or cumulatively affect the environment. 

21 Therefore, these actions require neither 

22 Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact 

23 Statement. 

24 Early in the analysis process, we 

25 determined that this space launch complex did not 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-204 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 14 

• 

• 

1 qualify for a Categorical Exclusion. 

2 The next step in the EIAP is to 

3 determine whether a project needs an Environmental 

4 Assessment or a more extensive Environmental 

5 Impact Statement. If it appears that the project 

6 will not have any significant impacts, the 

7 environmental planners will elect to proceed with 

8 an Environmental Assessment. 

9 In early 1988 when we were planning 

10 the proposed action, it was determined that due to 

11 the potential for significant impacts, we would 

12 proceed with an Environmental Impact Statement. 

13 The completion of this process then 

14 is the decision made by the Air Force about 

15 whether to proceed with the proposed action, a 

16 modification of the proposal, or to terminate the 

17 project completely. 

18 (Slide change.) 

19 COL. LEOHNARD: The first step in preparation 

20 of an EIS is to publish a Notice of Intent in the 

21 Federal Register and to make this notice available to 

22 newspapers and other media and interested parties 

23 within the area. The notice for the proposed SLC-7 

24 project was published in the Federal Register on 8 

25 April 1988. 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-205 

15 • 

• 

• 

1. The next step in the Environmental 

2 Impact Analysis Process is to hold a public 

3 meeting to obtain agency and public opinions on 

4 the issues that should be addressed within the 

5 Environmental Impact Statement. 

6 The purpose of that meeting is to 

7 identify significant issues and focus the scope of 

8 the EIS. The public meetings for the proposed 

9 SLC-7 project were held on 3 May 1988 in Lompoc, 

10 and 5 May 88 in Goleta. 

11 Issues were further identified in 

12 consultation with State, local and federal 

13 agencies, as well as internal Air Force review. 

14 (Slide Change.) 

15 COL. LEOHNARD: Based upon these scoping 

16 efforts, we began extensive data gathering and 

17 analytical efforts which culminated in the 

18 preparation of a Draft EIS. Over 270 copies of 

19 the Draft EIS were mailed on 19 July 1989 to all 

20 individuals and organizations who requested a 

21 copy. In addition, we made copies available to 

22 local libraries for public reading. 

23 The Draft EIS was filed with the 

24 Environmental Protection Agency on 21 July 1989. 

25 The Draft EIS notice of availability appeared in 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO AF21kOVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 16 • 

• 

• 

1 the Federal Register on 28 July 1989, and thus 

2 began the 45-day public comment period which will 

3 end on 11 September 1989. 

4 During the public comment period, two 

5 actions take place: The first is a public hearing 

6 which is held in order to receive comments on the 

7 draft document, and that's why we're here this 

8 evening. The second activity during the 45-day 

9 period is that written comments may be submitted to 

10 the Air Force by interested individuals and agencies. 

11 All comments that are received during the public 

12 hearing, either oral or written, and during the 

13 45-day comment period, are addressed in the Final 

14 Environmental Impact Statement. 

15 Once the Final EIS is prepared, 

16 copies are distributed in the same way as the 

17 draft document. The Final EIS is filed with the 

18 EPA, which publishes a notice of filing in the 

19 Federal Register. Once that notice appears, a 

20 30-day post filing waiting period starts before 

21 the record of decision can be made. All 

22 mitigation measures that are approved by the 

23 decision makers are required to be implemented. 

24 Once the decision has been made, it 

25 is reported and announced to the public. The 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-207 

1 JUNE 2015 17 

• 

• 

1 Final EIS and Record of Decision on this project 

2 will be published early next year. The Record of 

3 Decision will explain the conclusions reached by 

4 the Air Force, and the rationale for the selection 

5 and alternatives considered. 

6 (Slide change.) 

7 COL. LEOHNARD: After the potential issues 

8 associated with the proposed project are identified, 

9 the preparation of the draft EIS is initiated. 

10 Prior to the analysis of potential impacts, a 

11 description of the proposed actions and its 

12 alternatives is developed. In particular, the 

13 development and consideration of alternatives to the 

14 proposed action is important to the Environmental 

15 Impact Analysis process. 

16 (Slide change.) 

17 COL. LEOHNARD: In order to draw up a list 

18 of reasonable alternatives to the proposed 

19 project, the proponents select objectives that 

20 must be met by the potential alternatives. 

21 Next slide please. 

22 (Slide change.) 

23 COL. LEOHNARD: The objectives of this 

24 project are to: 

• 

25 Provide a space launch complex to 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-208 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 18 

• 1 

2 

3 

support launch vehicles that carry large 

payloads; 

To utilize an expendable launch 

4 vehicle; 

5 Provide the capability to achieve 

6 high altitude orbits; 

7 And last, to provide a location 

8 that can launch satellites safely into a 

9 polar orbit. 

10 (Slide change.) 

11 COL. LEOHNARD: Following the identification 

12 of the objectives, conceptual studies identified the 

13 components necessary to fulfill the objectives -- 

• 

14 the project objectives. These studies resulted in 

15 the formulation of the proposed actions and the 

16 development of alternatives. 

17 The following illustrations show 

18 the required project components as developed by 

19 the proposed actions. They would also apply to 

20 the alternates considered. 

21 (Slide change.) 

22 COL. LEOHNARD: The first of the major project 

23 elements is the Titan IV/Centaur Space launch vehicle 

24 itself. The vehicle is approximately 204 feet long 

25 and supports a payload fairing of 86 feet in length, 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-209 

19 • 

1 giving it the capacity for transporting large 

2 payloads. This the latest version of the Titan 

3 vehicle and is equipped with two upgraded solid 

4 rocket motors, a liquid fueled core vehicle, and a 

5 Centaur upper stage that allows it to put payloads in 

6 the 10,000-pound class into high earth orbit. 

7 (Slide change.) 

8 COL. LEOHNARD: This next overhead shows 

9 the artist's rendering of the configuration of the 

10 launch pad. Major elements present on the pad 

11 include the mobile service tower, the umbilical 

• 

12 tower, the launch mount and launch support 

13 structure, exhaust duct, the operation support 

14 building, propellent storage areas and maintenance 

15 structures. 

16 The timeline for construction of 

17 the proposed actions indicates that it would take 

18 at least four years to build; operations would 

19 begin in the year 5. Facility design and 

20 construction would involve planning for and 

21 undertaking site grading, road construction, 

22 utilities development, erection of the security 

23 fence and the operations support building, the 

24 launch support structure, as well as carrying out 

41/1 

25 site rehabilitation measures. 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-210 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 20 

• 1 Design and construction of ground 

2 support systems follow shortly after the facility 

3 construction begins. The ground support systems 

4 are the aerospace equipment which includes the 

5 mobile service tower, the launch mount, the 

6 umbilical tower and other support equipment. 

7 Beginning somewhere around the start of the fifth 

8 year the facility would be complete and launch 

9 preparations would begin. 

10 (Slide change.) 

11 COL. LEOHNARD: As with the construction of 

12 any space launch complex there are also numerous 

13 offsite facilities which are required to support 

14 launch operations. This overhead shows several of 

15 these: 

16 Launch assembly facility; 

17 Payload faring receipt and 

18 processing facility; 

19 The propellant storage area; 

20 The solid rocket motor receipt 

21 and processing building where the 

22 individual segments of the solid rocket 

23 motors would be inspected and 

24 pre-assembled prior to transport to the 

25 launch pad; • 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-211 

1 JUNE 2015 

21 

1 And the launch control center. 

2 Additional offsite facilities would 

3 include the utilities necessary to supply 

4 electrical power, communications, water, and other 

5 essential commodities to the launch site. 

6 (Slide change.) 

7 COL. LEOHNARD: Project operations are 

8 depicted in the next overhead. Operations would 

9 be conducted at a level to support two Titan IV 

10 launches per year, with the capability to surge to 

11 three launches per year. 

4110 12 13 

Launch operations include: 

The delivery, check-out and 

14 transportation to the pad with the solid 

15 rocket motors; 

16 Delivery and erection of the core 

17 vehicle; 

18 Mating and check-out of the 

19 various segments of the vehicle; 

20 Erection of the Centaur upper 

21 stage; 

22 Insertion of the payload; 

23 Installation of the payload 

24 faring; 

• 

25 Vehicle fueling; 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-212 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 22 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 1 And finally, vehicle launch. 

2 Post-launch, operations include 

3 cleaning the pad and refurbishing it in time to 

4 support the next scheduled launch. 

5 (Slide change.) 

6 COL. LEOHNARD: As required by NEPA, the 

7 Air Force has developed and analyzed a number of 

8 alternatives that could achieve the desired 

9 mission objectives. The purpose of this exercise 

10 is to make certain that the proposed action is not 

11 selected without due and deliberate consideration 

12 of other methods that may be available to achieve 

• 13 the same goals. 

14 (Slide change.) 

15 COL. LEOHNARD: The range of alternatives 

16 analyzed include the "no-action" alternative, 

17 different launch vehicles, launch locations 

18 outside of Vandenberg, and existing the undeveloped 

19 launch site on Vandenberg. Some alternatives were 

20 considered and eliminated since they could not 

21 reasonably achieve the goals of the proposed action 

22 or because they would result in equal or greater 

23 environmental impacts. 

24 If the "no-decision" alternative 

25 were to be pursued, the SLC-7 project would not be • 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-213 

1 JUNE 20'15 23 

1 developed, and the Titan IV/Centaur could not be 

2 launched from Vandenberg. It is has been 

3 determined that this would unacceptably impact 

4 national security. Current defense programs rely 

5 on our future ability to launch heavy payloads 

6 into near polar orbits. Since there are no other 

7 space launch vehicles available to meet the 

8 mission requirements, there would be no 

9 displacement effect to result in environmental 

10 impacts elsewhere. 

11 (Slide change.) 

41/1 

12 COL. LEOHNARD: Other launch vehicles were 

13 considered. These included the Space Transportation 

14 System, or a space shuttle, and the Titan IV NUS, 

15 that is, "No Upper Stage." 

16 (Slide change.) 

17 COL. LEOHNARD: The space shuttle is a 

18 reasonable alternative since it's capacity is 

19 roughly equipped with Titan IV/Centaur; however, 

20 use of the space shuttle was eliminated from 

21 further consideration since it is not available 

22 for launches from Vandenberg, and since launches 

23 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida 

24 cannot safely provide the required polar orbits. 

41/1 

25 Titan IV, without the upper stage, 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-214 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

24 

• 

• 

1 was considered since it represents the Air Force's 

2 largest capacity launch vehicle currently in use. 

3 This alternative was eliminated, however, since 

4 the Titan IV, without the upper stage, cannot 

5 achieve the required high earth orbit combined 

6 with capacity requirements. 

7 (Slide change.) 

8 COL. LEOHNARD: Alternative launch 

9 locations outside of Vandenberg were considered 

10 for use by Air Force to launch the Titan IV. 

11 Next slide. 

12 (Slide change. ) 

13 COL. LEOHNARD: Facilities are available to 

14 launch the Titan IV/Centaur from Cape Canaveral; 

15 however, this alternative was eliminated from 

16 further consideration since near polar orbits 

17 cannot be achieved given the large payload 

18 requirements. 

19 The U.S. Department of the Navy 

20 maintains a missile test range on San Clemente 

21 Island, off the coast of Southern California. Use 

22 of this range would allow for attainment of near 

23 polar orbits. However, the launch support 

24 facilities shown earlier are lacking at this site. 

25 Development of the launch site itself and the 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-215 

1 JUNE 2015 

25 • 

1 necessary facilities including power, sewer, water 

2 supply, communications and vehicle processing and 

3 preparation facilities would be costly and would 

4 result in comparable or greater environmental 

5 impacts. 

6 The State of Hawaii was evaluated 

7 for its capacity to support the space vehicle 

8 launch activities. Hawaii also was eliminated 

9 from further consideration as an alternative site, 

10 because the environmental impact would be greater 

11 than those of the options being considered at 

12 Vandenberg Air Force Base. 

13 The proposed action could be 

14 accommodated on other islands in the South Pacific 

15 that would allow for polar orbit to be achieved; 

16 however, the necessary support facilities including 

17 such items as labor force are scarce commodities on 

18 these islands. In addition, an entirely new launch 

19 support system would be required, including launch 

20 control center, telemetry and tracking facilities, 

21 propellant storage and vehicle component processing 

22 facilities. 

23 It is anticipated that the 

24 environmental impacts from development of a Titan 

41/1 

25 IV/Centaur launch facility in the South Pacific 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 

• 
2-216 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 26 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• 

1 would be similar to or greater than those incurred 

2 at Vandenberg Air Force Base due to the additional 

3 construction and the remote nature of the 

4 locations. Therefore, this alternative was 

5 eliminated from further consideration. 

6 (Slide change.) 

7 COL. LEOHNARD: With the obvious advantages 

8 of existing launch support facilities and the 

9 general capability of attaining near polar orbits, 

10 sites on Vandenberg were identified as reasonable 

11 alternatives to the proposed action. Sites 

12 identified include some considered and eliminated 

13 from further analysis and some considered in 

14 detail. 

15 (Slide change.) 

16 COL. LEOHNARD: Sites considered and 

17 eliminated from further analysis including 

18 existing launch complexes SLC-2, -3, -4, and -5. 

19 SLC-2 is a small pad, currently 

20 used by the Delta Rocket Program. It's use would 

21 require complete razing and reconstruction to meet 

22 the Titan IV/Centaur requirements. In addition, 

23 due to its location, SLC-2 cannot safely support 

24 near polar orbits with the necessary payload 

25 capacity. 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-217 

1 JUNE 2015 27 • 

1 SLC-3 East and West are currently 

2 being used to launch Atlas vehicles. Like SLC-2, 

3 utilizing SLC-3 would require razing the existing 

4 facilities and building new ones, since existing 

5 facilities are too small to support the Titan 

6 IV/Centaur. In addition, SLC-3 is closer to 

7 Lompoc than the proposed site, and would result in 

8 higher levels of noise in that community. 

9 SLC-4 East is currently being 

10 refurbished to accommodate the Titan IV/No Upper 

11 Stage vehicle, and SLC-4 West is an operational 

12 Titan II facility. These launch complexes will be 

13 fully utilized by the existing programs and not 

14 available for other use. 

15 (Slide change.) 

16 COL. LEOHNARD: From the suite of alternatives 

17 considered, those mentioned previously have been 

18 eliminated from further consideration as not feasible 

19 in support of the project requirements, or since 

20 environmental impacts would be equal to or greater 

21 than the proposed actions. This analytical process 

22 has resulted in a number of alternatives that were 

23 considered in more detail. 

24 (Slide change.) 

ID 25 COL. LEOHNARD: The alternatives considered 

• 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-218 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

1 in detail are all located on South Vandenberg al 

2 include the proposed Cypress Ridge site -- 

3 (Slide change.) 

4 COL. LEOHNARD: SLC-6 -- 

5 (Slide change.) 

6 COL. LEOHNARD: -- the Vina Terrace 

7 alternative site. 

8 (Slide change.) 

9 COL. LEOHNARD: All are located -- and the 

10 Boathouse site. I got those two backwards. 

11 All are located so that the near 

12 polar launches can be safely achieved and existin 

13 offsite facilities and support utilities at 

14 Vandenberg can be utilized. 

15 Next one. 

16 (Slide change.) 

17 COL. LEOHNARD: The proposed Cypress Ridge 

18 site is currently undeveloped and is being 

19 utilized for cattle grazing. The site occupies 

20 approximately 120 acres of gently sloping marine 

21 terrace, approximately one-half mile from the 

22 ocean. 

23 (Slide change.) 

24 COL. LEOHNARD: The SLC-6 alternative site 

25 is very different from the others considered in • 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-219 

29 

1 detail, since it is a developed space launch 

2 complex today. The SLC-6 complex was originally 

3 built in 1970 for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory 

4 program. When constructed, SLC-6 was configured 

5 to launch Titan III vehicles. Subsequent to the 

6 cancellation of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory 

7 program, SLC-6 was modified to support the space 

8 shuttle launches.' However, primarily due to the 

9 1986 Challenger disaster, we have not used SLC-6 

10 for shuttle launches. 

11 SLC-6 site is approximately 100 

12 acres in size, located on the westerly sloping 

13 terrace, approximately one mile from the ocean. 

14 Since it is a developed site, there is very little 

15 vegetation present. 

16 Next slide. 

17 (Slide change.) 

18 COL. LEOHNARD: The Boathouse Flats 

19 alternative site, like the proposed Cypress Ridge 

20 site, is an undeveloped area approximately 130 

21 acres in size. The Boathouse Flats site, however, 

22 is primarily grassland and is much closer to the 

23 ocean than the Cypress Ridge site. 

24 (Slide change.) 

410 25 COL. LEOHNARD: The Vina Terrace alternative 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 

• 
2-220 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 30 • 

• 

• 

1 site is also undeveloped and slightly larger than the 

2 previous two sites, approximately 150 acres. This 

3 additional size is necessary, since the Vina Terrace 

4 area is the steepest in topography of the 

5 alternatives. This area is vegetated with a mix of 

6 grasses and coastal shrub, and at approximately 

7 one-and-one-half miles, it is the furthest from the 

8 ocean. 

9 Next one. 

10 (Slide change.) 

11 COL. LEOHNARD: After three alternatives 

12 to be addressed in detail were identified, the 

13 potential environmental impacts from the proposed 

14 action and alternatives were analyzed for the 

15 inclusion in the Draft EIS. This process began 

16 with the efforts to characterize the existing 

17 environment based upon the issues identified 

18 during our scoping process. 

19 (Slide change.) 

20 COL. LEOHNARD: As you can see, a wide variety 

21 of the data was gathered to address the potential 

22 impact. Intensive surveys of vegetation, wildlife 

23 and cultural resources were undertaken by the 

24 environmental contractor to support the analysis 

25 process. 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-221 

31 

• 

• 

1 Information to characterize the 

2 remaining resources was generated through empirical 

3 observations, reviews of the existing literature and 

4 consultation with government agencies. 

5 (Slide change.) 

6 COL. LEOHNARD: After data that described the 

7 existing environment are gathered, the potential 

8 environmental impacts were determined through 

9 extensive analytical activities performed by the 

10 environmental subcontractor. Mitigation measures to 

11 abate potential impacts were developed next. The 

12 final step in the environmental evaluation of the 

13 proposed action was them to reevaluate impacts with 

14 the mitigation measures included. 

15 (Slide change.) 

16 COL. LEOHNARD: This illustration is an 

17 overview of the most important potential 

18 environmental impacts that would result from the 

19 construction phase or proposed action. 

20 You will note that most of the 

21 impacts that would result from the project 

22 construction, such as those to the geology and the 

23 soils, vegetation, wildlife and cultural resources 

24 would result from the activities, such as earth 

25 moving in the development site itself. 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-222 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

32 

• 

1 Impacts to water resources and 

2 economic benefits would result from the temporary 

3 presence of construction personnel in the local 

4 communities. 

5 (Slide change.) 

6 COL. LEOHNARD: This next illustration is 

7 an overview of the most important potential 

8 impacts that would result from the operations 

9 phase. Impacts to health and safety, vegetation, 

10 and wildlife are expected to be concentrated in 

11 the vicinity of the launch pad itself. 

12 Potential impacts to water 

13 resources, socioeconomics, air quality, noise 

14 levels and recreation are expected to occur in 

15 areas surrounding Vandenberg. 

16 That concludes my briefing. 

17 I guess after a short recess we 

18 will entertain questions and comments. 

19 COL. McSHANE: Thank you, Colonel 

20 Leohnard. 

21 Let me go over the procedures again 

22 for the benefit of some who may have come in after 

23 we got started. 

24 You were invited to fill out a 

• 25 registration card when you came in. If you have 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-223 

1 JUNE 2015 33 

• 

not done that, please do so while we're taking a 

• 

2 break. 

3 Regarding the- making of a statement 

4 tonight, elected public officials will be called upon 

5 first for their statements, then representatives of 

6 organizations. Those persons will have 10 minutes to 

7 speak, if they desire to use that long. Individual's 

8 statements should be limited to five minutes so that 

9 all interested parties have an opportunity to speak. 

10 If you do not wish to make a public 

11 statement, or if we run out of time before you have 

12 an opportunity to speak, or if you have additional 

13 comments beyond those you are able to make within 

14 your allotted time, you may turn in your written 

15 comments after the meeting or send them to the 

16 address provided on the comment statement that they 

17 have back there. 

18 I recognize that some people may wish 

19 to make statements on defense policy, nuclear 

20 weapons, arms control and fiscal policy at this 

21 meeting; however, such comments are best directed to 

22 policy makers such as your congressman and senators. 

23 Please limit your comments to environmental issues. 

24 We'll take a 10-minute recess. 

410 25 Please try and be back here by about 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-224 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 34 

1 JUNE 2015 • 1 7:43. 

2 (Brief recess.) 

3 COL. McSHANE: If everyone would please 

• 

• 

4 have a seat, we'll get started again. 

5 This is the time when you'll be 

6 able to make your statements about the Draft 

7 Environmental Impact Statement and also ask any 

8 questions that you might have about it. 

9 Our procedure will be that once I call 

10 on you, please step up here to the microphone. We 

11 want everybody to be able hear your question and your 

12 statement, and we want our court reporter to be able 

13 to record it. 

14 Please state your name and your 

15 affiliation, or your address, and then ask your 

16 question or make your statement. If you read from 

17 a prepared statement which you want entered into 

18 the record, please leave it with me and we'll see 

19 that it gets attached to the record. 

20 Now, in sorting through the cards I 

21 found that only three people indicated that they 

22 wanted to make a statement. If that was just an 

23 error in marking the card, please let us know, 

24 because it looks like we're going to have plenty 

25 of time for people to make statements here. 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-225 

1 JUNE 2015 35 • 

• 

1 Start out with Mr. Howard Grantz. 

2 MR. GRANTZ: Thank you. 

3 My name is Howard Grantz. I live 

4 at 367 St. Andrews Way in Vandenberg Village. I'm 

5 here as a President of the Vandenberg Village 

6 Community Services District. I have a prepared 

7 statement for the secretary and for the press. 

8 Our primarily concern, as a 

9 services district, is that for water. Water is 

10 perhaps the most critical environmental issue in 

11 this part of California. This EIR describes the 

12 consequence of a project, the consequence of the 

13 water, as being a consumption of 176 acre feet per 

14 year and that's a consequence. It does not 

15 discuss the impact upon our environment, the 

16 impact upon the local aquifer for which the water 

17 is extracted. This is called the "Lompoc Plain 

18 Aquifer." 

19 This aquifer is overdrafted now and 

20 has been by almost 8,000 acre feet in the last six 

21 years. In addition to that, we are committed as a 

22 city here, to provide water for the WYE at 500 

23 acre feet per year, Allan Hancock Campus, the 

24 Spaceport Museum, and several hundred houses being 

25 built. Now, on top of that, we'll have a demand 

[258] 

[259] 

• 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-226 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 36 • 

• 

[260] 

1 then for this water for this project. And there's 

2 a question in my mind as to whether or not we'll 

3 have enough water to provide for the needs of this 

4 program. 

5 Therefore, the point we're making is 

6 that this EIR, which treats water very lightly, 

7 should be expanded to cover much more detail, the 

8 impact upon the Lompoc Plain Aquifer. As a 

9 consequence of that, as that aquifer is overdrafted, 

10 it draws water from our aquifer and the Uplands 

11 Aquifer. And therefore then, there are two aquifers 

12 that are affected: The one here in which Lompoc gets 

13 its water and the one in the Uplands. 

14 Another point of interest, the amount 

[261] 

15 of water being consumed -- or will be consumed, goes 

16 beyond the County's threshold of significance, which 

17 should be remembered. Therefore, we believe - we as 

18 a community services district - that this EIR should 

19 be expanded to discuss and define the specific 

20 impacts and their mitigation on both the Lompoc Plain 

21 Aquifer and the Uplands Aquifer due to this project. 

22 The increased overdraft in the Lompoc 

23 Plain aquifer results in additional water being 

24 drained from our Uplands aquifer. For specific 

25 details on the water consumption, the mitigation • 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-227 

37 • 

[262] 

• 

• 

1 factors and details of our aquifer, I refer you to a 

2 report done by the Stetson Engineers which is 

3 referenced in this document. 

4 The section of the EIR that related 

5 to water, should be rewritten and expanded to fill 

6 these parts I just mentioned because the 

7 environmental impact on our aquifers concern all 

8 people here in the Valley. 

9 Thank you very much. 

10 COL. McSHANE: Thank you, sir. 

11 Colonel Leohnard, did you want to 

12 comment on that at this time or reserve that for 

13 the final report? 

14 COL. LEOHNARD: We'll reserve that for the 

15 final report. 

16 COL. McSHANE: All right. 

17 Next speaker is James Spellman, Jr. 

18 MR. SPELLMAN: Good evening, Colonel, Members 

19 of the staff, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Jim 

20 Spellman. My current address is 416 West North 

21 Avenue. I'm here as a representative of the National 

22 Space Society which is a private nonprofit public 

23 information organization; however, when it comes to 

24 tonight, I choose to elect to speak more as an 

25 individual and not as representative of an 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-228 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

38 

• 

• 

t 

1 organization. And I hope to keep to the five-minute 

2 limit. 

3 You would think that with the 

4 organization that I belong to, we would obviously 

5 want to support seeing the Space Launch Complex 7 

6 being built; however, in this person's opinion that 

7 is not necessarily the case. We do feel that the 

8 Titan IV is a necessary vehicle for the short access 

9 into space; however, we do question the need for the 

10 construction of SLC-7 out here in this area. 

11 What I have here, and I'm afraid my 

12 graphs are not as great as yours, but I have a 

13 listing here of the Titan family which is a 

14 following series from the original Titan 1 that 

15 was being built in the 1950s, to the current Titan 

16 IV. As you will notice, there is a little bit of 

17 a commonality in the launch vehicle, particularly 

18 in the first stage. 

19 Currently we have two launch pads, 

20 SLC-4 East and SLC-4 West. Now, the east pad has 

21 been modified to handle the Titan IV with No Upper 

22 Stage. And the SLC-4 West pad is currently being 

23 used for the Titan II operations, which I might 

24 add, it has been done at a considerable savings to 

25 the tax payers. The Titan II was originally a 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-229 

1 JUNE 2015 39 • 

[263] • 

• 

1 weapons system, and I believe there was somewhere 

2 between 50 and 100 of those vehicles deployed 

3 throughout the United States. They have now been 

4 modified and converted into space launch vehicles 

5 which, as I said, is considerable savings to the 

6 public. 

7 However, there is a finite set of 

8 those Titan Its that have been constructed for or 

9 reconfigured for space launch vehicles. My 

10 question is: Why do we not reconfigure the launch 

11 pad as SLC-4 West to handle, at the present time, 

12 both Titan II as well as the Titan IV with the 

13 universal launch mount? 

14 There has also been some talk about 

15 the Titan II being upgraded with solid rocket 

16 boosters which would essentially make it look very 

17 much like a shorter version of the Titan IV/Centaur. 

18 Some other considerations that were 

19 made tonight was the inclusion of SLC-6 as a 

20 possibility of modifying for Titan IV/Centaur use, 

21 and there was also some consideration that using the 

22 space shuttle vehicle at SLC-6, but that was ruled 

23 out. 

24 However, nothing has been stated 

25 tonight about the Shuttle C, which is an unmanned 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
• 

2-230 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

40 

1 version of the space shuttle, which is capable of 

2 taking about a 100,000 pound payload into orbit 

3 which is twice the capacity of Titan IV. 

4 And once again, I apologize for the 

5 size of my graphics, but as you'll notice, Shuttle 

6 C is not very much different than the shuttle. 

7 The orbiter has been replaced with an unmanned 

canister. I would think that another alternative 

9 would be to consider using the Shuttle C, which 

10 can be brought on line by 1994, at least one or 

11 two years earlier than Titan IV/Centaur, and 

[2641 

12 capable of taking a greater payload. That would 

13 also leave the option open, in the future, for 

14 using the regular shuttle out here because of the 

15 launch commonality between the two systems. 

16 Thank you very much. 

17 COL. McSHANE: Thank you. 

18 W.S. Mullins. 

19 MR. MULLINS: Bill Mullins, 1204 North 

20 Orchid. 

21 Two issues I'd like to see addressed 

22 in the EIR: One, is an in depth study of the water; 

23 and the other is the socioeconomic development of 

24 the shuttle -- 

25 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse me. We • 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-231 

• 1 JUNE 2015 41 

1 cannot hear you in the back. 

2 THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. 

3 The two issues I'd like to see 

4 addressed in the EIR: One, is the in depth look 

5 at the water as to how it can be mitigated; and 

6 the other is socioeconomics of the facilities for 

7 :the SLC-7 pertaining to domestic versus foreign 

8 products. 

9 I'd like to see that addressed 

10 somewhat in the EIR. 

11 Thank you. 

41/0 

12 COL. McSHANE: Thank you. 

13 LeRoy Scolari. 

14 MR. SCOLARI: LeRoy Scolari, 423 North "G" 

15 Street. I'm a local rancher in the area 

16 immediately east of the proposed construction 

17 site. 

18 In going through the document, I find 

19 very little reference in regards to land use and 

20 other impacts in that area. I find considerable 

21 treatment of the area generally south and east in the 

22 Palama Beach area, Bixby Ranch, but very little for 

23 those lands that are primarily east of the launch 

24 site itself, east and somewhat south. In other 

25 words, the immediate boundaries to the south of South 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 

[265] 

[266] 

• 
2-232 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

42 

• 

• 

[267] 

• 

1 Vandenberg on the inland side. 

2 Can anyone -- if anyone can direct 

3 me as to how that's been treated, I'd appreciate 

4 it. But if it hasn't been treated, I'd like to 

5 ask that it be treated. 

6 COL. McSHANE: Colonel Leohnard, do you 

7 have someone who can talk about that tonight? 

8 COL. LEOHNARD: Well, no. We'll look it 

9 up. 

10 MR. EDWARDS: Give us a minute. 

11 COL. LEOHNARD: We looked at it in terms of 

12 its impact on the project and our project's impact 

13 on the area, and found no significant impacts one 

14 way or the other. 

15 We have our consistency plan which 

16 also addresses that before the Coastal Commission 

17 now, but we'd be willing and glad to go back and 

18 take another look to make sure we haven't missed 

19 anything. 

20 MR. SCOLARI: I might say that the area 

21 concerned is not within the coastal zone. It's on 

22 the -- over the hill side from it. 

23 COL. LEOHNARD: Okay. If at the end, if you 

24 could come up and show us on your map precisely what 

25 you're talking about, it would help us a lot. 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-233 

1 JUNE 2015 43 • 

1 COL. McSHANE: Thank you. 

2 Next speaker is Jeremy Graves. 

3 MR. GRAVES: My name is Jeremy Graves. I'm 

4 an associate planner with the Lompoc Community 

5 Development Department. 

6 We appreciate the Air Force holding 

7 hearings in Lompoc, both at this time and May of 

8 '88, as well as tonight. We appreciate the review 

9 period you've provided with the public. 

10 As you can see, this is an issue of 

11 great interest to the Lompoc Community. The City 

12 of Lompoc is not providing a prepared written 

13 statement tonight, but we will be providing a 

[268] 14 written statement prior to the conclusion of your 

15 review period. 

16 Thank you once again for holding 

17 the public hearing tonight. 

18 COL. McSHANE: Thank you. 

19 That's all the cards that I have 

20 that show that people wanted to speak. Is there 

21 anyone else who desires to speak? 

22 Okay. We got one. 

23 Elaine Schneider. 

24 MS. SCHNEIDER: My name is Elaine Schneider. 

25 I'm a representative from the Chumash Cultural 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 

• 

• 
2-234 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

44 

• 1 Heritage Association, affiliated with the Santa Ynez 

2 Indian Reservation. I am a member of the Santa Ynez 

3 Indian Reservation. What I'd like to address is the 

4 cultural resource issue that's going to be impacted 

5 by these projects. 

6 We've worked with Vandenberg for a 

7 very long time, for over 10 years now, and the 

8 impacts every time have been to Native American 

9 sites almost. This time this project will cause a 

10 destruction of -- in these three different areas, 

11 will cause a major destruction of Native American 

12 sites. 

13 Cypress Ridge site, the Boathouse 

14 site, which has already been scraped once, has 

15 lost cultural heritage material. The other site, 

16 they say is a lot of vegetation on it, when we 

17 looked through it there was nothing -- it was not 

18 really visible. But the Cypress Ridge site which 

19 is next to SLC-6, contains everything including 

20 what we call, "The Gateway to the West," which is 

21 our buriel grounds. 

22 We, of the Indian community, are 

23 very upset at the possibility of not using SLC-6 

24 since it's already been taken apart, put back 

25 together again three or four times. Why can't it 

[269] 

• 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-235 

1 JUNE 2015 45 • 

1 be used? Why can't the government money be spent 

2 to upgrade that site for this project? Why does 

3 another Native American site have to be destroyed? 

4 We have said a lot. Maybe not in 

5 public, but through the official program or 

6 process of what we've tried to do. We've been 

7 there, we watched it be destroyed, and we're there 

8 again, and we're waiting to see if it's going to 

9 be destroyed again. How much more does the Native 

10 American community and the Chumash nation and its 

11 people have to take, before somebody listens to 

12 our side? 

13 I am asking that the Cypress Ridge 

14 site not be touched again. It may not -- it may 

15 not mean anything to you, but it is our buriel 

16 sites that are destroyed. There is not enough 

17 information in there to tell you our side of it. 

18 We need to project our image. Our rights have to 

19 be protected somewhere. That's what we're asking 

20 for. That's why I'm here at this meeting. I want 

21 to see that SLC-6 be upgraded to handle this 

22 project, and the destruction of the other sites be 

23 preserved -- I don't mean "destruction," I mean 

24 that the area be preserved. 

41/1 

25 I am not a very good speaker and I 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
• 

• 

2-236 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

46 

1 apologize for this nervousness, but I do want to 

2 stress that we are the first people of this area, 

3 we want to see it preserved for our children. You 

4 should see what is out there. We have sites. We 

5 have people that can give you verbal history of 

6 out there. 

7 One of the sites in the area -- or 

8 the Cypress Ridge site and the Boathouse area and 

9 the other sites are near enough to Nocito. That's 

10 13 feet of midden. That's over 10,000 years of 

11 living that could be possibly impacted by these 

12 sites being by this project being built out 

13 there. 

14 It's only a dirt road right now, 

15 but if this project proceeds, it will become a 

16 paved road. The paved road causes buildings. It 

17 causes access. It let's people park there. It 

18 let's raiders in. It causes destruction. 

19 SLC-6, we watched it, the site 

20 being taken apart, the information taken out for 

21 Indians for you, and paperwork for somebody to 

22 read. It's in the history. It's in the museum. 

23 It hasn't even been catalogued for you to see 

24 what's been taken out of there. No reports have 

25 been written on it yet. And yet here comes this 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-237 

1 JUNE 2015 47 

new project, SLC-7, to do damage a mile down the 

road, just about. 

You can see SLC-6 from Cypress 

Ridge. Cypress Ridge is going to have to have a 

water line to SLC-7. SLC-7 means you're going to 

5 

6 go down a ridge, across a little valley, build a 

road that you put in there. They took a whole 

road out, now you're talking about building 

another road for SLC-7. 

I'm skipping around, but these are 

things that happened on sites which are visible, 

which we saw happen. We saw destruction. We saw 

preservation also. I'm not saying it's all been 

bad, but I'm saying that the possibility of 

building SLC-7 in the Cypress Ridge area will 

cause a major loss of our heritage, because the 

impacts would be to what we call "Our Gate to the 

World Beyond." 

Thank you. 

COL. McSHANE: Thank you. 

Anyone else desire to speak 

tonight? Anyone else have a question for any of 

the panel members? 

We will conclude the proceedings in a 

41/0 25 couple minutes. Please remember that you have until 

1 

2 

3 

4 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

• 

12 

13 

14 

15 

[270] 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-238 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

48 

I • 

1 11 September 1989, to submit written materials to be 

2 included in the transcript of the hearings. And 

3 those written statements will be fully considered and 

4 addressed in the Final Environmental Impact 

5 Statement. Once again the oral and the written 

6 statements and comments will be afforded equal wait. 

7 Officials of the Air Force appreciate 

8 your efforts to come out tonight and contribute your 

9 views to this public hearing. We thank you for your 

10 courteous attention. Please be assured that the Air 

11 Force decision makers will carefully consider each 

12 viewpoint raised here tonight when deciding the 

13 ultimate course of action on this proposal. 

14 Thank you. 

15 This public hearing is adjourned at 

16 8:06 p.m. 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 • 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-239 

49 • 

• 

1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

ss. 

2 COUNTY OF VENTURA 

3 

4 I, ELLEN Q. BRESSI, CSR No. 7184, do hereby 

5 certify: 

6 

7 THAT the above-referenced hearing was 

8 taken at the time and place therein named and was 

9 thereafter reduced into typewritten form by 

10 computer-assisted transcription; 

11 

12 THAT the foregoing pages numbered 5 through 

13 48 consist of a full, true, and correct 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

transcription of my notes so taken; 

I further certify that I am not interested 

in the event of this action. 

IN WITENSS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed 

my name on this day of 560-6nyr 1989. 

z 4&.) cf24 

ELLEN Q. BRESSI 

Certified Shorthand Reporter 

• 

25 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NR02194ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2.2.1.2 Responses to Comments Received at Public Hearing • Lompoc, California, August 30, 1989 

Commenter No. 1: Vandenberg Village Community Services - Howard Grantz, President 

Comment No. 258: Impacts on Lompoc Plain Aquifer and Lompoc Uplands Aquifer 

Comment: It does not discuss the impact upon our environment, the impact upon the local 

aquifer for which the water is extracted. This is called the "Lompoc Plain Aquifer." 

Response: Impacts to the Lompoc Plain and Upland aquifers are discussed in Draft EIS Section 

3.2.1.2, Ground Water, and are addressed in response to Comment Nos. 193 and 

194. Additional detail regarding hydrologic relationships between the Lompoc Plain, 

Lompoc Terrace, and Lompoc Upland aquifers is provided in response to Comment 

No. 253. 

Comment No. 259: Impacts on Community Water Supplies 

Comment: This aquifer is overdrafted now and has been by almost 8,000 acre feet in the last six 

years. In addition to that, we are committed as a city here, to provide water to the 

Wye at 500 acre feet per year, Alan Hancock Campus, the Spaceport Museum, and 

several hundred houses being built. Now, on top of that, we'll have a demand then 

for water for this project. And there's a question in my mind as to whether or not 

we'll have enough water to provide for the needs of this program. 

Response: See responses to Comment Nos. 83, 147, 162, 193, and 194. The Draft EIS notes 

that the increased water demands that would be expected to arise from the proposed 

project would be small, but significant, since the Lompoc Plain aquifer is in 

overdraft. 

Comment No. 260: Impacts on Lompoc Plain Aquifer and Lompoc Uplands Aquifer 

Comment: Therefore, the point we're making is that this EIR (sic), which treats water very 

lightly, should be expanded to cover much more detail, the impact upon the Lompoc 

Plain Aquifer. As a consequence of that, as the aquifer is overdrafted, it draws water 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-241 

• 

• 

from our aquifer and the Uplands Aquifer. And therefore then, there are two aquifers 

that are affected: the one here in which Lompoc gets its water and the one in the 

Uplands. 

Response: See response to Comment No. 194. See response to Comment No. 253 for a 

description of the hydrologic relationships between the Lompoc Plain, Lompoc 

Terrace, and Lompoc Upland aquifers. 

Comment No. 261: Santa Barbara County Level of Significancy for Ground Water Impacts 

Comment: Another point of interest, the amount of water being consumed --- or will be 

consumed, goes beyond the County's threshold of significance, which should be 

remembered. 

Response: The proposed withdrawals are above Santa Barbara's significance threshold of 7.68 

acre feet per year. 

Comment No. 262: Discussion of Impacts to Ground Water in Draft EIS 

Comment: The section of the EIR (sic) that related to water, should be rewritten and expanded to 

fill these parts I just mentioned because the environmental impact on our aquifers 

concern all people here in the Valley. 

Response: See responses to Comment Nos. 258, 259, 260, and 261. 

Commenter No. 2: James Spellman, Jr., National Space Society 

Comment No. 263: Use of SLC-4 for Titan IV and Titan II 

Comment: My question is: Why do we not reconfigure the launch pad at SLC-4 West to handle, 

at the present time, both Titan H as well as the Titan IV with the universal launch 

mount? 

• Response: As described in Draft EIS Section 2.2.3, VAFB Launch Sites, SLC-4 West is an 

operational launch facility with scheduled missions that would be incompatible with 

the mission requirements for the Titan IV/Centaur from VAFB. 
NRO2APOROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • Comment No. 264: Use of Shuttle C in Place of Titan IV/Centaur 

Comment: I would think that another alternative would be to consider using the Shuttle C, which 

can be brought on line by 1994, at least one or two years earlier than Titan 

IV/Centaur, and capable of taking a greater payload. That would also leave the option 

open, in the future, for using the regular shuttle out here because of the launch 

commonality between the two systems. 

Response: At this point in time, the Shuttle C is an unfunded program in the development stage 

that does not have a firm schedule for completion. This uncertainty regarding project 

completion precluded the Shuttle C from consideration as an alternative vehicle. 

• 

Commenter No. 3: W. S. Mullins 

Comment No. 265: Mitigation of Water Resources 

Comment: ... the in depth look at the water as to how it can be mitigated ... 

Response: Mitigation measures proposed for conservation of water resources are contained in 

Sections 4.2.4.1 through 4.2.4.4 of the Draft EIS. Additional mitigation measures 

to reduce the demand for ground water are contained in response to Comment No. 

83. Measures to control erosion and surface water runoff have been incorporated into 

the project design criteria, and low-use water fixtures would be installed in new 

facilities to reduce water consumption. 

Comment No. 266: Acquisition of Domestic and Foreign Materials 

' Comment: ... is socioeconomics of the facilities for the SLC-7 pertaining to domestic versus 

foreign products. 

• 

Response: Materials for construction and operation of the proposed action would be procured as 

consistent with the Buy American Act (41 USC 10), per Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR), Part 25, Foreign Acquisition, and applicable USAF regulations. 

The Buy American Act requires that only domestic end products be acquired for 

public use except for materials where cost would be unreasonable, where purchasing 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-243 • 

• 

domestic materials would be against the public interest, or if the material is not made 

in the United States. As a result of these regulations, it is anticipated that the bulk of 

materials for construction and operation of the proposed action would come from 

domestic sources. 

Commenter No. 4: LeRoy Scolari. Local Rancher 

Comment No. 267: Impacts on Lands East of the Project Site 

Comment: I find considerable treatment of the area generally south and east in the Palma (sic) 

Beach area, Bixby Ranch, but very little for those lands that are primarily east of the 

launch site itself. east and somewhat south. 

Response: Lands to the east and south of VAFB were analyzed in the Draft EIS in terms of land 

use and other impacts. Impacts to lands in these areas are minimal, as they are 

sheltered from the proposed and alternative launch locations by the Santa Ynez 

mountains. The emphasis placed on the Bixby Ranch and Jalama Beach areas 

resulted from their identification at the public scoping meetings held for the 

Environmental Impact Analysis Process in compliance with NEPA. Potential impacts 

considered for these areas included Air Quality and Meteorology (Section 4.5), Noise 

(Section 4.7), Transportation (Section 4.10), Health and Safety (Section 4.11), and 

Socioeconomics (Section 4.12). 

Commenter No. 5: Jeremy Graves Associate Planner, Lompoc Community Development 

Department 

Comment No. 268: Written Comments to be Provided 

Comment: The City of Lompoc is not providing a prepared written statement tonight, but we will 

be providing a written statement prior to the conclusion of your review period. 

Response: Comment noted. 

• 
NRO2PBTROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • Commenter No. 6: Elaine Schneider‘ Representative: Chumash Cultural Heritage 

Association, Santa Ynez Indian Reservation 

Comment No. 269: Selection of SLC-6 

• 

Comment: We, of the Indian community, are very upset at the possibility of not using SLC-6 

since it's already been taken apart, put back together again three or four times. Why 

can't it be used? 

Response: See response to Comment No. 139. 

Comment No. 270: Impacts to the Chumash "Gate to the World Beyond" 

Comment: I'm not saying its all been bad, but I'm saying that the possibility of building the 

proposed project on the Cypress Ridge area will cause a major loss of our heritage, 

because the impacts would be to what we call "Our Gate to the World Beyond." 

Response: As noted in response to Comment No. 249, development of the proposed action 

would be consistent with applicable laws and regulations for the regional preservation 

of Native American heritage, such as the "Gate to the World Beyond," to the fullest 

extent possible. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-245 

2.2.2 SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC HEARING • 2.2.2.1 Santa Barbara, California Public Hearing Transcript 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUR 4Yt15 

• 
PUBLIC HEARING 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

SYSTEMS COMMAND 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT FOR PROPOSED 

TITAN IV/CENTAUR SPACE. 

LAUNCH COMPLEX 7 

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, 

CALIFORNIA 

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 

Thursday, August 31, 1989 

7:05 P.M. 

Santa Barbara, California 

REPORTED BY: 

ELLEN Q. BRESSI 

CSR No. 7184 CERT1F■ ED 

ORiGINAL 

NO. 

cerine-C3eall & Associates 

CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS - 

5450 TELEGRAPH ROAD. SUITE 100 • VENTURA. CA93003 • (805) 658-2777 

2509 EAST THOUSAND OAKS BLVD , SUITE 464 • THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91362 • (805) 496.4044 

133 EAST DE LA GUERRA STREET. SUITE 420 • SANTA BARBARA. CA9301 • (8051 682-6636 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-247 

ORIGINAL • 
2-248 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

4111 1 PUBLIC HEARING 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

2 SYSTEMS COMMAND 

THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1989 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR 

PROPOSED TITAN IV/CENTAUR SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 7 

10 VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA 

11 

12 

• 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 SANTA BARBARA 

COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS AUDITORIUM 

19 4400 CATHEDRAL OAKS ROAD 

SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 

20 7:05 P.M. 

21 

22 

23 

24 REPORTER BY: 

ELLEN Q. BRESSI 

25 CSR. No. 7184 • 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-249 

1 JUNE 2015 3 • 

1 APPEARANCES: 

2 

3 COLONEL MIKE McSHANE, Military Trial 

Judge, designated as presiding officer by 

4 the Office of the Judge Advocate General in 

Washington 

5 

LIEUTENANT GENE BRANCH, Administrative 

6 officer 

7 COLONEL MIKE HAYNER, Western Space 

and Missile Center at Vandenberg Air Force 

8 Base; Space Launch Complex 7 Program Manager 

9 COLONEL BILL LEOHNARD, Design, 

construction and environmental anaylsis of 

10 Systems Command facilities and programs at 

Vandenberg Air Force Base 

11 

JOHN EDWARDS, Manager of the 

12 environmental analysis for Space Launch 

Complex 7 

III/ 13 

DAN EVANS, Environmental Solutions, 

14 Incorporated, Air Force contractor conducting 

the environmental analysis for Space Launch 

15 Complex 7 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 PUBLIC SPEAKERS: 

21 REGGIE PAGALING 

22 

23 

24 

410 25 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-250 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

4110 1 SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 

2 THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1989 

3 7:05 P.M. 

4 -o0o5 

6 COL. McSHANE: Good evening, folks. My 

7 name is Mike McShane. I'm a full-time Military 

8 Trial Judge for the Air Force Courts Marshall. 

9 I've been designated by the office of the Judge 

10 Advocate General in Washington as presiding 

11 officer for tonight's public hearing upon the 

12 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

41/1 

13 I want to start out by advising you 

14 that the National Environmental Policy Act and 

15 Implementing Regulations, require federal agencies 

16 to carefully analyze the potential environmental 

17 impacts of proposed actions, and to use those 

18 analyses in arriving at decisions or recommendations 

19 on whether and how to proceed with those actions. 

20 The Air Force has prepared and 

21 distributed, in accordance with applicable 

22 regulations, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

23 addressing a proposal for the construction and 

24 operation of a Titan IV/Centaur Space Launch Complex 

25 in support of the Department of Defense Space 

• 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-251 

1 JUNE 2015 5 • 

• 

• 

1 Program. 

2 I am not here as an expert on this 

3 proposal nor have I had any connection with its 

4 development. I'm not here to act as a legal 

5 advisor to the Air Force experts who will address 

6 this proposal. My purpose is simply to insure 

7 that we have a fair, orderly hearing and that all 

8 who wish to be heard have a fair chance to speak. 

9 Let me take just a moment to 

10 explain how tonight's hearing will proceed. This 

11 isn't going to be a debate nor a referendum or 

12 vote upon the proposal itself. There will be no 

13 demonstrations, nor should you signify your 

14 agreement or disagreement with a speaker's 

15 position by applause or other expressions of 

16 approval or disapproval. That adds nothing to the 

17 hearing record and simply wastes your valuable 

18 time. 

19 What this informal hearing is 

20 intended to provide is a public forum for two-way 

21 communications, with a view to improvement of the 

22 overall decision making process. The first part 

23 of that two-way communication calls for you to 

24 listen carefully to what the Air Force experts say 

25 as you are briefed on the proposal and its 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-252 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 6 

1 JUNE 2015 

4110 1 anticipated environmental consequences. 

2 After that briefing, you will be 

3 able to ask questions to clarify, in your own 

4 minds, any points made in the briefing or in the 

5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Part 2 of this 

6 two-way communication process is for you to tell the 

7 Air Force experts what you think, to give Air Force 

8 decision makers the benefit of your knowledge of the 

9 local area affected by the proposal and any 

10 environmental hazards you perceive. 

11 This is a proposal. It's not 

12 something that's already been decided, approved 

410 

13 or funded. Our hearing isn't for the purpose of 

14 justifying anything, but rather to identify and 

15 assess pertinent impact, including your personal 

16 prospectives as to those impacts. 

17 If you have not already done so, 

18 you should fill out one of these public hearing 

19 registration cards. It's just kind of to keep the 

20 attendance and also to indicate on there if you 

21 want to make a statement. 

22 Later on, I will recognize members 

23 of the public for the purpose of putting questions 

24 to the Air Force experts, or making statements 

25 about this proposal. Don't be shy or hesitant to • 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-253 

1 JUNE 2015 7 

• 

1 ask questions or make statements. This is an 

2 informal hearing and you can ask any questions 

3 that you want to ask. 

4 I want to help insure that all 

5 those who wish to speak have a fair chance to be 

6 heard, so please help me enforce the following 

7 ground rules: 

8 First, only speak after I recognize 

9 you and please address your remarks to me. 

10 Second, speak clearly and slowly, 

11 starting out with your full name, address 

41/1 12 

and the capacity in which you appear. That 

13 is, as a public official, a designated 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

• 

25 

representative of a private association, 

or a person speaking solely in his or her 

own behalf, so that our court reporter, 

Mrs. Bressi who has to make a verbatim 

record of these proceedings, can do her 

job professionally. 

Third, if you have a question for 

the panel, ask one question at a time. 

I will allow a reasonable number of 

questions. 

Fourth, honor any request from me 

that you cease speaking. 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-254 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• 

1 Fifth, do not speak while another 

2 is speaking. Only one person will be 

3 recognized at a time. 

4 And finally, I'm sure that this 

5 is a no smoking area, so everyone should 

6 please comply with that rule. 

7 It is possible that there will be 

8 questions here tonight that the Air Force expert 

9 can't answer. That could happen for one or two 

10 reasons: First, even though we do have a lot of 

11 expertise here, they will not attempt to answer 

12 any question unless they are confident that they 

13 can answer it accurately. And second, there may 

14 be questions that have national security 

15 implications, and these must be reviewed further 

16 before answers are provided./ If this should occi. 

17 and if the question is relevant, I can assure yol. 

18 that it will be addressed in the final document, 

19 and each of you may request a copy of that 

20 document. 

21 You're invited to fill out a 

22 written comment sheet, if you desire to do so, 

23 rather than making the public statement or if you 

24 want to do so in addition to make a public 

25 statement. Statements can be submitted at any 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-255 

9 

• 

• 

1 time prior to 11 September 1989, and you can mail 

2 them to the address which is listed on the comment 

3 sheet or leave them here tonight. 

4 Regardless of whether you read your 

5 statement on the record tonight or mail it in 

6 later, it will be carefully considered and made 

7 part of the record of these proceedings. It will 

8 have equal weight and receive the same careful 

9 consideration, whether made during tonight's 

10 hearing or afterward. 

11 I want to thank everyone who turned 

12 out tonight. Your presence here is commendable in 

13 that it reflects a great interest in your 

14 community and in those things that are important 

15 to it. Let me assure you that your interest is 

16 the primary purpose for us being here. 

17 Now it's my pleasure to introduce 

18 Colonel Bill Leonard, who will brief the proposal 

19 tonight. 

20 Colonel. 

21 COL. LEOHNARD: Thank you, Colonel McShane. 

22 As mentioned, I'm Colonel Bill 

23 Leohnard, Director of Acquisition Civil 

24 Engineering at Space Systems Division in Los 

25 Angeles. My Directorate is responsible for the 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
• 

• 

2-256 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

10 

1 design, construction and environmental analysis of 

2 Systems Command facilities located in Vandenberg 

3 Air Force Base. This includes the project for 

4 which we are here tonight, the proposed Space 

5 Launch Complex 7 or Titan IV/Centaur Space Launch 

6 Vehicle. 

7 First I'd like to introduce the other 

8 individuals on the dais, who will be assisting us 

9 this evening. Next to Colonel McShane is Lieutenant 

10 Branch who is acting as our administrative officer 

11 for this evening. To his right is Colonel Mike 

12 Rayner, who is with the Western Space and Missile 

13 Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base, and is the Space 

14 Launch Complex 7 Program Manager. To my right is Mr. 

15 John Edwards, a member of my staff and the manager of 

16 the environmental analysis for SLC-7. To his right 

17 is Mr. Dan Evans, representing Environmental 

18 Solutions Incorporated, the Air Force contractor 

19 conducting the, environmental analysis for the 

20 proposed project. 

21 As Colonel McShane mentioned, we 

22 will try to answer all your questions about the 

23 Environmental Impact Analysis Process and the 

24 Proposed Action, or the Draft EIS, but those 

25 questions that we are unable to answer, rest 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-257 

1 JUNE 2015 11 • 

• 

• 

assured that they will be addressed within the 

2 Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

3 (Slide change.) 

4 COL. LEOHNARD: I will now explain how the 

5 Environmental Impact Analysis Process is 

6 conducted, and give you an overview of our 

7 proposed action and the general findings of the 

8 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

9 The National Environmental Policy 

10 Act, or NEPA, is implemented by the President's 

11 Council on Environmental Quality Regulation. NEPA 

12 requires that the federal agencies analyze 

13 potential environmental impacts of a proposed 

14 project and carefully consider alternatives, 

15 including the no-action alternative. These 

16 analyses are then used to make decisions and 

17 recommendations on whether and how to proceed with 

18 the project. 

19 As shown on the screen, the 

20 Environmental Impact Analysis is started when the 

21 Air Force project proponent requests environmental 

22 impact analysis from the Air Force environmental 

23 planners. The project proponents do this at an 

24 early stage in the project planning to determine 

25 the extent of environmental documentation needed, 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-258 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

12 

• 

• 

• 

1 whether it be a Categorical Exclusion, an 

2 Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact 

3 Statement. 

4 The regulation of the President's 

5 Council on Environmental Quality allow Categorical 

6 Exclusions for classes of action that do not 

7 individually or cumulatively affect the environment. 

8 Therefore, these actions require neither an 

9 Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact 

10 Statement. 

11 Early in the analysis process we 

12 determined that this space launch complex did not 

13 qualify for a Categorical Exclusion. 

14 The next step in the Environmental 

15 Analysis Process is to determine if the project 

16 needs an Environmental Assessment or the more 

17 extensive Environmental Impact Statement. If it 

18 appears that the project will have any significant 

19 impacts, the environmental planners will elect to 

20 proceed with an Environmental Impact Statement. 

21 In early 1988, when we were 

22 planning this proposed action, it was determined 

23 that due to the potential significant impacts we 

24 would proceed with an Environmental Impact 

25 Statement. 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-259 

1 JUNE 2015 13 

• 

The completion of this process, 

• 

• 

2 then, is the decision made by the Air Force about 

3 whether to proceed with the proposed action, a 

4 modification of that proposed action, or to 

5 terminate the project altogether. 

6 (Slide change.) 

7 COL. LEOHNARD: The first step in the 

8 preparation of an EIS is to publish a Notice of 

9 Intent in the Federal Register and to make this 

10 notice available to newspapers and other media and 

11 interested party within the area. The notice for 

12 the proposed SLC-7 project was published in the 

13 Federal Register April 8th, 1988. 

14 The next step in the Environmental 

15 Impact Analysis Process is to hold a meeting to 

16 obtain the agency and public opinions on the 

17 issues that should be addressed within the EIS. 

18 The purpose of that meeting is to 

19 identify significant issues and focus the scope of 

20 the Environmental Impact Statement. 

21 The public scoping meetings for 

22 SLC-7 were held on May 3rd, 1988, in Lompoc, and 

23 May 5th, 1988, in Goleta. 

24 Issues were further identified in 

25 consultation with State, local and federal 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO2AROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 14 

• 

• 

1 agencies, as well as by internal Air Force review. 

2 (Slide change.) 

3 COL. LEOHNARD: Based on the scoping 

4 efforts, we began extensive data gathering and 

5 analytical efforts which culminated in the 

6 preparation of the Draft EIS. Over 270 copies 

7 were mailed on July 19th, 1989, to all individuals 

8 and organizations who had requested a copy. In 

9 addition, we made copies available to local 

10 libraries for public reading. 

11 The Draft EIS was filed with the 

12 Environmental Protection Agency on 21. July 1989, 

13 and the notice of availability appeared in the 

14 Federal Register on July 28th, 1989. Thus began 

15 the 45-day public comment period for the which 

16 will end on September 11th of this year. 

17 During the public comment period, 

18 two actions will take place: The first is the 

19 public hearing which is held in order to receive 

20 comments on the draft document, which is why we 

21 are here this evening. The second activity during 

22 the 45-day period is that written comments may be 

23 submitted to the Air Force by interested 

24 individuals and agencies. All comments that are 

25 received during the public hearing, either oral or 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-261 

15 

• 

1 written, and during the 45-day comment period, are 

2 addressed in the Final Environmental Impact 

3 Statement. 

4 Once the Final EIS is prepared, 

5 copies will be distributed in the same manner as 

6 the draft document. The Final EIS is filed with 

7 the EPA, which publishes a Notice of Filing in the 

8 Federal Register. Once this notice appears, a 

9 30-day post filing waiting period starts before 

10 the Record of Decision can be made. All 

11 mitigation measures that are approved by the 

12 decision makers are required to be implemented. 

13 Once the decision has been made, it 

14 is reported and announced to the public. The 

15 Final EIS and Record of Decision on this project 

16 will be published in early next year. The Record 

17 of Decision will explain the conclusion reached by 

18 the Air Force, the rationale for that selection 

19 and the alternatives considered. 

20 (Slide change.) 

21 COL. LEOHNARD: After the potential issues 

22 associating with the proposed project are 

23 identified, the preparation of the Draft EIS is 

24 initiated. Prior to the analysis of potential 

25 impacts, a description of the proposed actions and 

• 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-262 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 16 

1 JUNE 2015 

1 its alternatives are developed. In particular, 

2 the development and consideration of alternatives 

3 to the proposed action is an important part of the 

4 Environmental Impact Analysis Process. 

5 (Slide change.) 

6 COL. LEOHNARD: In order to draw a list of 

7 reasonable alternatives, the proponents select 

8 objectives that must be met by the potential 

9 alternative. 

10 (Slide change.) 

11 COL. LEOHNARD: The objectives of this 

12 project are to: 

41/1 

13 Provide a launch complex to 

14 support a launch vehicle that can carry 

15 a large payload; 

16 Utilize expendable launch vehicle; 

17 Provide capability to achieve high 

18 altitude orbit; 

19 And last, to provide a location 

20 that can launch satellites safely into a 

21 polar orbit. 

22 (Slide change.) 

23 COL. LEOHNARD: Following the identification 

24 of these objectives, conceptual studies identified 

25 the components necessary to fulfill the project • 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-263 

1 JUNE 2015 17 • 

• 

• 

1 objectives. These studies resulted in the 

2 formulations of the proposed action and the 

3 development of its alternatives. 

4 The following illustrations show 

5 the required project components as developed for 

6 the proposed action. They would also apply to the 

7 alternatives considered. 

8 (Slide change.) 

9 COL. LEOHNARD: The first of the major 

10 project elements is the Titan IV/Centaur space 

11 vehicle itself. The vehicle is approximately 204 

12 feet long and supports a payload faring of 86 feet 

13 in length, giving it the capacity of transporting 

14 very large payloads. This is the latest version 

15 of the Titan vehicle and is equipped with two 

16 upgraded solid rocket motors, a liquid fueled core 

17 vehicle, and a Centaur upper stage that allows it 

18 to put payloads in the 10,000 pound class into a 

19 high earth orbit. 

20 (Slide change.) 

21 COL. LEOHNARD: The next overhead shows an 

22 artist's rendering of the configuration of the 

23 launch pad. The major elements present on the pad 

24 include the mobile service tower, the umbilical 

25 tower, the launch mount and launch support 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 18 

• 

• 

• 

1 structure, the exhaust duct, and the operation 

2 support building, propellant storage areas and 

3 maintenance structures. 

4 The timeline for construction of the 

5 proposed action shows that it would take at least 

6 four years to build; operations would begin in the 

7 fifth year. Facility design and construction would 

8 involve planning for and undertaking site grading, 

9 road construction, utilities development, and 

10 erection of security fencing and operation support 

11 building and the launch support structure, as well as 

12 carrying out site rehabilitation measures. 

13 Design and construction of the ground 

14 support systems follows shortly after facility 

15 construction begins. The ground support systems are 

16 aerospace equipment which includes mobile service 

17 tower, the launch mount, the umbilical tower and 

18 other support equipment. Beginning somewhere around 

19 the start of the fifth year, the facility will be 

20 complete and launch preparations would begin. 

21 (Slide change.) 

22 COL. LEOHNARD: As with the construction of 

23 any space launch complex, there are also numerous 

24 offsite facilities which are required to support 

25 launch operations. This overhead shows several of 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

these: 

2-265 

19 

• 

2 The vehicle assembly building; 

3 The payload faring receipt and 

4 processing facility; 

5 The propellant storage area; 

6 The solid rocket motor receipt and 

7 processing building, where the individual 

8 segments of the solid rocket motors would 

9 be inspected and sub-assembled prior to 

10 transport to the launch pad; 

11 And the launch control center. 

12 Additional offsite facilities would 

13 include utilities necessary to supply electrical 

14 power, communications, water and other essential 

15 commodities to the launch site. 

16 (Slide change.) 

17 COL. LEOHNARD: Project operations are 

18 depicted on the next overhead. Operations would 

19 be conducted at a level to support two Titan IV 

20 launches per year, with a capability to surge to 

21 three launches in a year. 

22 Launch operations include: 

23 The delivery, check-out and 

24 transportation to the pad of the solid 

4111 25 rocket motors; 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-266 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 20 

• 

• 

1 Delivery and erection of the 

2 core vehicle; 

3 Mating and check-out for the 

4 various segments of the vehicle; 

5 Erection of the Centaur upper 

6 stage; 

7 Insertion of the payload; 

8 Installation of the payload 

9 faring; 

10 Vehicle fueling; 

11 And vehicle launch. 

12 Post launch operations include 

13 cleaning the launch pad and refurbishing it in 

14 time to support the next scheduled launch. 

15 (Slide change.) 

16 COL. LEOHNARD: As required by NEPA, the 

17 Air Force has developed and analyzed a number of 

18 alternatives that could achieve the desired 

19 mission objectives. The purpose of this exercise 

20 is to make certain that the proposed action is not 

21 selected without due and deliberate consideration 

22 for other methods that might be available to 

23 achieve the same goals. 

24 (Slide change.) 

25 COL. LEOHNARD: The range of alternatives • 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-267 

21 • 

1 analyzed includes the no-action alternative, 

2 different launch vehicles, launch locations outside 

3 of Vandenberg, and existing and undeveloped launch 

4 sites on Vandenberg. Some alternatives were 

5 considered and eliminated, since they could not 

6 reasonably achieve the goals of the proposed action, 

7 or because they would result in equal or greater 

8 environmental impacts. 

9 If the no-action alternative were 

10 pursued, then SLC-7 project would not be developed 

11 and the Titan/IV Centaur could not be launched at 

12 Vandenberg Air Force Base. It has been determined 

13 that this would unacceptably impact national 

14 security. Current defense programs rely on our 

15 future ability to launch heavy payloads into near 

• 

16 earth orbits -- excuse me, polar orbits. Since 

17 there are no other space launch vehicles available 

18 to meet this mission requirement, there would be 

19 no displacement effect to result in environmental 

20 impacts elsewhere. 

21 (Slide change.) 

22 COL. LEOHNARD: Other launch vehicles were 

23 considered. These include the Space Transportation 

24 System, or the shuttle, and the Titan IV NUS, that 

25 is, No Upper Stage. 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2 

1 JUNE 2015 

1 (Slide change.) 

2 COL. LEOHNARD: The space system is an 

3 alternative, but its capacity at Vandenberg is no 

4 equivalent to the Titan IV/Centaur. In addition, 

5 the use of the space shuttle was eliminated from 

6 further consideration since it is not available 

7 for launches from Vandenberg, and since launches 

8 from Cape Canaveral in Florida cannot safely 

9 provide the required near polar orbit. 

10 The Titan IV without the upper 

11 stage was considered, since it represents the Air 

12 Force's largest capacity vehicle currently in use. 

13 This alternative was eliminated, however, since 

14 the Titan IV without the upper stage cannot 

15 achieve the required high earth orbit to combine 

16 with the capacity requirements. 

17 (Slide change.) 

18 COL. LEOHNARD: Alternative launch 

19 locations outside of Vandenberg were considered 

20 for use by the Air Force to launch the Titan 

21 IV/Centaur. 

22 (Slide change.) 

23 COL. LEOHNARD: Facilities are available 

24 for launch of the Titan/IV Centaur from Cape 

25 Canaveral Air Force Station; however, this 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-269 

1 JUNE 2015 23 • 

1 alternative was eliminated from further 

2 consideration since near polar orbits cannot be 

3 achieved, given the large payload requirements. 

4 U.S. Department of Navy maintains a 

5 missile test range on Clemente Island, off the 

6 coast of Southern California. Use of this range 

7 would allow for attainment of the near polar 

8 orbits. However, the launch support facilities 

9 shown earlier are lacking at this site. The 

10 development of the launch site itself and the 

11 necessary facilities including power, sewer, water 

411 12 supply, communications and vehicle processing and 

13 preparation facilities, would be costly and would 

14 result in comparable or greater environmental 

15 impact. 

16 The State of Hawaii was also 

17 evaluated for its capability to support space 

18 launch activities. However, Hawaii was eliminated 

19 from further consideration as an alternative 

20 launch site because the environmental impacts 

21 would be greater than those considered at 

22 Vandenberg Air Force Base. 

23 The proposed action could be 

24 accommodated at other islands in the South Pacific 

1111 25 that would allow for polar orbit to be achieved; 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-270 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 24 

1 JUNE 2015 • 

• 

• 

1 however, necessary support facilities including 

2 such items as labor force are scarce commodities 

3 on these islands. In addition, an entirely new 

4 launch support system would be required, including 

5 a launch control center, telemetry and tracking 

6 facilities, propellant storage, and vehicle 

7 component processing facilities. 

8 It is anticipated that the 

9 environmental impact from the development of the 

10 Titan IV/Centaur Launch Facility in the South 

11 Pacific would be similar or greater to those 

12 incurred at Vandenberg, due to the additional 

13 construction and the remote nature of the 

14 locations. Therefore, this alternative was 

15 eliminated from further consideration. 

16 (Slide change.) 

17 COL. LEOHNARD: With the obvious advantages 

18 of existing launch support and general capability 

19 of obtaining near polar orbits, sites from 

20 Vandenberg were identified as reasonable 

21 alternatives to the proposed action. The sites 

22 identified include some considered'and eliminated 

23 from further analysis, and some considered in 

24 detail. 

25 (Slide change.) 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-271 

25 • 

• 

• 

1 COL. LEOHNARD: Sites considered and 

2 eliminated from further analysis include Launch 

3 Complexes 2, 3, 4, and 5. 

4 SLC-2 is a small pad currently used 

5 by the Delta Rocket Program. Its use would 

6 require complete razing and reconstruction to meet 

7 the Titan IV/Centaur requirements. In addition, 

8 due to its location, SLC-2 cannot safely support 

9 near polar orbits with the necessary payload 

10 capability. 

11 SLC-3 East and West are currently 

12 being used to launch Atlas vehicles. Like SLC-2, 

13 utilizing SLC-3 would require complete razing of 

14 the existing facilities and building new ones, 

15 since the existing facilities are too small to 

16 support Titan IV/Centaur. In addition, SLC-3 is 

17 closer to Lompoc than the proposed site, which 

18 would result in higher levels of noise within that 

19 community. 

20 SLC-4 East is currently being 

21 refurbished to accommodate the Titan IV/NUS 

22 missions, and SLC-4 West is an operation Titan II 

23 facility. These launch complexes will be fully 

24 utilized in their existing programs and not 

25 available for other uses. 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-272 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

26 

• 

1(Slide change.) 

2 COL. LEOHNARD: From the suite of alternatives 

3 considered, those mentioned previously have been 

4 eliminated from further consideration as not feasible 

5 in support of project requirements, or since 

6 environmental impacts would be equal to or greater 

7 than the proposed action. This analytical process 

8 has resulted in a number of alternatives and will be 

9 considered in more detail. 

10 (Slide change.) 

11 COL. LEOHNARD: The alternatives considered 

12 in detail are all located on South Vandenberg and 

13 include the proposed Cypress Ridge site -- 

14 (Slide change.) 

15 COL. LEOHNARD: -- as well as Space launch 

16 Complex 6 - 

17 (Slide change.) 

18 COL. LEOHNARD: -- the Boathouse Flats area -- 

19 (Slide change.) 

20 COL. LEOHNARD: -- and the Vina Terrace 

21 alternative site. 

22 All are located so that near polar 

23 launches can be safely achieved and existing 

24 offsite facilities and support facilities at 

25 Vandenberg can be utilized. 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-273 

1 JUNE 2015 27 • 

• 

1 (Slide change.) 

2 COL. LEOHNARD: The proposed Cypress Ridge 

3 site is currently undeveloped and is being 

4 utilized for cattle grazing. The site occupies 

5 approximately 120 acres of gently sloping marine 

6 terrace, approximately one-half mile from the 

7 ocean. 

8 (Slide change.) 

9 COL. LEOHNARD: The SLC-6 alternative site 

10 is very different from the others considered in 

11 detail, since it is a developed space launch 

12 complex already. The SLC-6 complex was originally 

13 built in 1970 for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory 

14 Program. When constructed, SLC-6 was configured 

15 to launch Titan III vehicles. Subsequent to the 

16 cancellation of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory 

17 Program, SLC-6 was modified to support space 

18 launch vehicles -- excuse me, space shuttle launch 

19 vehicles. However, primarily due to the 1986 

20 Challenger disaster, we have not used SLC-6 for 

21 shuttle launches. 

22 SLC-6 is a site approximately 180 

23 acres in size, located on a westerly sloping 

24 terrace, approximately one mile from the ocean. 

41/0 

25 Since it is a developed site, it would be very low 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-274 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 28 

1 JUNE 2015 • 

• 

• 

1 vegetation -- there is very low vegetation 

2 present. 

3 (Slide change.) 

4 COL. LEOHNARD: The Boathouse Flats 

5 alternative site, like the proposed Cypress Ridge 

6 site, is an undeveloped area of approximately 130 

7 acres in size. This site, however, is primarily 

8 grassland and is much closer to the ocean than the 

9 Cypress Ridge site. 

10 (Slide change.) 

11 COL. LEOHNARD: The Vina Terrace alternative 

12 site is also undeveloped and is slightly larger than 

13 the Cypress Ridge site, approximately 150 acres. 

14 This additional size is necessary since the Vina 

15 Terrace area is the steepest topography of the 

16 alternatives. This area is vegetated with a mix of 

17 grasses and coastal shrub, and at approximately 

18 one-and-one-half miles is the furthest from the 

19 ocean. 

20 (Slide change.) 

21 COL. LEOHNARD: After the three alternatives 

22 to be addressed in detail were identified, potential 

23 environmental impacts from the proposed action and 

24 alternatives were analyzed for inclusion in the Draft 

25 EIS. This process began with efforts to characterize 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-275 

1 JUNE 2015 29 

1 the existing environment, based upon the issues 

2 identified during the scoping process. 

3 (Slide change.) 

4 COL. LEOHNARD: As you can see, a wide variety 

5 of data was gathered to address potential impacts. 

6 Intensive surveys of vegetation, wildlife and 

7 cultural resources were undertaken by the 

8 environmental contractor to support the analytical 

9 process. Information to characterize the remaining 

10 resources was generated through empirical 

11 observations, reviews of existing literature, and 

12 consultation with government agencies. 

13 (Slide change.) 

14 COL. LEOHNARD: After the data that 

15 describe the existing environments were gathered, 

16 the potential environmental impacts were 

17 determined through extensive analytical activities 

18 performed by the environmental subcontractor. 

19 Mitigation actions to abate 

20 potential impacts were developed next. The final 

21 step in the environmental evaluation of the 

22 proposed action was then to reevaluate the impacts 

23 with the mitigation actions included. 

24 (Slide change.) 

25 COL. LEOHNARD: The illustration in this 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 

• 
2-276 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 30 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 1 overhead is of the most important potential 

2 environmental impacts that would result during the 

3 construction phase of the proposed action. 

4 You will note that most of the 

5 impacts would result in the project construction, 

6 such as those geological in source, vegetation, 

7 wildlife and cultural resources. These would 

8 result from activities such as earth moving and 

9 construction on the site itself. Impacts to water 

10 resources and economic benefits would result from 

11 the temporary presence of construction personnel 

12 within the local communities. 

41/1 

13 (Slide change.) 

14 COL. LEOHNARD: The next illustration is 

15 an overview of the most important potential 

16 impacts that would result from the operations 

17 phase. Impacts to health and safety, vegetation, 

18 and wildlife are expected to be concentrated in 

19 the vicinity of the launch pad. Potential impacts 

20 from water resources, socioeconomics, air quality, 

21 noise levels, and recreation are expected to occur 

22 in the areas around Vandenberg Air Force Base. 

23 That concludes the briefing. 

24 COL. McSHANE: Thank you, Colonel Leonard. 

25 You were invited to fill out an 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-277 

1 JUNE 2015 31. 

• 

1 attendance card when you arrived. If you have not 

2 filled one out yet, please do so during the short 

3 break we're going to have here. 

4 Regarding the making of a statement 

5 tonight, if we have any elected public officials, 

6 I'll call on you first. After that we'll ask for 

7 representatives of organizations who want to 

8 speak, and then I'll ask for people who are 

9 speaking in their individual capacities. 

10 If you do not wish to make your 

11 public statement tonight or if you have additional 

12 comments beyond those that you wish to make 

13 orally, you may provide written comments after 

14 this meeting or send them to the address provided 

15 on the comment sheet. 

16 I recognize that some people may 

17 wish to make statements on defense policy, nuclear 

18 weapons, arms control and fiscal policy at this 

19 meeting; however, such comments are best directed 

20 to policy makers such as your congressmen and 

21 senators. Please limit your comments here tonight 

22 to environmental issues. 

23 We need to, I guess, move the 

24 tables around a little bit, and I need to get the 

• 

25 comment cards. We'll take just a couple minutes 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-278 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

1 of recess and we'll get back together. 

32 

• 

2 (Brief recess.) 

3 COL. McSHANE: Okay, folks, we're ready to 

4 start back up. 

5 I have a grand total of one 

6 individual who wanted to speak to us tonight. 

7 Reggie -- I'm sorry, I can't -- 

8 MR. PAGALING: Pagaling. 

9 COL. McSHANE: "Pagaling." Okay. 

10 MR. PAGALING: My name is Reggie Pagaling. 

11 I live at 633 Eucalyptus Drive, No. 10, in 

12 Solvang, California, and I'm associated with the 

13 Cultural Heritage Associates, affiliated with the 

14 Santa Ynez Indian Reservation. 

15 Last night my sister spoke about 

16 SLC-6 and SLC-7, this proposed project, and I'd 

17 like to reiterate on a number of the same things, 

18 however, what we know about the area and what is 

19 going on,today as we've expressed a number of 

20 times. 

21 Science is always taking a new turn 

22 and those new turns in archaeology are ever changing. 

23 Even now that approach and methodology is changing us 

24 to a point where we may not even have to excavate. 

25 And although we're familiar with some of the 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2-279 

33 

• 

1 archaeologists doing the environmental work, more 

2 theories and more different approaches, as to assess 

3 the total impact, are upon us at this time. 

4 We are the first people of the 

5 area, we've adopted this nation, and we're looking 

6 forward to continuing working with you. And we 

7 realize that defense is a priority, but just like 

8 energy is priority, the L & G Plant that was 

9 proposed at Point Conception was occupied in the 

10 1970s. 

11 And I'm not saying that we're going 

12 to look to occupy a military base, I mean, that's 

13 really ridiculous. However, we do look forward to 

14 doing what we can to protect what is left of our 

15 heritage. I know I'd like to protect it for my 

16 children and my children's children. 

17 The paper this morning read that 

18 the Air Force was promising that there was going 

19 to be no further encroachment into the southern 

20 part of the base. But we know from discussions 

21 that this was implied, but I know you always have 

22 your options. 

23 And I think one option you still 

24 should pursue is the utilization of SLC-6. There, 

25 we still see socioeconomic support of the 

[271] 

[272] 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
2-280 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

34 

• 

• 

• 

1 community, providing jobs for people, if and when, 

2 that gets implemented and utilized. 

3 We mentioned yesterday that it's 

4 almost like our heaven; well, it is. It's our 

5 sacred lands. We are known as the "Protectors of 

6 the Western Gateway," not only among the 

7 traditionals here, but in the Hopi legends, in the 

8 Navajo nation, and the all the way back to the 

9 Seneca in New York. So we look forward to our 

10 role in the Indian world, to assuring that we can 

11 protect that. 

12 We don't want to see Mother Earth 

13 destroyed any more and we don't want to desecrate 

14 our sacred lands. And at this time I'd really 

15 like to ask you to pursue SLC-6 and utilize it, 

16 and leave our sacred lands and our Western Gateway 

17 alone. 

18 Thank you. 

19 COL. McSHANE: Thank you. 

20 Anybody else? 

21 This is your opportunity to make 

22 comments about the proposal. 

23 There being no further comments, 

24 we'll adjourn the meeting. 

25 Thank you. 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 2-281 

1 JUNE 2015 

35 

1 (Whereupon the public hearing 

2 was concluded at 7:47 p.m.) 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
• 

2-282 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

36 

1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SS. 

2 COUNTY OF VENTURA 

4 I, ELLEN Q. BRESSI, CSR No. 7184, do hereby 

5 certify: 

6 

7 THAT the above-referenced hearing was 

8 taken at the time and place therein named and was 

9 thereafter reduced into typewritten form by 

10 computer-assisted transcription; 

11 

12 THAT the foregoing pages numbered 4 through 

13 35 consist of a full, true, and correct 

14 transcription of my notes so taken; 

15 

16 I further certify that I am not interested 

17 in the event of this action. 

18 

19 IN WITENSS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed 

20 my name on this _a___ day of , 1989. 

21 

22 

23 

ELLEN Q. BRESSI 

24 Certified Shorthand Reporter 

25 • 

DEVINE-HALL & ASSOCIATES 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 2-283 

• 2.2.2.2 Responses to Comments Received at Public Hearing 

Santa Barbara Public Meeting, August 31, 1989 

Commenter No. 7: Reggie Pagaling, associated with Chumash Cultural Heritage Association, 

Santa Ynez Indian Reservation. 

Comment No. 271: Further Development on South VAI-B 

Comment: The paper this morning read that the Air Force was promising that there was going to 

be no further encroachment into the southern part of the base. But we know from 

discussions that this was implied, but I know you always have your options. 

• 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment No. 272: Selection of SLC-6 

Comment: And I think one option you should still pursue is the utilization of SLC-6. 

Response: See response to Comment No. 139. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

U 

ADDENDA AND ERRATA TO THE DRAFT EIS 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 3-1 • 

• 

3.0 ADDENDA AND ERRATA TO THE DRAFT EIS 

This chapter contains factual corrections and additions or modifications to the analyses contained 

in the Draft EIS based on public and agency comments. The addenda and errata provided in the 

following sections are applicable to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Construction and 

Operation of Space Launch Complex 7 at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, July 20, 1989. 

As previously noted, SLC-7 has been renamed TCLC in response to the inclusion of SLC-6 as one 

of the four alternatives considered. 

This chapter is organized into three sections for ease of reference. Section 3.1, Draft EIS Text, 

contains additions and modifications made to the text of the Draft EIS. Section 3.2, Draft EIS 

Tables, contains revised or new tables to replace or add to those contained in the Draft EIS. 

Section 3.3, Draft EIS Figures, contains revised or new figures to replace or add to those 

contained in the Draft EIS. 

3.1 DRAFT EIS I EXT 

This section contains additions or modifications to the text of the Draft EIS. The material to be 

changed or added is contained in quotation marks and is identified, as appropriate, by Draft EIS 

Section, page(s), paragraph(s), and line(s). The paragraph may be identified by counting from the 

top of the page, including partial paragraphs. 

Summary, page S-1, second paragraph, after the third sentence, insert "Unless the context 

indicates otherwise, the term 'SLC-7' is used for convenience throughout the Draft EIS to refer to 

the proposed new Titan IV/Centaur Launch Complex (TCLC). In the Final EIS, the term TCLC is 

used throughout to refer to that same complex. Achieving that objective through conversion of the 

existing SLC-6 is one of the alternatives under consideration." 

Summary, page S-2, after fourth full paragraph, insert "The preferred alternative for meeting 

program launch requirements and environmental considerations is the conversation of SLC-6." 

Summary, page S-2, fifth paragraph, seventh line, change "The proposed Cypress Ridge and 

alternative Boathouse Flats and" to "The Cypress Ridge, Boathouse Flats, and." • 
NROg■ rROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • Chapter 1.0, page 1-1, first paragraph, after the first sentence, insert "Unless the context indicates 

otherwise, the term 'SLC-7' is used for convenience throughout the Draft EIS to refer to the 

proposed new Titan IV/Centaur Launch Complex (TCLC). In the Final EIS, the term TCLC is 

used throughout to refer to that same complex. Achieving that objective through conversion of the 

existing SLC-6 is one of the alternatives under consideration." 

Section 1.4, page 1-7, third paragraph, second sentence, change "(SLC-7 Scoping Process, 

Summary of Issues)" to "(Scoping Process, Summary of Issues)." 

Section 1.5.1.2, page 1-10, first paragraph, at end of paragraph, insert "The Marine Mammal 

Protection Act established a moratorium on the taking of marine mammals and that if it appears that 

incidental taking of marine mammals would occur, an incidental take permit from NMFS would be 

required, as provided in Section 101(a)(5) of the Act." 

Section 1.5.1.4, page 1-10, third paragraph, fourth line, change "(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 

1989b)" to "(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1990a)." • Section 1.5.1.4, page 1-10, fourth sentence, fifth and sixth lines, change "the Biological 

Assessment was submitted to USFWS and NMFS concurrently with the Draft EIS." to "the 

Biological Assessment will be submitted to USFWS and NMFS as available." 

Section 1.5.3.2, page 1-13, second sentence, third and fourth lines, change "(Environmental 

Solutions, Inc. 1989c)" to "(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1990b)." 

Section 1.5.4.1, page 1-14, last paragraph, fifth, sixth, and seventh lines, change "There is no 

deadline for attainment of the CAAQS. To date, SBCAPCD has not adopted any ambient air 

quality standards more stringent than the CAAQS" to "The California Clean Air Act calls for 

attainment of the CAAQS 'by the earliest possible date.' California air districts not in attainment of 

ozone, CO, NO2, and SO2 standards must reduce emissions of these pollutants and their 

precursors by five percent per year until standards are attained. SBCAPCD has adopted its own 

three-minute average hydrogen sulfide standard of 0.6 ppm." 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 3-3 

• 

• 

Section 1.5.4.1, page 1-15, Table 1.5.1, add the following footnotes: 

"Notes 

(1) California standards, other than carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (1 hour), nitrogen dioxide 

and particulate matter - PM1(), are values that are not to be equaled or exceeded. The carbon 

monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter - PM119 standards are not to be exceeded. 

(2) National standards, other than ozone and those based on annual averages or annual geometric 

means, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the 

expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 

the standard is equal to or less than one. 

(3) Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given 

in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25° C and a reference pressure of 

760 mm of mercury. All measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference 

temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm mercury (1,013.2 millibar); ppm in 

this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 

(4) Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the Air Resources Board to 

give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 

(5) National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of 

safety to protect the public health. Each state must attain the primary standards no later than 

three years after that state's implementation plan is approved by the Environmental Protection 

A szency. 

(6) National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare 

from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. Each state must attain the 

secondary standards within a "reasonable time" after the implementation plan is approved by 

the EPA. 

(7) Reference method as described by the EPA. An "equivalent method" of measurement may be 

used but must have a "consistent relationship of the reference method" and must be approved 

by EPA. 

(8) At locations where the state standards for oxidant and/or suspended particulate matter are 

violated. National standards apply elsewhere. 

(9) Prevailing visibility is defined as the greatest visibility which is attained or surpassed around at 

least half of the horizon circle, but not necessarily in continuous sectors." 

Section 1,5.4.1, page 1-16, first paragraph, add the following sentence to end of paragraph "As 

mentioned above, areas that do not attain the CAAQS for ozone, CO, NO2, and SO2 must reduce 

the emissions of these pollutants and their precursors by five percent per year until attainment is 

met. Specific AQAPs for attainment of the CAAQS must be submitted to CARB by July 1991." 

• 
NROOfPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • 

• 

Section 1.5.4.1, page 1-16, third paragraph, sixth line, after "formation." add "The EPA's State 

Implementation Plan Call (May 1988) for Santa Barbara County requires the County to prepare a 

new Plan to meet the ozone standard. The Plan will control emissions for the entire county." 

Section 1.5.4.2, page 1-17, third paragraph, first line, change "emits or controls" to "emits or may 

emit air contaminants to the atmosphere or controls; " change "air contaminants to the atmosphere" 

to "air contaminants." 

Section 1.5.4.2, page 1-17, third paragraph, third line, change "regulations, a Permit to Operate 

(PTO) is issued" to "regulations, an application for a Permit to Operate (F10) may be filed with 

SBCAPCD." 

Section 1.5.4.2, page 1-17, fifth paragraph, fifth line, change "(1) meteorological" to "(1) one year 

of meteorological." 

Section 1.5.4.2, page 1-17, fifth paragraph, sixth line, change "(2) background" to "(2) one year 

of background." 

Section 1.5.4.2, page 1-18, first paragraph, first line, delete sentence beginning with "By 

imposition of." 

Section 1.5.4.4, page 1-19, second paragraph, second line, change "descriptive" to 

"representative." 

Section 1.5.5.1, page 1-19, fifth paragraph, first and second lines, change "California Regional 

Water Quality Control Board. Resolution No. 83-12 and Order No, 83-60" to "California Regional 

Wa -r •u.li • . •1 B•.r• • I- N -•1 an• R- •f Di h, • - P-rrni ." 

Section 1.5.5.1, page 1-19, fifth paragraph, fourth line, delete sentence which begins "Resolution 

No. 83-12." 

Section 1.5.5.1, page 1-20, first paragraph, first line, delete line. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 3-5 

• 

• 

Section 1.5.5.1, page 1-20, first paragraph, second line, delete line. 

Section 1.5.5.1, page 1-20, first paragraph, third line, delete "than 2,500 gallons per day (average 

daily flow)." 

Section 1.5.5.1, page 1-20, first paragraph, sixth line, add "The wastewater system would require 

a Report of Waste Discharge permit for operation." 

Section 1.5.5.2, page 1-20, insert this paragraph between the third and fourth paragraphs "Section 

313 of the Clean Water Act requires that each department or agency, of any branch of the federal 

government having jurisdiction over any property or facility, or engaged in an activity resulting, or 

which may result, in the discharge or runoff of pollutants, shall be subject to, and comply with all 

federal, state, interstate, and local requirements respecting the control and abatement of water 

pollution in the same manner, and to the same extent as any non-governmental entity." 

Section 1.5.5.1, page 1-20, first paragraph, after the last sentence, add "A report of waste 

discharge would be submitted to the Regional Board." 

Section 1.5.5.6, page 1-21, third paragraph, second line, after "wastewater treatment units." add 

"Other provisions of RCRA that may be applicable include Subtitle F, Section 6001 through 6004, 

Federal Responsibilities; Subtitle H, Section 8002(r), Minimization of Hazardous Waste; and 

Subtitle I, Regulation of Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) including, but not limited to, Section 

9003, Release Detection, Prevention and Correction Regulations." 

• 

Section 1.5.5.8, page 1-22, second paragraph, first sentence, first line, change "(Environmental 

Solutions, Inc. 1989e)" to "(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1990c)." 

Page 1-22, add new Sections 1.5.5.9 and 1.5.5.10: 

"1.5.5.9 Executive Order 11990 

"EU 11990 provides that, 'Each agency. _shall take action to minimize the destruction, loss 

or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of 

wetlands' and that no new construction shall occur in wetlands unless the agency finds that there is 

`no practicable alternative to such construction and that the proposed action includes all practicable 

measures to minimize harm to the wetlands which may result from such use.' 
NRO3WPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• "1.5.5.10 Executive Order 12088 

"EO 12088 requires that each Federal agency shall cooperate and consult with the EPA and 

state/local agencies on the prevention, control, and abatement of environmental pollution." 

Section 1.5.6, page 1-22, add at end of list: 

Incidental Take Permit National Marine Fisheries Service" 

Section 2.1.2, page 2-4, second paragraph, second line, change "(Proposed Cypress Ridge Site 

and Alternatives)" to "(Alternative Sites)." 

Section 2.1.2, page 2-4, second paragraph, second line, change "(Proposed Cypress Ridge Site)" 

to "(Conceptual Layout, Cypress Ridge Site)." 

• Section 2.1.3.5, page 2-22, fourth paragraph, sixth and seventh lines, delete "Safety clear zones 

determined by these criteria are shown for existing space launch complexes and the proposed 

SLC-7 in Figure 2.1.2." 

Section 2.1.4, page 2-23, first paragraph, first line, change "construction of the SLC-7 project" to 

"construction of the proposed action at one of the undeveloped sites." 

Section 2.1.4, page 2-23, first paragraph, second and third lines, change "(Preliminary 

Construction Schedule and Personnel Requirements for the Proposed Action)" to "(Preliminary 

Construction Schedule and Construction Requirements for Undeveloped Sites)." 

Section 2.1.5.1, page 2-30, third paragraph, first and second lines, change "(Titan IV/Centaur, 

Typical Vehicle Assembly Time Line)" to "(Titan IV/Centaur, Typical Vehicle Assembly Time Line 

and Labor Requirements)." 

Section 2.1.6, page 2-32, fifth paragraph, first line, change "the proposed action" to 

implementation of the proposed action at one of the undeveloped sites." 

• Section 2.2.1.1, page 2-35, third paragraph, fourth line, change "cannot safety" to "cannot 

safely." 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 3-7 

Section 2.2.3.2, page 2-41, second paragraph, fourth line, change "(SLC-6 Alternative)" to 

"(SLC-6 Site)." 

Section 2.2.3.2, page 2-41, fourth paragraph, third line, delete "Payload Changeout Room 

(PCR)." 

Section 2.2.3.2, page 2-41, fourth paragraph, third line, change "(PPR), and" to "(PPR) and." 

Section 2.2.3.2, page 2-41, fifth paragraph, third line, delete first two sentences. 

Section 2.2.3.2, page 2-41, fifth paragraph, second and third lines, change "be used for 

processing payloads" to be modified to process Titan payloads." Add this corrected sentence to 

the previous paragraph. 

Section 2.2.3.2, page 2-45, first paragraph, third through seventh lines, delete third through sixth 

sentences from "The existing Mobile Service Tower" to "modified for the Titan IV/Centaur." 

Section 2.2.3.2, page 2-45, second paragraph, insert the following as the beginning of second 

paragraph: "The existing Payload Changeout Room (PCR) would likely be demolished, as would 

the Access Tower (AT). The existing Mobile Service Tower (MST), originally built for the Titan 

IIIM and modified for the Space Shuttle, would likely be demolished and replaced with a new 

structure." 

Section 2.2.3.2, page 2-45, second paragraph, third fine, delete third and fourth sentences. Insert 

the following: "The duct would likely be enlarged to encompass both Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) 

ducts, as well as the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) duct." 

Section 2.2.3.2, page 2-45, fourth paragraph, fourth line, delete third sentence. 

Section 2.2.3.2, page 2-46, first paragraph, insert the following paragraph between existing first 

and second paragraph: "The PCR, AT, and MST would likely be demolished, resulting in 

approximately 9.5, 5.0, and 12.5 million pounds of steel, respectively, to be recycled. Demolition 

• 

• 
NRWPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• 

would be primarily by cutting the structures into sections with torches and disassembling with a 

portable crane. Modifications to the Exhaust Duct would involve some demolition, resulting in 

6,300 cubic yards of concrete and steel, comprised of approximately 80 percent concrete and 

20 percent steel." 

Section 2.2.3.2, page 2-46, second paragraph, delete paragraph. Add new second paragraph as 

follows: "As shown in Figure 2.2.3a (Preliminary Construction Schedule and Personnel 

Requirements for Implementation of the Proposed Action at SLC-6), modification to existing 

facilities and construction of new facilities would begin near the end of demolition. Overall, 

facility design, demolition, and construction are expected to occur over a period of four and onehalf years. Demolition is expected to take about one year and three months, with facility 

construction, modification, and check-out occurring over a 28-month period. As shown in Figure 

2.2.3a, demolition and construction employment are expected to range from approximately 100 to 

300 people, with an expected average of approximately 200 people." 

Section 2.2.3.3, page 2-47, first paragraph, second and third lines, change "(Conceptual Site 

Layout, Boathouse Flats Alternative)" to "(Conceptual Layout, Boathouse Flats Site)." 

Section 2.2.3.3, page 2-47, first paragraph, at end of third line, insert "The anticipated duration of 

project construction and estimated construction personnel requirements for this alternative are 

shown in Figure 2.1.10." 

• 

Section 2.2.3.4, page 2-47, fourth paragraph, seventh line, change "(Conceptual Site Layout, Vina 

Terrace Alternative)" to "(Conceptual Layout, Vina Terrace Site)." 

Section 2.2.3.4, page 2-47, at the end of the fourth paragraph, insert "The anticipated duration of 

project construction and estimated construction personnel requirements for this alternative are 

shown in Figure 2.1.10." 

Section 2.3, page 2-51, first paragraph, fourth and fifth lines, change "(Comparative Summary of 

Impacts, Space Launch Complex 7)" to "(Comparative Summary of Impacts for Project 

Alternatives)." 

Section 2.3.4, page 2-60, second paragraph, fourth line, change "(Guadalupe fur seal)" to 

"(Northern elephant seal)." 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 3-9 • 

• 

Section 2.3.5, page 2-62, second paragraph, sixth line, change "Present estimates anticipate that 

approximately 250 tons of particulate material (controlled emissions) could be generated" to 

"Present estimates anticipate that controlled emissions of particulate matter less than 10 microns in 

diameter (PM10) could amount to 122.4 tons per year (TPY)." 

Section 2.3.5, page 2-62, second paragraph, last line, change "4 tons" to "5.2 tons." 

Section 2.3.11, page 2-69, third paragraph, eighth line after "processing plants and VAFB" add 

"(Madrone Associates 1981)." 

Section 2.3A1, page 2-69, fourth paragraph, third line after "populated area" add "(for information 

regarding the Toxic Hazard Corridor procedure, see Section 3.11.2.1, 1STRAD Safety 

Procedures)." 

Section 2.3.11, page 2-70, second paragraph, third line, change "It is expected that an excess skin 

cancer rate for carcinomas of one to five for one million persons and an excess cancer rate of about 

two per 10 million persons for melanomas could result from the proposed action" to "It is expected 

that an excess cancer rate of about five per 100 million persons for melanomas could result from 

the proposed action." 
3-10 

. 

c, m 

z; UM

a 

E c.,) C.) 

. - 0 tl) 0 ,- *r;:1 

> = • c4 

c.1 ..0 ca 

E = t. 

c o >, 

U 3U 

v) 

,.., =I 

E c..) ri 

*''' g ". E v, c.) C., az 

>c4 

....-:, 9 CI ...1 e,, 

:.". ""J E.1 

E -5 

= o > 

o. 

, 

C..) 3 C.) 

v, v. ca 

E c a.-; 

c n 

... — 

as E c..n C.) — C.)'.4 c.) .5 *.. 

?. 0 aG

E. 

= ...c c,.. .) 

E .-- a 

= o >, 

C..) 3U 

ff ,,, 

.-1 ¢ 

8 > •"S-• ) .-- 4 

,... as c...) c 

= , c) c..) cl ,:- bi) vi — va .5 ca 0 c a 

‹.._ 

c ,., ,,,, _.., ,... . ,,, ,.. 0 t... '? Car 6.) 

- ,.., •— -,. P., 

at 0 

-a .c = -,a,q cf,, a .c ,..4 , 1:_ -:, .; 

==00..-03 = 

E— .52 3 o a.). ..E2 

. 

•—■ 

r --- 

'''a 

.....; 

> IX) -C 

(-4_c — 1" 'E (-) -- cl • ^ (..) 0 

,-.. _ 3 n ,.., v) 

.. 7-i 0 cr -,z) 

..-. 1- ,,,, ta.) CC...1C c.-+ C.) .0 0 0 GC3 c , . 

8.. ..„, i c _1 5 al ,—, 

> 1... 

..c0 .. 

E— 3 cci o 74 > 

. N 

..-1 

>, 

2 

a ..a L.-...7_,. >. 3 

>, >, v = -,.. co , Z. e,.) -0 ..0 (3, ••••" 6 

4.) > .!..•.< 8 LE v 

t:)/3 ,__ 1-LL U 1•-• CZ .) 

. — co>, , = CI 0 0 alC.) 8 .c •.- 03 •••• 6. C C ..... 

•c-.. 

- -a a ; e o a = 

00 _ E." ' t> )) '0 0i > = ""' c4 ..0 i-, I. a) g .c..) •;.-...- •- cz ,....) ,, ..... 

›.., ,..... o c. .`.--' E ..., 0 ,..„ — — a .- -0 -. 

.c— 

0 • ii). 73 '-.) "" Q 0 "CS 

G u = Q X 0 < -C3 '9 1 C4 o. c..) c.. a) 3 ITS c) 

. 

cn 

> 

C) V) 

7) 

c 

ca 

= 

7E. a) 

= 

--... 

-4-. (-...) 

• 

• 

LU 

1).1 

1.1J 

0 

LL 

0 

Ui 

Cu-) 

0 

Z 

Section2.4. 11, page2-77,replacewith: 
3-11 

Ct 

vl V7, 

7.; UCH 

- ta0 a> 

6 Ti -0 ic4 

5 -7, 6 

- - n-- 

.: 

U 3U 

.7, 

..> r., c 

;.1 P 

5 5: Q 

- C) Q 

> - -7 

..„.. ..,s, ,- 

4--- - ..-, 

t. 

G 5. 

c - >, 

U 3U 

„, 

,; .. ,--i 

--. P 

C c.i; c..) 

- a) '''':) a) - .:e. > - e,.• 

.—-, 7.; '.1 7 

= "7".., 2 G -= ,.... 

5 - >, 

U % U 

.0 

,.. V; 5 ._,- ..c 

CI n 0 :-5 

_= M C) ...... 

- E -2 28 

- >,-.7.< ,,i 

0 .n S2 ,... = 

e., .... rA 

„ , — ca. 5 .- 

-. 4- 6 ... , ,..) 

o - 5 cn — ‘... m Z E a cn 

• 

,_., 

co C) 

,,, 

`-- 

.

c 

..., c ..= 7.. V3 ›, 4.> C) ..... C.) ...-■ 5 = u., ,..._, t.., „, :4 ca., 0 ..0 a CN = 0 

= e...) ,71 4-- a) o r.,a e.....) ..... ... c 6 ..... en '6/ ...... >:, 

= --.= >< ›,..c NOc) L. - >c) - , a .2 g , - - V) • ''• P C c6 -.. ..-i 65 -0 - .ca E.-. = 'FA (..) a> .c .-- ....., = LI. 't=3 4.) c 0 -, c .0 , , ,-, L.. a-a, T:1 C c c 1:1 a) 6 ba GO 0 GO < a - u; e., 0• - c_) ,•• e = vg ,) .... ,. al <6.4)-= P = P C la” c,) .') a .0 t, 0 - :-.., 0 0 _c . 0 . cn u _54 .• 

a -0 Q. " `.- a)" c) . ''' V) 12 41 E ,-. ,:, _s 4 . — cz - 0 0 r ., —, . — ,— — • - 5 n?_--. . _ = - 8 .,---: „."=„ — —t-•, .0 ta,..0 0 'a •-'-' . •-• > 

c .c c c) ..... 

,L c -1 •1).2 lig 

,., Q .„.., _ , ,._. . .7.; C.) 0) $.. I. a aZ) 2 a -C ., ". ("; ,., a •• 4:,.. ' .--.. 5 6 w 5 `4 r)0 ' 8 „., 5 1=3 tx, 0. ° 5 --, 00 '4 5 c -8 ° o .'3 a (..) 7 ca. cz *..., ,,., 'C.! > ..._ ca. cq = a) 3 a. 74 -.= o .- _c) R -,. ca. c-, 0, I.. v.5 Q 0 Z• 0 , .•5 rn CI " ...., 9 to s 8 Q 

vf, 7cts g„ v—3 — 50>8cDo -= >cozr—=ccsF., i...3=>,e,coca 

-c ..... a) L. L.. C ° 4) C., ,4) C.) C C) C `,..' ,.. 0 C3 0 ..... 0 (-) C 0 E- ...J .= 10 C CI. 01. al E". "0 ''0 .0 al ..... al 0 C.) =. Cd U "0 c...) = NI al 0 .... 

CV 

11) 4... Cl Cr) 

g 

Cl C) 

= 

kr; 

C-1 
LLI 

U) 

LU 

O U_ 

0 

LLI 

0 

Si 

0 

1 JUNE 2015 

Section2.5.13, page2-

84,replacewith 

• 

3-12

z 

• 

V) 

V) 

4..) 

‘.6. 

›, 

U 

4.) 6 `''? o • c4- En 

... 

I 

cm cm 2 0. >, (..) 

0 6 cm 

7P. 

C.4 C4 

,-..• 

r A 

V) 

e.) 

6. 

›N 

c.) 

2 . 

E-,t6'5 rs L7 a4 

0a 5 r.; ,..... e, 

•- -a c 7, 0 cn E.•.0 vl •v) .0 _ 

,.., W.. :', 

2 5 - cs 4-t) l'z' 0 v, 

0 .t '.... VS F., 

;.., t9 § — 

0 01.5 cu Z E Z 

60 I.—. C.) C 0 

.?..'s >.. v) • vs 0 "S 

c - -.a ..0 E = . ,.... , fa. 9, c-.1 c zo,,,., e.) o to 030.5--g 0 < , 0 .a (..-I a, ..., ....: 

0 c .- .0 .5 ,s; ■-• -c p.,, c E ‘-- 0 0 u "a , al ,.., -- ,6 EL .0 •- E-- - •.- = - ..o 3 1:1. a - c 'E;,' -‘0 .o ..- -c 

0 = ....., Q csso 00 0 MG ,8 -5 0 .5c-)0o5 0-Tc= 

.,., vs —.0 c--..—. $ CLC; • cn .. = = C C '..E. v) en ty e.) > 0 ...... po 0 = ..0 C C...) 9 t ,..,Z.,8 ma z,1 -= r... > .54 = ,c4 . e > !... = 

2 ri" 2 "" "el-'-§ Z5rq 'A'''' 0 Q a. 412 . — — 0 JV 0 0 Z = - a-. - .5 5 - - - -c Z ° --r rE -5 8.-0 0 c a' C 5 >. .1g -c c 0 .. 

•9. 

PI "' "' ° 2 2 e -a .0 el) c-) .b n • 5 Q'5.0 'IT= ,•c: c 6) 01 0.3 t..... • .... c = •E --- n 0 a,E ej 0 c)...,E-votoc=1-0.3.>0 '1)==0 5 ,S -E' 

V..) 7 al, c'' '''' r4 c > 8. cv, . . Q. -,7, .= o e c :5 I.> 0 ,, c,,, 

 0= t . Ei) Z,.... , ..G 73 , .... m . .t:, ..r.. ed) 0 9 

.... o z 6. to n 0 vo 0c > to 0. •.= 5 a- i3 0ps c , 

- — a) 1. iN4 0 6) Q C.) c C.) i.... C o• ‘.. ,. , o 5 rs E- ,—.1 s .0 1:4 a a, as r- 1 7:3 .0 cl ..., re3 = c_) O. et P- o c c.> = sl en = — 

N 

3 . 

g ..1 __, 

tr; 

N 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 3-13 

• 

• 

Section 2.6, page 2-86, after second paragraph, add "After consideration of environmental impacts 

and program launch requirements, it has been determined that the preferred alternative is the 

conversion of SLC-6." 

Section 3.1.2.6, page 3-13, fifth paragraph, last line, change "(SLC-7 Drainage Areas and 

Discharge Points)" to "(Drainage Areas and Discharge Points)." 

Section 3.3.2, page 3-33, first paragraph, last line, change "(Vegetation Communities, Proposed 

and Alternative Sites)" to "(Vegetation Communities at Alternative Sites)." - 

Section 3.3.2, page 3-33, third paragraph, last sentence, sixth and seventh lines, change 

"(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1989b)" to "(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1990a)." 

Section 3.3.2.2, page 3-40, first paragraph, seventh and eighth lines, change "(Approximate 

Distribution of Vegetation, Proposed and Alternative Sites)" to "(Approximate Distribution of 

Vegetation, Alternative Sites)." 

Section 3.4, page 3-49, first paragraph, fourth through seventh lines, change "(Environmental 

Solutions, Inc., 1989b), which has been submitted to the USFWS and the NMFS concurrently 

with this Draft EIS for formal consultation in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act" to "(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1990a), 

which will be submitted to the USFWS and NMFS for formal consultation in accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act." 

• 

Section 3.4.1.3, page 3-53, third paragraph, first line, change "are used by sea otters" to "are used 

by sea otters (20 sea otters were observed by USFWS in the Spring of 1989)." 

Section 3.4.1.3, page 3-53, sixth paragraph, second line, change "Solitary individuals" to 

"Solitary gray whale individuals." 

Section 3.4.2.1, page 3-59, second paragraph, fifth sentence, eighth line, change "(Environmental 

Solutions, Inc. 1989b)" to "(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1990a)." 

Section 3.4.2.1, page 3-63, second paragraph, third sentence, fourth and fifth lines, change 

"(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1989b)" to "(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1990a)." 
NROkillPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

• 

Section 3.5.1.1, page 3-67, second paragraph, last line, change "(USAF 1988b)" to "(Chambers 

1986)." 

Section 3.5.1.2, page 3-71, third paragraph, fourth line, change "brought to the area from" to 

"from coastal, offshore, and." 

Section 3.5.1.2, page 3-71, after third paragraph, add "North Santa Barbara County does not 

attain the CAAQS for ozone and PM10. Therefore, in accordance with the California Clean Air 

Act, ozone, PM10, and their precursors are nonattainment pollutants, and SBCAPCD must ensure 

that their emissions are reduced by 5 percent per year until attainment is met." 

Section 3.5.2.2, page 3-76, third paragraph, fifth line, delete "nighttime." 

Section 3.5.2.2, page 3-76, third paragraph, sixth line, delete entire last sentence. 

Section 3.6.2.2, page 3-85, first paragraph, fifth line, change "A Class II Landfill" to "A Class III 

Landfill." 

Section 3.9, page 3-102, second paragraph, second through fourth lines, change "Complete details 

of the literature search and inventory have been submitted concurrently with this Draft EIS to the 

California Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Advisory Council and Santa Ynez Reservation" 

to "Details of the completed literature search and inventory will be submitted to the California State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Advisory Council, and Santa Ynez Reservation." 

Section 3.9.2.3, Cypress Ridge, page 3-110, first paragraph, sixth line, change "(Environmental 

Solutions, Inc. 1989d)" to "(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1990b)." 

Section 3.11, page 3-125, first paragraph, second sentence, fourth and fifth lines, change 

"(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 19880" to "(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 19890." 

Section 3.11.2.2, page 3-135, fourth paragraph, eighth line, change "(Titan IV/Centaur Normal 

Launch HC1 Isopleths)" to "(Titan IV/Centaur Hypothetical HCl Isopleths, Normal Launch)." 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 3-15 

• 

• 

Section 3.13.1.2, page 3-152, after first paragraph add "However, no Bixby Ranch plan approval 

process or property development has actually begun. The necessary rezoning by Santa Barbara 

County has not been applied for. Potable water, utilities (including sewage disposal), and suitable 

road access are lacking at this geographically remote location, and constructing such facilities 

would diminish potential profits to be made from the development." 

Section 4.1.2.1, page 4-4, fifth paragraph, second and third lines, change "(Potential Ground 

Motion at Project Area)" to "(Potential Regional Ground Motion)." 

Section 4.3.2.1, page 4-25, fifth paragraph, fourth line, change "(Near-field Acidic Deposition 

Titan IV/Centaur Launch)" to "(Near-field Acidic Deposition, Cypress Ridge Site, Titan 

IV/Centaur Launch)." 

Section 4.3.2.3, page 4-30, second paragraph, first line, change "Temporary disturbance of 50 to 

100 mature individuals" to ''Temporary disturbance to habitat for 50 to 100 mature individuals." 

Section 4.3.2.3, page 4-30, third paragraph, seventh line, after "acid deposition." add "The worstcase near-field acidic deposition pattern from launches at the Boathouse Flats Site is shown in 

Figure 4.3.3 (Near-field Acidic Deposition, Boathouse Flats Site, Titan 1V/Centaur Launch)." 

• 

Section 4.3.2.4, page 4-31, third paragraph, third line, end of first sentence, insert "The worstcase near-field acidic deposition pattern from launches at the Vina Terrace site is shown in Figure 

4.3.4 (Near-field Acidic Deposition, Vina Terrace Site, Titan IV/Centaur Launch)." 

Section 4.3.4.1, page 4-33, fourth paragraph, eighth, ninth, and tenth lines, delete last sentence. 

Section 4.4.1.1, page 4-35, fourth paragraph, first sentence, second and third lines, change 

"(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1989b)" to "(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1990a)." 

Section 4.4.1.1, page 4-35, fourth paragraph, third sentence, fifth and sixth lines, change 

"(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1989b)" to "(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1990a)." 

Section 4.4.1.1, page 4-36, fourth paragraph, fifth sentence, tenth line, change "(Environmental 

Solutions, Inc. 1989b)" to "(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1990a)." 
NRO APPROVED FDR5 RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

Section 4.4.1.3, page 4-40, sixth paragraph, second line, change "during the pupping seasc 

"during the harbor seal pupping season." 

Section 4.4.1.3, page 4-41, first paragraph, first line, change "100 to 120 pups" to "100 to I 

harbor seal pups." 

Section 4.4.1.3, page 4-41, fourth paragraph, fifth line, change "(Environmental Solutions, I 

1989b)" to "(Environmental Solutions, Inc 1990a)." 

Section 4.4.2.1, page 4-43, fourth paragraph, second and third lines, change "(Acidic Deposit 

in Vicinity of Honda Creek, Proposed Action)" to "(Acidic Deposition in Vicinity of Honda Cr 

Cypress Ridge Site, Titan IV/Centaur Launch)." 

Section 4.4.2.1, page 4-45, fourth paragraph, third through fifth lines, change "tidewater gob) 

Category 2 candidate species proposed for federal listing" to "the tidewater goby, a Federal 

Category 2 candidate species." 

Section 4.4.2.2, page 4-48, first paragraph, eighth line, after "expected to be significant." add 

"The maximum anticipated acidic deposition pattern for Honda Creek from a Titan IV/Centaur 

launch at SLC-6 is shown in Figure 4.4.4 (Acidic Deposition In Vicinity of Honda Creek, SLCSite, Titan IV/Centaur Launch)." 

Section 4.4.2.3, page 4-49, first paragraph, second line, after "occur in the vicinity." insert "The 

maximum anticipated acidic deposition pattern for Honda Creek from a Titan W/Centaur launch a 

the Boathouse Flats site is shown in Figure 4.4.5 (Acidic Deposition in Vicinity of Honda Creek, 

Boathouse Flats Site, Titan IV/Centaur Launch)." 

Section 4.4.2.4, page 4-49, fourth paragraph, third line, delete third sentence, add new third 

sentence "The analysis of maximum anticipated acidic deposition into Honda Creek shown in 

Figure 4.4.6 (Acidic Deposition in Vicinity of Honda Creek, Vina Terrace Site, Titan IV/Centaur 

Launch) illustrates that impacts would be of the same order of magnitude as previously discussed 

for the other alternatives. These impacts are expected to be localized, short-term, and insignifican 

in nature. Additional impacts to migrant or transient regionally rare and declining species and list( 

species of birds or land mammals from exposure to launch emissions are also expected to be 

insignificant." • 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

3-17 • 

• 

Section 4.5.1, page 4-57, fifth paragraph, second line, change "(SLC-7 Operational Emissions)" 

to "(TCLC Operational Emissions)." 

Section 4.5.1, page 4-57, fifth paragraph, fourth line, change "(Comparison of SLC-7 and VAFB 

Annual Emissions)" to "(Comparison of TCLC and VAFB Annual Emissions)." 

Section 4.5.2.1, page 4-60, fourth paragraph, third line, change "500" to "490." 

Section 4.5.2.1, page 4-60, fourth paragraph, seventh line, delete entire last sentence beginning 

with "Ground disturbing activities" and replace with "It is assumed that approximately 50 percent 

of the total suspended particulate matter is emitted as particulate matter less than 10 microns in 

diameter (PMio)•" 

Section 4.5.2.1, page 4-60, fifth paragraph, second and third lines, change "(SLC-7 Estimated 

Construction Equipment Emissions at the Cypress Ridge Site)" to "(Estimated Construction 

Emissions, Cypress Ridge Site)." 

Section 4.5.2.2, page 4-67, first paragraph, prior to first line, insert "Estimated construction 

emissions from conversion of the SLC-6 site are shown in Table 4.5.4a (Estimated Construction 

Emissions, SLC-6 Site)." 

Section 4.5.2.3, page 4-67, delete third paragraph and replace with "Construction emissions 

estimated for the Boathouse Flats Site are shown in Table 4.5.46 (Estimated Construction 

Emissions, Boathouse Flats Site). As described for the Cypress Ridge and SLC-6 sites, 

construction emissions are temporary so impacts to air quality are not expected to have a significant 

impact on the environment" 

Section 4.5.2.4, page 4-67, delete fourth paragraph and replace with "Construction emissions 

estimated for the Vina Terrace Site are shown in Table 4.5.4c (Estimated Construction Emissions, 

Vino, Terrace Site). As described for the previous sites, construction emissions are temporary, so 

impacts to air quality are not expected to have a significant impact on the environment." 

• Section 4.5.3, page 4-67, sixth paragraph, change "(SLC-7 Cumulative Emissions)" to 

"(Cumulative Emissions)." 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNV2015 

• 

• 

Section 4.5.4.4, page 4-75, second paragraph, seventh line after "This translates to a risk level of 

five per 100 million persons" add "for melanomas." 

Section 4.6.1, page 4-77, fourth paragraph, first line, replace second sentence with "However, 

demolition of the SLC-6 launch mount, payload changeout room, access tower, and mobile service 

tower, modifications to the exhaust ducts, and removal of the hypergolic propellant delivery 

systems would result in regional impacts to industrial disposal facilities." 

Section 4.6.1.3, page 4-79, third paragraph, seventh and eighth lines, change "(North VAFB 

Hazardous Wastes, Titan II, IV, and SLC-7 Programs)." to "(North VAFB Hazardous Wastes, 

Titan II and IV Programs and Proposed Action)." 

Section 4.6.2.1, page 4-81, third paragraph, delete fifth, sixth, and seventh lines. 

Section 4.6.2.1, page 4-81, fourth paragraph, first line, delete "per Resolution 83-12." 

Section 4.6.2.1, page 4-82, third paragraph, third line, change "Lompoc Class II landfill" to 

"Lompoc Class III landfill." 

Section 4.6.2.1, page 4-83, second paragraph, sixth line, change "(Estimated Launch Wastewater 

Characteristics)" to "(Estimated Launch Wastewater Characteristics After Hypochlorite 

Treatment)." 

Section 4.6.2.1, page 4-83, third paragraph, second and third lines, change "(SLC-7 Launch 

Wastewater Generation and Treatment Cycle)." to "(Launch Wastewater Generation and Treatment 

Cycle)." 

Section 4.6.2.1, page 4-87, first paragraph, fourth and fifth lines, change "(Summary, VAFB and 

SLC-7 On-site Hazardous Waste Generation)." to "(Summary, On-site Hazardous Waste 

Generation, VAF-B and Proposed Action)." 

• 

Section 4.6.2.2, page 4-87, fifth paragraph, first line, delete first sentence. Replace with 

"Modification of the SLC-6 site would require demolition of the existing launch mount, payload 

changeout room, access tower, mobile service tower (MST), modifications to the exhaust duct, 

and refitting the fuel and oxidizer systems and various other facilities located at SLC-6." 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 3-19 • Section 4.6.2.2, page 4-89, first paragraph, first line, change "135 tons" to "8,750 tons." 

Section 4.6.2.2, page 4-89, first paragraph, first and second lines, delete first complete sentence, 

which begins, "This steel would." Insert "Demolition of the payload changeout room would 

produce about 9.5 million pounds of steel. Modification of the exhaust duct would produce about 

5,040 cubic yards of concrete and 1,260 cubic yards of steel." 

Section 4.6.2.2, page 4-89, first paragraph, third line, change "as scrap." to "as scrap, to be 

recycled." 

Section 4.6.3.2, page 4-90, fourth paragraph, fourth line, change "or the Class II landfill" to "or 

the Class III landfill." 

Section 4.6.4, page 4-94, after fifth paragraph, add the next two paragraphs: 

"If the U.S. Air Force discovers evidence of hazardous substances contamination in the future, it 

will promptly notify the EPA, and will comply with all applicable requirements of CERCLA/SARA 

and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Further, if CERCLA hazardous substances are 

discovered at the project site, no construction would occur until the requirements of 

CERCLA/SARA and the NCP had been fully satisfied. 

"The U.S. Air Force would coordinate with appropriate state and local regulatory agencies to 

determine their concerns on the identification, assessment, or cleanup of hazardous substances or 

hazardous waste." 

Section 4.10, page 4-121, second paragraph, change "(Estimated SLC-7 Personnel 

Requirements)" to "(Estimated Personnel Requirements)." 

Section 4.11.1.1, page 4-127, fifth paragraph. Delete paragraph and replace with "Health and 

safety impacts related to the construction of the proposed action are similar to those encountered in 

other large construction projects and do not present unusual risks to the public." 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 Ja02015 • 

• 

Section 4.11.5.1, page 4-134, fourth paragraph, last line, add If more information is necessary, 

the Risk Assessment is available from: 

Mr. John Edwards 

HQ SSD/DEV 

P. 0. Box 92960 

Los Angeles, California 90009-2960 

Telephone: (213) 643-0934" 

Section 4.13.1.2, page 4-157, first and second paragraphs. Delete and replace Section 4.13.1.2 

with the following four paragraphs: 

"The conceptual plans that have been announced for cluster residential development of Bixby 

Ranch or similar proposals for lands south and east of South VAFB are for high density 

development, which could result in unacceptably high risks from future USAF launches. 

However, consistent with current operations procedures, these risks could be reduced to acceptable 

levels through launch restrictions or other protective measures. 

"These potentially high risks would be due to greater population density and the potential for debris 

scatter that may result from a launch anomaly at certain wind conditions and altitudes. These risks 

are from falling launch debris or fires started by such debris. These risks are addressed in detail in 

the White Paper on Bixby Ranch Update (USAF 1988), the Risk Assessment for this project 

(Environmental Solutions, Inc. 1989f), and Evaluation of Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch 

Risk Model and Application (1ENERA 1990). 

"However, no plan approval process or property development has begun for the Bixby Ranch or 

other properties south and east of VAFB. For the case of Bixby Ranch, the agriculture-residential 

cluster overlay district zoning has not been applied for from Santa Barbara County. In addition, 

potable water, utilities (including sewage disposal), and suitable road access are lacking at this 

geographically remote location. Constructing such facilities would diminish potential profits to be 

made from development of the property. 

"In order to prevent potential future higher risks, USAF has begun a detailed study of the real 

estate interests in the area for the purpose of evaluating the feasibility of potential real estate 

acquisition, both of the Bixby Ranch property and other private lands south and east of South • 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 3-21 • VAI-E. Such an acquisition would protect USAF polar orbit capability for as long as it is needed. 

In addition to this acquisition effort, USAF will continue to oppose any incompatible development 

through the local planning and zoning processes (USAF 1988j)." 

Section 4.13.4, pages 4-160 and 4-161. Delete and replace Section 4.13.4 with: 

"4.13.4 MITIGATION MEASURES 

4.13.4.1 Cypress Ridge 

• 

Impacts to land use from implementation of the proposed project at the Cypress Ridge site, given 

current levels of development on lands south and east of South VAFB, are short-term and 

infrequent and do not require mitigation. To prevent higher density development from occurring in 

areas south and east of South VAFB, USAF has begun a detailed study of the real estate interests 

in the area for the purpose of evaluating the feasibility of potential real estate acquisition, both of 

the Bixby Ranch property and other private lands south and east of South VAFB. Otherwise, as is 

consistent with current operations procedures, these risks could be reduced to acceptable levels 

through launch restrictions or other protective measures. 

4.13.4.2 SLC-6 

Impacts to land use and mitigation measures for implementation of the proposed action at SLC-6 

would be the same as described for Cypress Ridge. 

4.13.4.3 Boathouse Flats 

Impacts to land use and mitigation measures for implementation of the proposed action at 

Boathouse Flats would be the same as described for Cypress Ridge. 

4.13.4.4 Vina Terrace 

Impacts to land use and mitigation measures for implementation of the proposed action at Vina 

Terrace would be the same as described for Cypress Ridge." • Section 4.17.3, page 4-175, delete entire section. 
NRO,gTROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUKnO15 

• Chapter 8.0, page 8-2, change "California Air Resources Board. 1987. Air Resources Board fact 

sheet 38. CARB: Sacramento, August." to "California Air Resources Board. 1988. Air 

Resources Board fact sheet 38. CARB: Sacramento, July." 

Chapter 8.0, page 8-2, add "Chambers Group, Inc., 1986, Draft EIR/EIS, Proposed Arco Coal 

Oil Point Project, Volume I and Appendix 6 - Terrestrial Biology, SCH No. 84011105, SLC 

No. EIR-401, SBC No. 86-EIR-12, U.S. Army COE Permit Appl. No. 85-047-RC, September." 

Chapter 8.0, page 8-5, first reference, first line, change "1989b" to "1990a." 

Chapter 8.0, page 8-5, third reference, first line, change "1989d" to "1990b." 

Chapter 8.0, page 8-5, fourth reference, first line, change "1989e" to "1990c." 

• 

Chapter 8.0, page 8-12, add "USAF. 1979. Final Report, An Inventory of Air Pollutant 

Emissions for Space Shuttle Construction and Operations at Vandenberg Air Force Base and Port 

Hueneme. Prepared for Department of the Air Force, Headquarters Space and Missile Systems 

Organization. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. May." 

Chapter 8.0, insert at top of page 8-13, "USAF. 1982a. Supplemental water study for 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Task Ib, review of water supply alternatives. March." 

Chapter 8.0, page 8-13, change "USAF. 1982a" to "USAF. 1982b." 

Chapter 8.0, page 8-13, change "USAF. 1982b" to "USAF. 1982c." 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 • 

3.2 DRAFT EIS TABLES • 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

3-23 • 32 DRAFT-EIS TABLES 

The following tables are provided as addenda and errata to the Draft EIS. The materials included 

here either replace existing tables contained in the Draft EIS or are inserts into that document. The 

page number shown on the top of the page corresponds to the replacement/insertion page for the 

Draft EIS. 

• 
NRO APB PROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• TABLE 1.4.1 

SCOPING PROCESS 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES 

SAFETY (including operations, accidents, propellant 

Oral 

Comments 

Written 

Comments Total 

transport, and emergency response plans) 1 7 8 

RECREATION (impact of operations on closure of Jalama 

Beach County Park and Ocean Beach County Park) 1 5 6 

AIR QUALITY (impacts of toxic pollutants and operations 

emissions) - 6 6 

AL1ERNATIVES (use of existing/alternate sites) 1 3 4 

SOCIOECONOMICS (impacts on local employment, 

population, and housing) 1 3 4 

VEGETATION/WILDLIFE (effects of toxic pollutants, 

noise, and habitat removal) 4 4 

WATER RESOURCES (ground and surface water quality, 

ground water extraction) 3 

LAND USE (compatibility with surrounding properties) - 2 2 

WASTE MANAGEMENT (disposal of hazardous/toxic 

wastes and wastewater) 2 2 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 1 1 

TRANSPORTATION - 1 1 

Note: Appendix A.6 contains responses to the written scoping comments and shows where each 

comment is addressed in the Draft EIS. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 1-15 

• TABLE 1.5.1 

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 

POLLUTANT AVERAGING 

TINE 

CALIFORNIA STANDARDS (1) NATIONAL STANDARDS (2) 

CONCENTRATION (3) METHOD (4) PRLMARY (3-5) SECONDARY (3,6) METHOD(47) 

- 

Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm 

(180 ug/m3) 

Ultraviolet 

Photometry 

0.12 ppm 

(235 ug/m3) 

Same as 

Primary Standards 

Ethylene 

Chemiluminescence 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

8 Hour 9.0 ppm 

(10 mg/m3) 

Non-dispersive 

Infrared 

Spectroscopy 

(ND1R) 

9 ppm 

(10 mg/m3) 

— 

Non-dispersive 

Infrared 

Spectroscopy 

1 Hour (NOIR) 

20 ppm 

(23 mg/m3) 

35 ppm 

(40 mg/m3) 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

Annual 

Average — Gas Phase 

Chemiluminescence 

0.053 ppm 

(100 ug/m3) Same as 

Primary 

Standards 

Gas Phase 

Chemiluminescence 

1 Hour 0.25 ppm 

(470 ug/m3) — 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

Annual 

Average — 

Ultraviolet 

fluorescence 

0.03 ppm 

(80 ug/m3) — 

Pararosoanil in e 

24 Hour 0.05 ppm (8) 

(131 ug/m3) 

0.14 ppm 

(365 ug/m3) 

— 

3 Hour — — 

0.5 ppm 

(1300 ug/m3) 

1 Hour 

0.25 ppm 

(655 ug/m3) 

_ 

— 

Suspended 

Particulate 

Matter 

TMio) 

Annual 

Geometric 

Mean 

30 ug/m3 

Size Selective 

Inlet High 

Volume Sampler 

and Gravimetric 

Analysis 

— — 

24 Hour 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 

Same as 

Primary 

Standards 

Inertial Seperation 

and Gravimetric 

Analysis 

Annual 

Arithmetic 

Mean 

.. 

— — 

– 

50 ug/m3 

Sulfates 24 Hour 25 ug/m3 Turbidimetric 

Barium Sulfate — 

_ 

— 

Lead 

30 Day 

Average 1.5 ug/m3 

Atomic 

Absorption 

— — 

Atomic 

Calendar Absorption 

Quarter — 1.5 ug/m3 Same as 

Primary Standards 

Hydro

Sul fid gen 1 Hour 0.03 

(42 ug/

ppm

m3) 

Cadmium 

Hydroxide 

STRactan 

— — — 

Vinyl Chloride 

(chloroethene) 24 Hour 0.010 ppm 

(26 ug/m3) 

Tedlar Bag 

Collection, Gas 

Chromatography 

— — __ 

Visibility 

Reducing 

Particles 

_ 

1 Observation 

In sufficient amount to reduce the 

prevailing visibility to less than 

10 miles when the relative 

humidity is less than 70 percent.(9) 

— — — 

Source: California Air Resources Board 1988. 87-271 C7 /9/S0) 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 TABLE 2.2.1 2-43 

• 

• 

EXISTING SLC-6 FACILITIES 

AND PROPOSED UTILIZATION 

FACILITY 

STATUS 

PROPOSED UTILIZATION 

UTILIZED IN PRESEN 11 

CO

N

FIGURATION 

UTILIZED WITH MODIFICATIONS 

MOTHBALLED OR 

UTILIZED FOROTHER 

PROJECTS 

DEMOLITION 

Payload Processing Room (PPR) X Modified to accommodate Titan payloads 

Payload Changeout Room (PCR) X Subject to demolition 

Shuttle Assembly Building (SAB) X Utilized in present configuration 

Access Tower (AT) - X Subject to demolition 

Aerial Escape Tram X Disassembled and disposed of offsite 

Launch Mount (LM) X Subject to demolition 

Launch Exhaust Ducts (LD) X Modified to accommodate Titan IV/Centaur. 

Mobile Service Tower (MST) X Subject to demolition 

Operations Support Building (OSB) X Modified to accommodate Titan IV/Centaur 

Launch Control Center (LCC) X Utilized for office space 

Security Systems, guard shack X Completed, modify as necessary 

Hydrazine Storage and Transfer X Modified, prepared for use, APCD permit 

Nitrogen Tetroxi de (NA) Storage 

and Transfer 

X Modified, prepared for use, APCD permit 

Cryogenic Storage Areas X Modified, prepared for use 

Industrial Wastewater Treatment 

Facility 

X Modified with addition of equipment and 

storage capacity, cleaned, prepared for 

operation. 

Deluge Water Transfer System X Inspected, cleaned, prepared for operation 

Communications System X Modified to accommodate Titan IV/Centaur 

Utilities Inspected, cleaned, prepared for operation 

Water X 

Electricity X 

Propane X 

Sewage Disposal X 

Water Tank X Inspected, cleaned, prepared for use 

Parking X Utilized in present configuration 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1,4)NE 2015 

• TABLE 2.3.1 

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

• 

RESOURCE POTENTIAL EFFECT 

ALTERNATIVE SITE 

ES RIDG

CYPRESS SLC-6 

BOATHOUSE 

FLATS TERRACE 

1. Geology and Soils • Earthquake 0 0 0 

S-•• •••oo• )S). • a l Q 0 I la0S-0 0 '0-'0- 

• Landslide 0 ® 0 

• Erosion 0 0 0 

• Soil losses 

- Construction 0 0 0 

- Operations 0 0 0 

• Excavation 0 0 0 

• Fill • 0 C 

• Borrow site(s) • 0 C 

• Spoil site(s) 0 0 0 

2. Water Resources 

• Ground Water • Water Use 0 0 0 

• Surface Water • Increased runoff C 0 0 

• Contamination from spill 0 0 0 

3. Vegetation • Loss of habitat 0 0 • 

• Loss of sensitive species • 0 0 

• Operational deposition 0 0 0 

4. Wildlife 

• Channel Islands birds, • Launch noise, sonic boom 0 0 0 

mammals 

• Nearshore marine birds, • Construction/operations disturbance 0 0 • 

mammals • Use of External Tank Landing Facility 0 0 0 

• Air Emissions 0 0 • 

• Terrestrial birds, • Loss of habitat, roosting sites 0 0 C 

wildlife • Launch noise, sonic boom 0 0 0 

• Air emissions 0 0 0 

Legend 

0 =Least impact compared to other three sites 

0 = Low intermediate impact compared to other three sites 

0 .. High intermediate impact compared to other three sites 

• = Most impact compared to other three sites 

0 = Same impact as other site(s) 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• TABLE 2.3.1 (Continued) 

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-53 

• 

RESOURCE POTENTIAL EFFECT 

ALTERNATIVE SITE 

CYPRESS 

RIDGE SLC-6 BOATHOUSE 

FLATS 

VINA 

TERRACE 

5. Air Quality/Meteorology 

6. Waste Management 

• Domestic Waste 

• Industrial Waste 

• Hazardous Waste 

7. Noise 

8. Visual Resources 

• Facility construction dust 

• Pre-launch and post-launch 

processing emissions 

• Launch emissions 

• Vehicle failure emissions 

• Stratospheric ozone depletion 

• Santa Maria sewage treatment 

facility 

• Construction 

- North VAFB Class LEI landfill 

- Lompoc Class II landfill 

• Operations 

- North VAFB Class III landfill 

- Lompoc Class II landfill 

• North VAFB hazardous waste 

storage facility 

- Construction 

- Operations 

• Class I landfill 

- Construction 

- Operations 

• Normal launch 

• Explosion 

• Impair view from Jalama Beach 

• Impair view from railroad 

0 

0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0,,, 

So 

0 

0 

0_, 

SD 

0 

0 

0 

4) 

0 

0 

0 0 

0 

0 

• 

• 

0 

0 

0 

• 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

• 

0 

0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0_, 

So 

0 

0 

C 

• 

• 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 0 

V 

0_, 

Sol 

0 

0 

• 

0 

Legend 

0= Least impact compared to other three sites ii• . = Low intermediate impact compared to other three sites 

C = High intermediate impact compared to other three sites 

• = Most impact compared to other three sites 

0 = Same impact as other site(s) 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

12NNE 2015 TABLE 2.3.1 (Continued) 

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

RESOURCE POTENTIAL EFFECT 

ALTERNATIVE SITE 

CYPRESS 

RIDGE 

SLC 6 - 

BOATHOUSE 

FLATS 

VA 

TER RACE 

9. Cultural Resources 

• U.S. Coast Guard 

Rescue Station 

• Rock Art Site 

• Archaeological 

Resources 

• Paleontology 

• Caliche Fossils 

10. Transportation 

11. Health and Safety 

12. Socioeconomics 

• Disturbance from normal launch 

• Vibration and emissions 

• Vibration and emissions 

• Disturbance from explosion 

• Disturbance from grading and 

earthmoving 

• Disturbance from grading and 

earthmoving 

• Vibration from sonic boom 

• Increase in traffic 

• Need for additional traffic control 

• Normal launch 

• Unscheduled event 

• Explosion damage 

• Fire damage 

• Stratospheric ozone depletion 

• Construction 

- Increased employment 

- Increased population 

- Increased housing demand 

- Increased demand to public 

services/utilities 

- Increased local/reg,ional spending 

• Operations 

- Increased employment 

- Increased population 

- Increased housing demand 

- Increased demand to public 

services/utilities 

- Increased local/regional spending 

0 

0 

0 

0 

• 

C 

0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

C 

0 

0* 0 

V 0 

0* 

0_ 

0 

0 0 

0* 

0 

0 

• 

• 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0* 

0 

0 

0 

0* 

0 

0 0 

0 

* 

0 

• 

• 

0 

0 

C 

• 

0 

0 0 

0 0 

• 

0 

0 

0* 

0 

0 

0 

0* 

0„, 

V-) 0 

0 

0* 

C 

C 

0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

• 

0 

0* 

0, 

SO 

0 

0* 

,,, 0* 

50 0 

0 

0* 

Legend 

0 = Least impact compared to other three sites 

= Low intermediate impact compared to other three sites 

C = High intermediate impact compared to other three sites 

• = Most impact compared to other three sites 

0 = Same impact as other site(s) 

* = Positive/beneficial impact 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 TABLE 2.3.1 (Continued) 

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-55 

RESOURCE POTENTIAL EFFECT 

ALTERNATIVE SITE 

CYPRESS 

RIDGE SLC-6 BOATHOUSE 

FLATS 

VINA 

TERRACE 

13. Land Use • Interference to adjacent/nearby uses 0 0 0 0 

• New development area 0 0 0 • 

• Coastal zone management ID 0 • 

14. Recreation • Jalama Beach closures 0 0 0 0 

• Marine recreation interruptions 0 0 0 P 

Legend 

0 = Least impact compared to other three sites 

= Low intermediate impact compared to other three sites 

O = High intermediate impact compared to other three sites 

• = Most impact compared to other three sites 

0 = Same impact as other site(s) 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

3-25 

TABLE 3.2.1 

SURFACE WATER QUALITY 

POINT ARGUELLO AREA 

PARAME IIR (a) SLC-6 (b,d) 

CANYON 

(b,d) OIL WF1 T CARADA(c'd) 

AQUA VIVA 

DRINKING 

WATER 

STANDITE ARDS/ 

CRRIA(e) 

CANYON 

Watershed Area (acres) 323 706 570 NA 

pH (pH units) 7.7 7.8 9.6 5.0-9.0 

Chemical Oxygen Demand 86 57 10 NS 

Total Organic Carbon 13 7 7 NS 

Oil and Grease 0.38 0.45 1.5 NS 

Nitrate 0.35 0.45 0.5 45 

Phosphate NR NR NR NS 

Cadmium - NR NR NR 0.01 

Chromium NR NR NR 0.05 

Iron 4.9 0.394 17 0.3 

Lead NR NR NR 0.05 

Zinc NR NR NR 5.0 

Calcium 84 79 99 NS 

Magnesium 60 72 86 NS 

Potassium 8 8 14 NS 

Sodium 184 139 130 NS 

Total Hardness 470 500 1,100 400 

Aluminum 3.922 0.516 9.5 NS 

Chloride 352 354 300 250 

Total Dissolved Solids 1,207 1,095 2,100 500 

Specific Conductance 1,584 prnho/cm 1,374 tunho/cm 2,400 punho/cm 1,600 p.mho/cm 

Sulfate 159 167 980 250 

Turbidity 98 NTU 14 NTU 130 NTU 5 NTU 

Total Acidity 40 42 20 NS 

Alkalinity 292 249 250 400 

Dissolved Oxygen 9.5 9.1 9.6 NS 

NR = Not reported 

NS = No established standard 

NA = Not applicable 

(a)Mg/L, except where noted. 

03)Mean values from samples taken in 1986. 

(c) Value from single sample 3/31/86. 

(d) Source: USAF 1988a. 

(e) Source: CCR, Title 22, Chapter 15, Article 5, Part 64435. • 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 TABLE 3.3.1 

3-41 

• APPROXIMATE DISTRIBUTION OF VEGETATION 

AT ALTERNATIVE SITES 

• 

PLANT 

COMMUNITY 

PRIMARY SITE 

(ACRES) 

UTILITY 

CORRIDORS 

(ACRES) 

TOTAL 

(ACRES) 

PERCENT 

OF SITE 

DISTURBED 

CYPRESS RIDGE 

Venturan coastal sage scrub 4.5 0.0 4.5 2.4 

Grassland - coastal scrub 8.5 8.0 16.5 9.0 

Grassland - nonnative 18.5 9.0 27.5 14.9 

Ruderal 4.5 4.0 8.5 4.7 

Central coastal scrub 83.5 37.0 120.5 65.0 

Riparian/wetland 0.5 5.0 5.5 3.0 

Central dune scrub 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 

Chaparral 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 

120.0 65.1 185.1 100.0 

SLC-6 

Not vegetation 140.0 Utility corridors 140.0 50.0 

Ruderal 44.0 not required for 44.0 15.7 

Central coastal scrub 82.0 SLC-6 Alternative. 82.0 29.3 

Chaparral 9.5 9.5 3.4 

Maritime chaparral 1.0 1.0 0.3 

Riparian/wetland 3.5 3.5 1.3 

280.0 280.0 100.00 

BOATHOUSE FLATS 

Grassland - normative 130.0 19.0 149.0 68.0 

Grassland - coastal scrub 0.0 10.0 10.0 4.6 

Ruderal 0.0 8.0 8.0 3.6 

Riparian/wetland 0.0 5.0 5.0 2.2 

Central coastal scrub 0.0 42.0 42.0 19.1 

Central dune scrub 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 

Venturan coastal sage scrub 0.0 3.0 3.0 1.4 

Chaparral 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

130.0 89.1 219.1 100.0 

VINA TERRACE 

Central coastal scrub 90.0 60.0 150.0 59.2 

Grassland - nonnative 25.0 14.0 39.0 15.4 

Grassland - coastal scrub 20.0 11.0 31.0 12.2 

Venturan coastal sage scrub 15.0 7.0 22.0 8.7 

Ruderal 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.8 

Chaparral 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.8 

Riparian/wetland 0.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 

Central dune scrub 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.8 

Not vegetation 0.0 02 0 2 0. J 

150.0 103.2 253.2 100.0 

87-271 (6(29/90) 
PGA(4) 

(MPE) 

0 t-.4 

6 

0 

,-.. 

6 

CO 

c 

6 

.--, — 

c::: 

C:71 

c 

6 

,--1 

,-- 

6 

tr, 

c 

6 

cn 

,.. 

6 

1--- 

c 

6 

r-- ‘.... 

6 

CT, 

f::; 

tr) c) 

c; 

(--1 •-. 

6 

PGA(3) 

(MCE) 

N 

6 

 * 

c:3 

 N 

6 

— 

6 

 .."-1 

6 

■ 

6 

0 

6 

■ 

6 

,C. 

6 

C c-; 

■ 

6 

0 

6 

N 

6 

w 

a., 

(6) 

6 

,.. 

r-Z 

C) 

r 

(41 

v6 

Cn 

v:3 

C•") 

.6 

C:r \ 

iti 

C,1 

r--: 

1r) 

s. 6 

kr) 

C 

c t--- . 

c::7 

.6 

tr, t-,1 

cO 

w 

U tr) r--: 

tr.) 

r--: 

tr) 

r-: 

v-) 

.6 

tr) 

.6 

tr) 

.6 

6 

.6 

In z--: cc 

.6 

6 

1 

•t. 

r-: 

4-) N 

r--: 

tr) 

N 

cci 

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE 

FROM PROJECT VICINITY 

(MILES) 

- 6 n 

N 

- 

n 

N N N r N 

. 

FAULTS 

a '4 0 

= 

.34 g 

PCI 

el 

... Q 

= ....) 

vs 

= a 

cr) 

..w 

g 

ccl 

...., cs 

c.) 

= ..-1 

et 

.. 

5 

Cl) 

' v) 

g 

ij... 

-a 

0 E 

m E 

0 0 

0. 

E 0 ..) 

.) 0 

-5, 4:4 

0 

al 

E 

• •-' .`e 4 

21), 0 

-5, 

,..., 4- 

0 

0 

• —. 15. 8 

c 

° t) 

*6 

.._ 0 

P. 

o 

75 

...a 

o 

g 

4:1 

•• 

O 

ce, 

® • 

= 

T..) 

.E 

ti. 

a >-4 c's g 

v) 

ed 

7,4 

, 

E 

Ct c) 

, 

'a' 

2 

f.4 a) CI 

. 

1:) -

7 

(4 0 

E 

"1 

< 

t/3 0 

,.. 

a; 

* 

on 

a) 

= . — 

a, 

eu C- a) 

"-. 

CCF 

-a 

''s 

= 

a c/1 

 , 

,E ‘14 pl) 

• - PC1 

CiA 

0 

..e, '- 

- 

g 

cr) 

87-271 (6/29/90) 

POTENTIAL REGIONAL GROUND MOTION 

• 

TABLE 4.1.3 

C.) a, m m 

2 2 713 -7! 

r.4 td) 

os

< <o u 

4-7 
4-58 

8 

LB/M-GA L LB/11R LE/Y R I 

Os en vl. ". - n 0 en 

h .-- 

8888?=8 c9i 

ododdcid o 

01 01 VI vI vl VI VI 

NNNNN N hi 

o d ci d o d d 

LB/M-GAL LB/HR LB/YRI 

VI 0) , g.:,

88 S 88 P 8 g 

O 6 O ci 6 d d 6 

0. -0- vr V epee V V: V: .1 .0 et ..1 

d000ddd 

C 

U 

L11/MGAL LB/11R LB/YR 

3. 1 0.01 106 3. 1 0.00 40 3. 1 0.18 920 3. 1 0.01 7 

3. 1 0.01 7 3. 1 2.32 313 

3. 1 0.00 0 

2.53 1393 

e O 

VI 

LB/M-GAL LB/11R LB/YR 

oc,00—c, 0-, 

88888'0,8 — 

d ci d O ci o 

9 

-0.0- .0- .0 -0- .0 -0- 

0000000 

ci ci d ci d d d 

NOx 

LB/M-GAL LB/HR 1.11/YR 

01 00 00 20 00 01 h '0 

N VI r- hi N vl 0 N 

ot .- 0 N N 

en -.. vr 0, 

0 -- V) hi en en en 0., ,..., 

q q r- q q ri - • ocnc;coo,--- , 4 

.0, .0 -0 vr vf vt 

N N <-•i N N N N 

GALLONS/ 

HRS/ LB/HR MM-BM/ HR 

LAUNCII PROPANE HR PROPANE 

0. VI Os vi VI ON 0 en 

01 .-- 03 N N i.Z 0 CO 

vl CO-- 

vl rn ONNNQ 

0n - eV N hi .-. aL) 

0 C vi 0 Ci -43 ci ‘c, ,D 0 N N N 0 0 .0 

hi 

0 , 00 

Fl Z 

en 

el 

v? -0 

ti 

5 C 

,,, 

Operations Support Building Guard House 

Launch ServiceStructure 

112 Flare(booster) 

112 Flare(payload) 

Fuel VaporIncineratora) 

Oxidizer VaporScrubbeil) 

TOTALS 

Fl 

Vi 

CO 

O 

(Ni 

00 

q 

o 5C 

z z

U 

N 

F 

0 

2 

Gi] 

5 

00 

9 

O 

5 

O 

N 

s0 

VI 

Ni 

5 

5 

5 

60.07 10,226 Total of All Emission Sources 

5 N 

5 O 

cc 

cc 

5 

O 

z 

VI 

0 E 

N 

9 

A. A. 

5 

O 

5 

O 

5 

VI 

C 

O 

5 

8 5 

9 

5 

VI 

N 

Ci 

5 

0. 

Vt 

Ni 

C 

U 

5 Ni U

S 

5 

a 

fre 

5 

-a U

S 

O 

z 

N 

5 

VI 

5 LB/M-GA L LB/11R 

• 

TCLC OPERATIONALEMISSIONS 

110 

TABLE 4.5.1 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 4-59 

• 

• 

TABLE 4.5.2 

COMPARISON OF TCLC AND VAFB ANNUAL EMISSIONS 

SOURCE NO, 

(tons/year) 

SO, 

(tons/year) 

CO 

(tons/year) 

PM10 

(tons/year) 

ROC(1) 

(tons/year) 

VAFB(2) 511.2 149.00 1,545.00 101.1 468.5 

PROPOSED 5.1 0.02 0 . 7 5 _LI 0 . 2 

ACTION 

TOTAL 516.3 149.02 1,545.75 101.2 468.7 

PERCENT 1.0 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.04 

CHANGE(3) 

87-271 (7/25/90) 

(1) Value shown is for Reactive Organic Compounds. 

(2) From 1986 Vandenberg Air Force Base Emissions Inventory (USAF 1988c). 

(3) Percent change in total VAFB annual emissions due to the proposed action. 

• 
4-61 

• 

87-271 (6/29/90) 

z C 

C7: 

'Z 

w 

• 

z 

0 a W 

CC a 

CZ) >., C") 

C.) 

LTZ 

E" 

TABL 

EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS 

(pounds/hour) 

TSP 

n c:,, V r., N 8 cc? \ , 8 Q kr::, )

C t-- 6 N 6 •-: 6 

c,-; 6 6 6 

;,,t, 

V3 

N 

212.32 I 

S 

N 

N 

1 757, 

0 CC N 0 kr1 o in o Cr, N Cl. 

N Cl Nt N 7t- 00 't V.1 .--. C, •-••• 

O oo 6 (-,i c; --, 6 c-,i -• 6 6 

N 

0 

N cO P"'l 

O. ,a• 

s 

c'n 

kr) 

 N 

g 

0 

Z 

ON N ■rlInOC)h-ON

■OC-\•--, 

m .--. p cr) ke

-) ,,.0 .--, In v) oo v:? k6 cr; tr, 0.6 ri ■.6 o6 6 - -

.0 N 0 - 

N 

CT 

In 

kn 

2,871.28 

S. 

N 

c.-i 

h 

en 

L) X 

S 8 it kr, o ‘..0 

0., o C. N Irl 't C` N N •-■ tn ,--, 0 ,--, 6 to 6 c•-i 6 6 6 c'. .-; 6 6 0 

CT 

-, N 

0 

N kr; s 

,..., 

00 

N 

N 

o 

(..) U 

kg ,?,,s 8 n ,,,..„ ,0 F..:1, kr) .... 

ot , 

-4 N N CC 6 

t- ezr; IA 6 6 N cc N 

.... 

tri 

 •zt' 

EQUIPMENT EMISSION FACTOR( 1) 

(pounds/hour/unit) 

TSP 

•-• •-• 1- h VD ,C \C) V.) 

,r) Irl 1' 

..... '1 ,--, ... 0 N N N 0 0 •-•-• 6 6 6 6 c3 6 6 6 6 C 6 

Total Combined Emissions(pounds/hour) Total Combined Emissions(pounds/day) 

Total Combined Em issions (tons/yeari2) 

w 

o v) 

-1- rt oo s 

rr ..ri! L.?. 8 8 ..zr 

C C 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 -- 

6 

z 

‘c 't ch ,.c, vz, ON N. CC \9 oo s - .- - co oo .c. 

- c,i .- -, 6 4 4 4 <6 C --- 

DH 

N CC 

,r1 V1•,1- O. 0 \ 0, S N. tr) 

... Cl ,.' N 0 •-•-• •-■ .--. 0 0 * 

0 o 6 6 C 6 6 6 o 6 6 

CO 

M

In ,c cc s kr) N. cl.. o o oo N sz) In N r--; en on V3 

6 .--. 6 C C •--, •--. 

■-.• 6 6 6 

EQUIPMENT 

NUMBER 

kr) co cn kr, kr) 

d- .... o N •-• •-. 

,..- ..... kr, .--, 

TYPE 

E 

2 

U .-Sd 141.., al 2 `6 `6 2 !DO 

s... E" () .= I-. 1.. 

■.. 4, [-. H al 

t3 ES 

N E g CZ e z.

-4 44 7,8 g > .., 0 . . , al c,, o .4 0 5 (.) 6! 
4-66a 

EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS 

(pounds/hour) 

TSP 

2- c_

- -..., s•zt. cd 

(•••4 Lr) 

(----: 

Cp: 

cr; 

Lr; 

N 0 

Cr) 

x 

- 

X 

- 

-szt 

-. 

L:_, -. 

c-..1 

•-0 

0.0g 

Lr! 

. 

C 

Z 

I^ 

,.: 

N• 

\c: -

- 

ON 

s.6 

- 

Cl v-) N 

cct 

cd 

,-- „_..., 

LI-) 

vQ 

Lr; ,,,c; 

u 

-rX 

...7„: 

cc 

:, 

Lrl 

.-- 

0 

cn 

-.-. .6 C 4 N 

tr; 

0 c...; 

N 

(---: 

N 

N 

00 

\c 

cr, 

rLr; 

N 06 

X --d: 

X 

- 

24.0 

EQUIPMEN t!:MISSION FACTOR( 1) 

(pounds/hour/unit) 

2. 

Cr) E- 

„..,-. 

Lr; <L,1 

(..:., • 

‘.0 

sr 

C‘! 

C 

C•••• 

cd 

6 

N 

d6 

Total Combined Emissions(pounds/hour) 

Total Combined Emissions (pounds/day) 

Total Combined Emissions (tons/year) 

OS 

-Tr ir-, t-. C 

7,- in •,,,, 

6 

i-3 7t- — 

6 

c .0 — 

6 

., 

0 

,....., 

Z 

, 

-c

, 

.,; •-. — 

''q 

in 

Lf. 

I 

N 

• ..:..., 

N 

C 

- 

N 

6 

s.0 

-, 6 

7r 

r-- 

- 

-A-, 

r- •- 

vr-• ,.o 6 

cr. 

cr, 6 

EQUIPMENT 

NUMBER (3) 

7,- 71- CD 

....., 

,./0 

,-, 

TYPE (2) 

MiscellaneousVehicles (onsite and offsite trucks) 

Off Highway Trucks 

Cranes 

HeavyEquipment(4) (graders, wheeled equipment, 

dozers, etc.) 

• 

LU 

U) 

LU 

LU 

0 

LL 

0 

LU 

o Lo 

(k i z

W 

O 

3 

Z 

• 

TABLE 4.5.4a 
4-67a 

EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS 

(pounds/hour) 

TSP 1 

r, 4 v .,;-' <9, 8 `r9 

ct g `no '8i If i 

C N c; N 6 --; 6 cc:, 6 6 6 

8 

r--: 

136.00 

cc 

r•-: 

. 

0 v.) 

O sr:, N 0 un 0 to trl •-, N cc 0, a - 

4 

N N 4 r--- .4 00 -4 

6 

c,i 6 N o - 6 4 a 6 6 

-, 

,r; N 

N tr) 

202.00 

vz) Cl 

vr Ni 

" 0 Z--, OM 8 ct.:3 (.<.,;.., r, 1/4:8 . , 7,- 00 vp 5:3 

;,6 Ivi cci v.; ‘o .4 6 ,-. c-.4 cs,4 cn --, 

238.50 

8 cd, o CI 

.-■ 

8 QC .4 N 

HC 

0 CO in kr) 0 40 O. r- ,--, N f 

\ 0 VO Ct. N N N .--, N as 0 •--, 

6 •-• o cn 6 o 6 

■c5 6 6 6 

frl 0 ‘,-; 

- 

120.24 

cn 'O 

'n 

- 

0 C) 

In ■.0

ni- it-, in 1/40 ON N 0 0 00 

N. 41 0 tr) c--- -,-, C. o cc, cn VO 

,-. N N 00 6 N --, 0-; cn 6 6 In 

v-, VI 

cn Cr, 

748.40 

ON CI 

r: ON 

EQUIPMENT EMISSION FACTOR( 1) 

(pounds/hour/unit) 

TSP 

-. 

h 8 .0 NN.0 .0 VI Ct- ." 'ZI. ,4 1.-.1 N rq 0 0 •-•■ 

666666 6 6o66 

Total CombinedEmissions(pounds/hour) 

Total Combined Emissions(pounds/day) Total Combined Emissions(tons/yearj2) 

9 66 666o6o a 06 )( ON 

,0 CO . ON r-- 

r-- 

r-- ,C) `.0 ON Cl CO \ 0. CO N .-. •-■ ,- 00 00 sc 

.--• ri •-, .". 6 4 4 4 c; d ,- 

HC 

N tr) in Ct ON ON ON h h ten w-. N .--■ Cl 0 .-4 .- ...I 0 0. vo 

6 O 

6,o 6 6 6 6 6 o 6 

o (...) 

‘n cc c•-• ;r1 0 0 en N VD ,r) — N N N cn cn 'C 

6 •-• 6 6 6 ,-, -- •-• 6, ci; c 

EQUIPMENT 

Z 

In vo cc) :,_-.! in 

-,:r --, c:21 cn -- ,-. 

TYPE 

E 

E 

U ..h4 ...s4 I.. C) 

E ' u 9 to 

,.., E— E E c..) 

0 1... ,... 

al7.) CI (I) 

-2 4) t 1-: E-. 

"c'S ‘"' ..,,-jS N 03 c'it' 'F,, -- t.) 7 E °) Q

0 E 0 6. 3 = ca 0 g; :e. 00 (.) ...J 0 5 0 = (..) a. > 

• 

LU 

Cf) 

LL! 

CC 

CC 

0 

LL 

a 

L1J 

0 Lc) 

O 

Lu 

Z 

TABLE 4.5.4b 

.0 
4-67b 

• 

TABU 

Z 

EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS 

(pounds/hour) 

TSP I 

2, ' 

6 

cc - , : 

-ci 

V 

6 

53 

\IS 

'', 

6 

8 

—; 

;;', •-; 

N 

cc; 

q 

6 

° 

6 

,1 °

6 

7, 

Tc o n 

4 ,:r r-- N 

35.68 

..< 

0 

rn 

0 

r6 

N In 

tri 

N -4- 

c; 

c> N 

r-- 

v-1 ' 

6 

6 or? — In N 

N 

6 v-I 

cn —

‘r) v1 

O 

•ct- — 

O 

ce N 

6 

N oc 

6 v•-k 

■0 v-1 Lin co 

c-N idn 

xON 

6 c.-, ■6 

co <2> 

4 

(-- (=> 

trl 

Q, 40 

tri 

tri i.,, 

cr; 

co .c, ■t3 

tin oc 

6 

0 c" 

Ch 

—; 

N 

X 00 

v3 

N 

r-: 

--- 

cc 

cn 

(N-i 

cs 

«5 

r -- nr 

3,824.08 

497.12 

U X 

.0 6 .0 (-6 

(-6 

v-, -1- 

6 

8 

6 

cA 

6 

?c2 

6 6 

f.,-,), r— ,; 

i■.0r1 1` 

66 

Cci>, 

6 

,.. C8 

6 on 

244.96 

•Zt 

°°. 

M 

0 

U 

tnr -- •- N 

.--- u:1 

Q 

N 

6 

oo 

N 

v•-■ r-- 

6 

z ..-4 

N: 

trl 0\ 

c(6 

0 

cn 

vi N 

N

N 

? 

N 

8 

6 

z 

cn 

- 

cn N 

cci co 

NI- oo 

vi 6 

.--. 

■0 

r-- 

tri (:>, 

EQUIPMENT EMISSION FACTOR(I) 

(pounds/hour/unit) 

ra, 

v) 

H 

•-•■ •-• 

6 

••--, 

'rr 

6 

Nt 

.- 

6 

r-- 

••••• 

6 

‘0 g 

0 

z N 

6 

1/4.0 N 

6 

z N 

6 

,r, 0 

6 

trt 0 

6 

•cr •--. 

6 

Total CombinedEmissions (pounds/hour) 

Total CombinedEmissions(pounds/day) 

Total Combined Emissions(tons/year52) 

6, 

v, 

'1" ci O 6 6 

S ,`9 

6 6 

43' -

6 

'4? 

6 

o 

6 

o 

6 6 

NOx 

vz> N

,,,, 

•—• 

.1- 

C'1 

Cr■ ,p 

'". 

CT 

ono, •—• 

.--. r..._ 

6 

N .e 

4 

N 

.--. 

4 

N 

.-... 

4 

■C) CC 

6 

CO 

6 

r, •--, 

X 

N 

6 

N 

6 

-• 

6 

N 

6 

0 

eS 

-, 

6 6 

-. 

6 

0 

6 

0 

6 

•---. 

6 

0 

U 

tn cc) 

6 

N 

—, 

'C 

6 

r- WI 

6 

- 

6 

cr, N. 

—, 

CS \ N 

— 

Cr, N. 

—, 

C) Cn 

6 

C) fn 

6 

CO ,C) 

6 

E--• 

Z 

;LI 

a. 

5 0' Lu 

NUMBER 

Ln N cn C' tn <:1- v-, o c co N N 

I TYPE i 

,... 

N 

8 

at 

2 

cX 

g 

U" 

s. 

- 

•1::, 

5 

v 

-s e 

r:: 1

.,, 

3 

U 

2 F- 

,,, 

5 

,..,4 (..) 

a i-, 

— 

g 

1 - 2 (,) 0 

5 

6 

2 

a) 

4°. 

5 

tio = 

-.- 

.- 

87-271 (06/29/90) 
NRO Are:ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

TABLE 4.5.5 

CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS 

SOURCE 

NO„ 

(tons/year) 

SOX 

(tons/year) 

CO 

(tons/year) 

PK() 

(tons/year) 

ROC 

(tons/year) 

Proposed Action 24.5 1.40 5.4 1.6 6.50 

STS Power Plant 18.0 0.14 22.5 2.91 2.55 

Offshore Oil Platforms 232.0 18.00 154.0 3.8 N A 

TOTAL 274.5 19.54 181.9 8.31 9.05 

NA = Not Available 

Source: TRC Environmental Consultants 1988. 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

40E 2015 

• TABLE 4.6.1 

ESTIMATED LAUNCH WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 

AFTER HYPOCHLORITE TREATMENT 

CONTAMINANT(1) CONCENTRATION 

A(2) 

CONCENTRATION 

B(2) 

CONCENTRATION 

C(2) 

DRINKING 

WATER 

STANDARDS/ 

CRITERIA(4) 

pH (units) 20-3.3 9.0 7.0 5-9 

Aluminum 52.0 1.4 0.35 N.S. 

Barium 1.2 0.8 0.2 1.0 

Cadmium 0.2 0.03 0.01 0.01 

Calcium 465.0 465.0 115.2 80(3) 

Chromium 0.6 0.02 0 0.05 

Copper 0.7 0.002 0 1.0 

Iron 30.0 0.1 0.02 0.3 

Lead 1.4 0.02 0 0.05 

Magnesium 57 3.4 0.83 27(3) 

Manganese 0.7 0.35 0.09 0.05 

Nickel 1.3 0.65 0.16 N.S. 

Selenium 4 2.1 0.52 0.01 

Silver 0.2 0.1 0.02 0.05 

Sodium 181.0 689.5 172.4 82(3) 

Zinc 270.0 0.1 0.03 5.0 

Chloride 2,881.0 2,881.0 713.7 500 

Silica 70 6.4 1.6 N.S. 

Sulfate 79 85.6 21.2 500 

Suspended Solids 320 0 0 N.S. 

87-271 (6a9/90) (1) Concentration = mg/L. 

(2) Source: USAF 1983. 

(32 Typical South VAFB Ground Water Concentrations. 

(4)Source: CCR, Title 22, Chapter 15, Article 5, Part 64435. • N.S. = No Standard 
NRO ifiFgOVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

TABLE 4.10.1 

ESTIMATED PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS 

AREA OF RESIDENCE . 

PROJECT PHASE 

FACILITY CONSTRUCTION/ 

AEROSPACE EQUIPMENT 

INSTALLATION 

OPERATIONS 

UNDEVELOPED 

SIFE.S SLC-6 ALL ALTERNATIVES 

City of Lompoc 165 90 80 

Lompoc Valley 60 33 85 

Santa Maria Valley 200 108 150 

VAFB Housing 100 54 70 

Santa Ynez, South 25 15 15 

Santa Barbara County, 

Ventura County 

TOTAL 550 300 400 

Note: Estimates reflect anticipated peaks in personnel requirements during project 

construction and operations. 

Source: Environmental Solutions, Inc. estimates 1988. 
4-143 

6 

CC 

CC 

0 

CC

0 CC) 

C) 

6Z 

C) 

U 

"o* 

O 

cC 

a. 

It) 

a 

0 m

cn .74 

11:). .> 

• Qu.11 :74 

Er) 

s.oan 

N 

Source: Santa Barbara County 1987. 

E- 0 E-- 

Q 

..... .-- 

c-.. 

N • 

,..-: 

6-0 

0-, sz 

N 

r.:2. 

cc '-e) N * 

-__ 

,_., 0 8-6 4 

_.:- .- '—'1,-) Cv-) 

N N 

N* ' 

PUBLIC SERVICE IMPACTS 

OTHER 

`cr tr.) 

O = 

-Z ,1. 

,...., ,...., 

_... ,,,, 

(--- c---1 — 

---__ 

....._. cD cn 

4N 

-.., 

-- 

— 

SANTA 

MARIA 

, N '7:- ■.0 en 

d 6 

, N 03 

r•-) '-'' --: 6 

..... r"-- ',-) 

c'' 

e ,.... 

,-. 

s.c 

, o m V') '-' 

,co m 

Ea.' ch 

a ti-) 

LOMPOC 

(..) Z 

z 

, — -,1- v:""") P 6 

■ c, r--- 't ei ,-.-.; 6 

, 

N17 c' 

, S 1.,- v`p )

-- 

"C-0 co c--- '71- "".. co<.,c (--4 — 

--- oo cn oo N vnm 

• U 

... Z 

...., kr00 s-Cen 6 c; 

,. '7.. ,* MN 6 .-2 

----- '7" a v) 

...... 

CM ,c) m 

,.. 

o Ln e::) ,-..tr) 6 ,c; M --- 

N6 M M z k-,, 

ADDITIONAL RESIDENTS 

OTH ER 

In vn 

VD Cn 

, 

,,-, 'n ■C M 

,_ 

Ijn kr) •C M 

, 

ir) tin 

\O M 

, 

kin 

\C C.-, 

.... v-) kr) ■LD M 

SANTA MARIA 

--t/"'i N

.-7% kr) N 

...,. 

kr)P 

Ns, kr) N 

---- ---, 1,),;„ 

Ns' kr) N 

--- WIC 

N--' kr) N 

i-A-7 

N'-., kr) N 

i-71,g, 

rq,-,' trl N 

LOMPOC 

ri 

6 

Z 

Z 

- 6-- = -

N M -r N 

>,..., N M 

-.7i- N 

&- - 

N M ..1-N 

o- - • -

N M ‘,1- N 

6- - - - - N (C -L7i- N 

.- N6 

 M -1-N 

u 

Z 

---. 

kcr,",) 

71- N MN 

----. ---.. v) ---- en ---- kr, 

C 'c.c.) 

Cc , en (0.) en C:) 

-,N 

.4 N ,t- N 

c4M. N / N

0 1.1 .;),..i c

PUBLIC SERVICE NIUL11PLIERS (2) 

OTHER 

0 

0 

6 

8 6 6 

N 6 rs 

0 

,--, 

SANTA MARIA 

..... 

,... 

8 6 

q o 

v.-1 oc — 6 

N 6 0 

t --- (:7 

,-.. 

C .-] 

- 

K 

z 

U..--. -1- 

0 

0 

6 

r--- 

,-. 

--. o 

0 6 

cT 

.-. (..-! ,..., — 

•fN 6 0 r-- 

.1—. . 

u

Z — 

v) 

0 

0 6 

E 0 6 

N 6 6 0 I-- 

st. —, 

Q

,.. eu 

4...1 

o 

. ,., 

0 

C. 

cn 

u 

= ci) Li: L) 

1.1., 

5 t> 

E 

{.14 

8 

... 

C4 ,., 

,---. 

g 

,... 

.) ‘, 

0 t 

5 t) E c.' " t., E.t.. 

&) 

, cz 

CI) 

'-‘-. vs cn 

a 

ei 

cl) 

cn as 

CID 

TABLE 4.12.1 

zv W cdo 

7t 

C 

g. 

;4 

Gr (.T4 c) 

;; :4 

tz:1 

z 0 U 
4-156 

LAU

N

C

HES PER YEAR(5) 

V) 

aN c-N 

1.--. cn N en cr, 

c, Cr, ,— en N 

cn ch C7N 

.--. 

—. cn N `.0 

CV 

cn Cr. 

..... 

.— cn Nr:4 s 

Cr, C' 

.— en N ■0 

0. 0-, 

..-. 

..-. cn N ■10 

C", 00 ON 

.--. 

.— en ..--. v, 

CC 

as 

.--1 

r".. GC,--, .--• 0 v... .... '1- 

,0 00 0, 

..-. 

N ,—. 0 C .--, .1- 

V

EHIC

LE 

..-. — 

cn cz 

•:-.:.. 

-•< 

Scout (2) 

0 

G. 

.c 

TitanHI BO) 

Titan34 D(1) 

3 Titan II( 

Titan IV(3) 

(SLC-4E) 

Titan IV/(4) 

Centaur 

TOTAL 

• 

LE 

rc 

r—t 

Ci 

Cr 

O 

LL 

0 

w 

O LO 

Z 

cc 

cc 

cc 

• 

00 

00 

t^4 'cl• .1 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 B-43 

• TABLE B.11 

SPECIALLY PROTECTED MARINE SPECIES 

Page 1 of 1 

SPECIES 

CALIFORNIA 

i-EDERAL STATUS STA l'E. STATUS 

REP PILES 

Deremochelys coriacea Endangered None 

leather-back sea turtle 

Caretta caretta Threatened None 

loggerhead sea turtle 

Chelonia mydas Threatened None 

green sea turtle 

Lepidochelys olivacea Threatened None 

Pacific Ridley sea turtle 

• MAMMALS 

Eubalaena glacialis japonica Endangered None 

Pacific right whale 

Eschrichtius rob ustus Endangered None 

gray whale 

Balaenoptera musculus Endangered None 

blue whale 

Balaenoptera physalus Endangered None 

fin whale 

Balaenoptera borealis Endangered None 

sei whale 

Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered None 

humpback whale 

Physeter catodon Endangered None 

sperm whale 

Arctocephalus townsendi Threatened Rare, 

Guadalupe fur seal Protected 

Enhydra lutris Threatened Protected 

California sea otter 

Callorhinus ursinus Depleted None 

northern fur seal 

• Source: Woodhouse 1988. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

• 

3.3 DRAFT EIS FIGURES • 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 3-47 

0 3.3 DRAFT EIS FIGURES 

The following figures are provided as addenda and errata to the Draft EIS. The materials included 

here either replace existing figures contained in the Draft EIS or are inserts into that document. The 

page number shown on the top of the page corresponds to the replacement/insertion page for the 

Draft EIS. 

• 

• 
OCEAN BEACH 

COUNTY PARK 

BEAR 

RO 

 CREEK 

AD 

COAST 

ROAD 

:SOU 

• 

2-3 

OR RELEASE GAIPAB2_gY 

NE 2015 

SANTA 

MARIA 

w 

cc 

AREA SHOWN 

SANTA 

BARBARA 

PACIFIC OCEAN 

CHANNEL ISLANDS 

SOUTH VANDENBERG 

MAIN GATE 

ARGUELLO 

ROAD 

SLC-6 SITE 

CYPRESS RIDGE SITE 

VINA TERRACE SITE 

BOATHOUSE FLATS SITE 

JALAMA BEACH JALAMA 

COUNTY PARK 

POINT 

CONCEPTION FIGURE 2.1.1 

REGIONAL LOCATION MAP 

0 1 2 3 4 SMILES 

SOURCE: USAF 1988b, SLC-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT