More Unearned Pork for AADC

From the Department of Defense web site, contract news for November 28, 2005:
http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/2005/ct20051128.html

Alaska Aerospace Development Corp. of Anchorage, Alaska, is being awarded a modification to its cost-plus-fixed-fee indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract, HQ0006-03-D-0043, to provide kodiak launch complex spaceport facilities and services in support of Missile Defense Agency target launches. The contract was awarded on Sept. 1, 2003 with an estimated contract ceiling of $43,350,000 for a five-year period of performance.

The modification will increase the contract ceiling by $26,150,000 for a total estimated value of $69,500,000.The Missile Defense Agency is the contracting activity.

With the escalating costs of the Iraq debacle and the needs of U.S. citizens ravaged by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it is impossible to justify increased funds for the KLC. We believe that this modification is a result of pressure from Alaska Senator Ted Stevens and is yet another example of his selfish tunnel vision, taking money from those who really need it.

Apparently, he is also taking money from those who DON'T need it.

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), the chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, has been pressing the Pentagon to continue upgrading ground-based missile defense interceptors that are being based in Fort Greely, Alaska, with 40 missiles expected to be deployed by 2007. Sen. Stevens has already received $103,400 from missile defense contractors in the 2001 to 2006 election cycle.

U.S Gives up on Greely's Ground-based Midcourse Interceptor Missiles Defense Program:

From www.nonukesnorth.net:

U.S Gives up on Greely's Ground-based Midcourse Interceptor Missiles Defense Program:

Cancellation Looms but Senator Ted Stevens fights it

Envision a wind farm at Fort Greely, dear neighbors.

That's right, Ted Stevens is fighting it tooth and nail but the military is finally giving up on the ground-based interceptor missile idea. They've been putting interceptors (at least 7 so far) in the ground at Fort Greely despite the abysmal failure of the system to show any sign of working. (I'm sure it was the No Nukes North spud test that finally convinced them, aren't you?)

It would be an exaggeration to say that they are canceling the system: for now the Missile Defense Agency still has to waste billions of dollars building and deploying 40 missiles slated for Greely by 2007. However, they've given up on ever making it work - they will not upgrade it and they will instead focus on all their other stupid star wars plans (multiple mini interceptors,space-based defenses, etc.)

What seems to be going on is that the military wants to abandon the embarrassing failed interceptors entirely, but Ted Stevens is the chair of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee. Need I say more? The defense subcommittee (i.e. Stevens) is directing the Missile Defense Agency to continue the ground-based interceptor program alongside its related radars and control systems until it is in "a final stable configuration." Stevens argues that if they give up all the money spent on it so far would be wasted and that Delta Junction will be devastated. The military has so little confidence in the interceptors that they want to separate that part of the system from the other components.

Basically, the Missile Defense Agency realizes they can never deliver a ground-based interceptor system that works but Ted Stevens DOES NOT CARE that the system doesn't work and will try to force them to waste billions continuing it. That's right: PORK AT ITS PUREST. The interceptors are the most expensive part of their budget and the agency wants to abandon them, but Stevens doesn't want the military spending billions on systems that might have a chance, he wants them to waste it on useless missiles since they are in Alaska. Nevermind spending that money on actual threats posed by nuclear proliferation, such as inspecting the 6 million cargo containers that arrive by ship every year or securing the weapons usable nuclear material all over the world or fixing the deteriorating Russian early-warning system, etc. etc.

Nope, PORK FOR ALASKA even if it means slashing realistic defensive programs and leaving the nation with the ever-increasing risk of nuclear terrorism. Now we start our right to die campaign: these missiles are a $3.3 billion a year Terry Shaivo. LET IT GO!

Here are a couple articles on the recent developments and No Nukes North will be issuing a press release posthaste. Don't even ask me why the News Minerhasn't covered this yet and why you are relying on a volunteer grad studentto get this fairly pertinent news out. More soon! - Stacey Fritz

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005/10/7/408BF2BF-AF51-4459-ADEE-BE583D194C5D.html

"White House May Reconsider Missile Defense Approach"

Global Security Newswire - October 7, 2005 - By David Ruppe

Cheaper than KLC, yet has launch contracts!

SOUTHWEST Regional Spaceport Touted as New Mexico Moneymaker
Space.com - USA
Here's a link to a story about a commercial spaceport that cost far less to build
than the KLC and it already has contracts to launch commercial payloads.
<http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050913_nm_spaceport.html>
Why has the KLC cost much, much more
AND not been able to attract any customer other than the U.S. government?

This 10 million dollar tower has been used for only 1 launch and is severely corroded in several areas. 

KLC Facts Left Out of the Open House Media Packet

Congratulations to the folks who engineered the Kodiak Launch Complex open house on August 20, 2005! It was a brilliantly engineered public relations event.

Here is some information that did not appear in the media information packet, but was provided by AADC officials when asked specific questions.

The cost of the launch tower was ten million dollars, funded entirely by the now-defunct Alaska Science and Technology Foundation. The ASTF was dissolved by the State Legislature in 2003 at the urging of Governor Murkowski who said many of the projects funded through ASTF were of questionable benefit. (according to alaskalegislature.com)

Only one of AADC’s eight launches required the use of the tower (2001); at this time, no future launches requiring the tower have been announced.

When concern was expressed about the severe rust and corrosion evident after the tower was opened, AADC officials assured us that they were preparing to deal with the problem. It has been more than eight months since the last launch at the complex. The tower itself was completed in 1999.

The remaining infrastructure of the KLC cost around 50 million dollars, funded by various branches of the military and the Department of Defense.

In its seven years of launches, Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation, a state owned and operated corporation, has never earned enough money from launches to cover KLC operating costs. The shortfall has been made up by federal funding.

It seems fitting that the day of the open house was the smokiest in Kodiak’s history, making it difficult to get a clear view of the entire facility.

Is the Kodiak Launch Complex a private playground for employees of the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation?

On the afternoon of Sunday, January 9, I was driving through the Kodiak Launch Complex on my way to Fossil Beach when a pickup truck with state license plates escorted a flurry of unlicensed off road vehicles (dirt bikes and 4-wheelers) out of the Mission Control building parking lot and sped down the road toward Fossil Beach.

When I arrived at the beach, the ORVs were tearing up and down the beach, and the state vehicle was parked on the bluff above, with two small children in the cab and a dog in the back. Later, as I headed back toward town, several of the ORVs passed me and pulled into the Mission Control parking lot.

I pulled in to investigate and observed that many of the riders were clearly under the age of 16 and some appeared to be small children. Trailers for hauling ORVs had been placed in the back of the lot so that AADC vehicles blocked any view of them from the road; I could not ascertain if this was intentional or not.

As I pulled out of the parking lot, the state vehicle pulled in. The driver introduced himself as site manager of the KLC. I asked him if he was using a state vehicle for personal business. He replied that he was “off duty”. I asked him if he realized that it was illegal to ride ORVs on state roads. He told me that he was aware of that fact and if I had a problem, I should contact his boss, Pat Ladner. During our conversation, ORVs continued to pull into the lot, having traveled through the KLC on the state road. It appeared that the site manager condoned and facilitated the illegal activity.

It is disappointing and troubling when employees of a state-owned corporation use state property and state vehicles to facilitate and engage in activities that violate Alaska statutes.

One wonders if the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation’s requests for expanded authority over state lands are merely a ploy to enlarge and protect their employees’ private playground.

Why DNR Should Not Allow AADC Expanded Authority

Friday, March 04, 2005

Dear DNR:

Here are my comments concerning the draft decision to allow AADC permits to enforce “temporary” closures of additional lands surrounding the KLC. The decision should be changed to deny AADC’s request.

AADC has not demonstrated a compelling need for such closures. Although their letter to DNR dated January 27, 2004, stated that their contract with DOD required said closures, your decision states that there are no contractual requirements for the closures. Was the January statement untrue? So, then, who has decided that national security requires closures and for what specific, provable reasons? The decision that national security requires closures is arbitrary and without foundation.

The vague term “national security” is repeatedly referred to without any proof that any threat, actual or potential, exists at the Kodiak Launch Complex. AADC should be required to submit a risk assessment that would specifically list potential risks and their probability of occurrence. Without a comprehensive, documented study, any talk of risks has no concrete basis in fact. It is speculation at best and what is that speculation based on? The terrorist acts of 9/11 that occurred 4 years and 4000 miles away? Hardly an adequate basis for assuming there are terrorist risks at the KLC.

And the key word here is “assuming” – it is bad policy to base your decision on unproven assumptions.

I feel it is important to emphasize this point and repeat it: No evidence has been submitted that an actual threat exists at the KLC, nor has any evidence been presented as to any potential threats.

Furthermore, who decides if a launch is to be categorized as “classified”? It would appear that AADC can just state it without verification. Verification of a launch being “classified” in writing must be required from the relevant agencies (Dept of Defense, Missile Defense Agency). These agencies must justify in writing the reasons for the launch being “classified”.

AADC should be required to make public notice when they apply for a permit for road closures so, at the very least, the public can plan for said closures. The public should be allowed to comment on every application for closures.

The draft decision states that closures will be short and minimal. The December launch that was part of a failed missile defense system test belies that statement. The road was closed for at least 6 consecutive days for a minimum of 9 hours each day. For all intents and purposes, the area was closed for a week to all activities. When I wanted to hiking to Pasagshak Point, I was informed by Pat Ladner himself that if I was not below the switchbacks by noon, he would send security to remove me from the area. Thus, one would have to engage in activities early in the morning or very late at night and be sure to be out of the area by noon. This is tantamount to a total day closure. And this went on for a week.

Furthermore, if you check with the Coast Guard, you will find that at least one (and probably more) boats that were traveling from Kodiak to Old Harbor were denied passage through the “security zone”, even though they were traveling two hours BEFORE the closure was to begin. So, the closure was longer than the stated hours.

Clearly the closures last longer than the official, stated hours.

The decision states that since this request is not a federal action, no additional EIS is required. I continue to maintain that this request is an attempt by DOD/MDA to circumvent the NEPA process since they did not include these closures in the original EIS for missile defense activities at the KLC. You also state that there are not environmental issues. An EIS, however, also deals with social and economic impacts which you did not bother to even mention in your decision.

Based on the extensive closures of the December, 2004, launch, it is clear that future launches hold the potential for serious negative social and economic impacts on our community. Such closures will disrupt the many recreational activities mentioned in your decision as well as adversely impacting commercial activities such as fishing, guiding, hunting, etc in this area. An addendum to the land use of the EIS is clearly called for to assess these impacts.

Finally, the decision cites the overwhelming community opposition to these closures. This decision is a slap in the face to our community and its elected representatives who have made it clear that these closures are not justifiable or acceptable to the residents of Kodiak.

Based on the facts in this letter, I recommend the following:

DNR should deny AADC’s request for additional closure areas for launches.

If DNR does indeed grant the request, you should include the following requirements:

1. A comprehensive, documented risk assessment study.

2. Simultaneous public notice when applying for closure permits, allowing for public comment

3. Strict adherence to published closure times and no restrictions of any kind for activities before or after the published closure times.

4. Economic compensation for individuals and commercial entities whose activities are disrupted by closures.

5. An addendum to the EIS on social and economic impacts of this change in the land use policy for missile defense tests.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

University Lands Bill Should Be Scrapped

UNIVERSITY LANDS BILL FAILS THE UNIVERSITY, HARMS ALASKANS AND COMMUNITIES

Overwhelming opposition from communities around the state makes it clear that HB 130, a bill proposed by Governor Murkowski transferring state lands to the University of Alaska, is not in the best interests of either the University or Alaska communities. It will lock up lands now used for public recreation and subsistence and provide little financial benefit to the university.

First, a little background: the lands to be conveyed to the university were selected through unpublicized negotiations between the university and the Department of Natural Resources during the past year. None of the communities in which these lands are located were notified or included in the selection process. During House Resources Committee hearings on the bill, communities and individuals expressed reservations concerning the lack of public process and outright opposition to the parcel selections.

A particularly egregious example of circumventing public process is the Narrow Cape parcel in Kodiak (erroneously labeled “Kodiak Rocket Range” in the bill). While the university and DNR were negotiating the inclusion of this parcel in the university land grant list, DNR was creating a comprehensive land use plan for state land on Kodiak Island. At no time during the 18 month public process did DNR inform the community that the university was selecting state lands included in the land use plan. The Narrow Cape parcel was of such importance to the community that a special public meeting was held in Kodiak to allow residents to hear DNR clarifications of plans for the area as well as present testimony on the parcel. Local citizens overwhelmingly emphasized the importance of keeping unrestricted access to this area for public recreation, commercial tourism operations, and subsistence activities.

This parcel is currently leased by the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation for the Kodiak Launch Complex. A public road running through the KLC has allowed historic access to some of the best recreational and subsistence lands on our road system since the road was constructed in the 1940’s. In the past year, AADC has attempted to expand their management authority by 14,000 acres and restrict access to Narrow Cape, ostensibly for “security reasons” during Missile Defense test launches. Local residents and members of our borough government have vigorously opposed these restrictions. The current fear is that if the land is transferred to the university, it could be sold to AADC, allowing them, as landowner, to restrict access. With University of Alaska President, Mark Hamilton, as the Chairman of the AADC Board of Directors, there is cause for even greater concern. If the university decides to hang on to the land, they too as a private landowner could restrict access when they choose to develop it.

Other communities, who, like Kodiak, have limited road systems, fear the loss of public use of state lands in or near their communities. Once these lands leave public ownership, they can be “locked up” by private landowners, restricting or even prohibiting what has been long-time traditional and historical use of these public areas.

Overall, the bill provides minimal financial benefit, discourages serious financial support, doesn’t maximize land value, and gives the University a bad name.

Added to these concerns is the fact that Senator Lisa Murkowski has introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate, S.293, to grant the university 250,000 acres of federal land with an additional selection of 250,000 acres if Alaska HB 130/SB 96 passes. Between the federal and state bills, three quarters of a million acres of public land would be in danger of being locked up for private development without public input. After DNR’s and the university’s behavior in Kodiak, I can’t see Alaska communities coming out ahead with these bills.

HB 130 is a bad bill and amendments and tinkering won’t fix it. It should die in committee. Governor Murkowski, DNR, and UA need to start over with a fully public process for determining lands to be chosen for conveyance