28 September 2014: Kodiak Resident Comments on Launch Pad 3 Draft Environmental Assessment

September 28^th, 2014

To: Ms. Stacey Zee – FAA, c/o ICF International, 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031

Dear Ms. Zee,

Comments on the Kodiak Launch Complex Launch Pad 3 Draft Environmental Assessment.

I am completely opposed to any further development of the Kodiak Launch Complex at Narrow Cape. Public access to public land, public safety, cumulative environmental impacts, the past negligence of due diligence by the AK Aerospace Corporation, natural resource degradation and contamination, unjustified cost to the state, lack of clear vision or business plan, questionable economic sustainability, and impacts on rare plant species in the area are among my many concerns.

Kodiak has been my home since 1980 and I have been actively interested in the details of this facility since the very beginning when there was a public advisory committee. That committee was disbanded very quickly after members of the public, including myself, raised concerns and questions that former CEO, Pat Ladner, did not want to answer. Rather than be transparent with the intended purpose of military launches, he fed the public with promises of commercial satellite launches and bringing our little fishing village into the 21^st Century with high tech jobs and reeducation for unemployed fisherman.

We were also told that public access would be guaranteed, and there would never be more volatile and toxic liquid rocket fuels or fissionable nuclear materials used.

From the start, the AAC (formerly the AADC) has lacked any real long- term business plan. All they have ever had for a business plan is, “Build it and they will come.” Even our state representative, Rep Alan Austerman, who was also an AAC board member, was quoted in the Kodiak Daily Mirror recently saying that the KLC has no business plan. There have only been 17 launches since 1998 and 15 of those successful. There has been so little business and generated revenue to sustain their operations, the state has had kick in millions of dollars annually to keep it open. Unlike General Motors, the KLC has never been a viable business to justify government subsidy. With a dwindling state budget, I just can’t see the justification for more corporate bail out for Space Pork Kodiak.

My husband and I live in Kodiak and also live part of the time at Pasagshak that is within the circles of impact in your EA document. We are very familiar with the area and natural resources surrounding the KLC as that has been our backyard playground and grocery store since the early 1980’s. We live a subsistence lifestyle and that is where we get our fish, deer and berries for the freezer. As most Pasagshak residents, we collect rainwater for drinking water off our rooftop as wells are brackish. We are concerned about perchlorate and other contamination of drinking water, berries, fish and the deer that graze on the grass on Narrow Cape.

The KLC was built on some of the only public land along our road system and perhaps the choicest piece. Most roadside property is privately owned by Native Corporations with limitations on public access. It was a very poor choice for the location of the KLC as it also happens to be one of the most beautiful and popular recreational destinations.  It was a very impractical choice as it is at the extreme opposite end of a narrow, winding road for safely, efficiently, and the all-season transporting of rockets and related materials. What were they thinking?

The well documented, geologic instability and activity of the area with major, shallow earthquake faults running through Narrow Cape should be enough to nullify the entire plan of increasing the infrastructure of the KLC and especially, introducing a liquid fueling facility. Had a proper EIS been done initially before the KLC was built, this data alone would have shown what an irresponsible location Narrow Cape is for such a facility!

Some of the recreational activities that have been and will be impacted include: hiking, fishing, birding, photography, whale watching, beach combing, surfing, botanizing, camping, ice skating in winter on backwater lagoons, wildlife watching, tide pooling, fossil collecting, and general nature appreciation.

Our late senator Ted Stevens managed to get the KLC built with federal money and without having to jump through the hoops of a thorough EIS that it deserved, thanks to a rider he secretly attached to a Sunset Transportation bill.  He and the military promoters knew that area had far too many environmental issues and would probably never have been built had it gone through the customary process. So, there is really very little reliable baseline data on that area and its resources since all of the studies were done quickly after the fact with money from the military by hand picked government contractors that just went through the motions.

Since the rocket accident on August 25^th, the area has been completely cut off to the public and we have been told next to nothing about the impacts, contamination issues, clean up efforts or when it will reopen. Solid rocket fuel contains perchlorates, normally discharged in rocket exhaust, but since the fuel blew up, it was scattered all over the area. Perchlorate contamination in the environment has been extensively studied as it has effects on human health. Among the health impacts, perchlorate has been linked to its negative influence on the thyroid and can block hormone production in people and wildlife.  Exposure to perchlorates has also been linked to various cancers. And this, among other contaminants, is what has been and will be added to the environment of this public recreational area in the future.

How can you even begin to evaluate the cumulative impacts of a third launch pad and the accuracy of your environmental data before knowing the compounded levels of contamination that resulted from previous launches, the August 25^th accident and without reliable baseline data?

The location of proposed Launch Pad 3 is located on a ridge on the south side of the public road leading down to Fossil Beach. Presently, all of the KLC structures are on the north side. If built, this would extend the footprint and area of impact as well as straddle the public road.  That would give the KLC and AAC even more reason to block it off and maintain complete control over the area. This is unacceptable!

If there is to be more construction, it should be confined to the north side of the road so that public access is guaranteed to Fossil Beach and Narrow Cape. Why spread out the impacts more than necessary?  I have read the geologic justification for the preferred location but do not think others on the north side were adequately evaluated or considered, especially in respect to the public access issue.

At present, we can’t even access the beautiful long beaches to the north of the KLC.

And what about the damaged facility? Who will pay for the repairs and mitigation?

As a real, viable alternative for the EIS, why not consider dismantling the entire KLC?

How can the construction costs of yet another launch pad be justified with so few launches in the past, no contracts on the horizon, and in the aftermath of the accident, the rising cleanup costs? And, at the expense of such valuable public land!

In closing, the best option for the KLC is to dismantle it, not to expand it.

Finally Legislators Wake Up to the Waste of Money That is the Kodiak Launch Complex

http://www.ktuu.com/news/news/under-review-funding-at-risk-for-kodiak-missile-launch-pad/28161520

Launch or Lose Funding Ultimatum Given to Alaska Aerospace

Legislature pressures Alaska Aerospace to launch

by James Brooks/ editor@kodiakdailymirror.com

Apr 22, 2013

On Sunday afternoon, a rocket soared to orbit from a launch pad on Virginia, a successful launch that may mean good news for the Kodiak Launch Complex 4,000 miles away.

This spring, the Alaska Legislature voted to cut 1 percent (about $80,000) from the Alaska Aerospace Corporation’s FY2014 funding. Hidden within the funding for Alaska Aerospace — which operates the Kodiak Launch Complex — is a catch.

If Alaska Aerospace does not sign a long-term commercial launch contract by March 31, 2014, the legislature will cut its budget by one-quarter.

That’s below the amount AAC leaders have said is necessary to maintain the Kodiak Launch Complex and keep AAC running as a viable corporation, but AAC CEO Craig Campbell said he’s confident his company can meet the challenge.

“I concurred with the challenge that we need to produce a customer in the next fiscal year,” he said. “They actually gave us a little breathing room.”

Alaska Aerospace Corporation was founded by the state in 1991 as a means to develop the aerospace sector of Alaska’s economy. It built the Kodiak Launch Complex to compete with California’s Vandenberg Spaceport, which launches satellites into polar orbits.

While the first years of AAC’s operation were funded through revenue from launches and grants from the federal government, since 2011 AAC has become reliant upon regular state subsidies.

In 2011, the Legislature approved $4 million for AAC. In 2012, it signed off on $8 million in direct subsidies. That year, Governor Sean Parnell also approved $25 million to expand Kodiak Launch Complex.

Legislators approved another $8 million this year for AAC, but cut the corporation’s funding request by 1 percent, paralleling similar cuts to other state departments.

Rep. Alan Austerman, who represents Kodiak in the state House and sits on the AAC board of directors, said legislators’ patience is running out. “We can’t just let it continue to go on and on and on,” he said.

Campbell said AAC can bear this year’s cut, but he now faces a tight deadline to generate revenue and wean the public corporation off state funding.

Sunday’s launch in Virginia shows one possible way forward. The launch came from Wallops Flight Facility, a state-owned spaceport run by Dale Nash, who headed Alaska Aerospace before Campbell.

The rocket, named Antares, was designed and built by Orbital Sciences, which has not yet picked a West Coast launch site for the Antares. Kodiak is in the running, as is Vandenberg.

Launching the Antares from Kodiak would require a major expansion of the spaceport here, something already planned under an agreement with Lockheed-Martin.

Lockheed, however, has been slow to sell space aboard the rockets it plans to launch from Kodiak, and planning for the Launchpad expansion has stalled. Unless Lockheed can confirm a launch date, Campbell has said he will not put state money at risk by expanding the Kodiak Launch Complex.

Orbital Sciences offers a second route. Because the Antares launch Sunday was successful, that rocket may be more attractive than Lockheed’s to satellite owners who want to reach orbit.

The ball is in Orbital Sciences’ court, but Alaska Aerospace isn’t sitting still.

As it waits for an answer from Orbital and Lockheed, the state-owned corporation is negotiating contracts for smaller rockets that can be launched from Kodiak’s existing launchpads.

“I think I’m going to have one in the near term, this year,” Campbell said.

Campbell’s optimism is matched by Sen. Gary Stevens, who formerly sat on AAC’s board of directors and represents Kodiak in the Alaska Senate. “I think you'll find that in the next two years they'll have some successful projects and some successful launches,” he said. “I think it’ll show that they’re in the market and they can successfully compete.”

Until a company signs on the dotted line, however, AAC will continue to move closer to March 31, a date that might be its final countdown.

As of April 22, it has been 573 days since the last launch at the KLC.

Contact Mirror editor James Brooks at editor@kodiakdailymirror.com.

Read more: Kodiak Daily Mirror - Legislature pressures Alaska Aerospace to launch

Kodiak Launch Complex expansion faces delay

JAMES BROOKS, Kodiak Daily Mirror

KODIAK (AP) — Alaska Aerospace Corporation's plans for a new launch pad have been delayed, not canceled.
In a four-hour board meeting Thursday at the Kodiak Launch Complex, CEO Craig Campbell confirmed that Lockheed-Martin's delays in finding customers for a new, larger Kodiak-launched rocket means at least a one-year delay in construction of Launch Pad 3.
"Now we're projecting into the 2015 period for the launch of the Athena III," Campbell said.
That timeline means construction will not begin until next summer at the earliest.
Work isn't standing still on the project that has been hailed as the future of the Narrow Cape complex. Campbell told board members he's keeping the ball moving on the environmental assessment that must take place before the launch pad can be built. "We expect that to roll forward in the next couple months, then go out to a public comment period," he said.
During the last session of the Alaska Legislature, Gov. Sean Parnell pledged $25 million in state support for the $125 million estimated cost of the launch pad. Financial "gates" are built in to that amount, ensuring Alaska Aerospace cannot move forward with construction and design until a contract is in hand and private financing in place.
Campbell said he has added restrictions of his own and will spend no more than $1 million until Lockheed commits to a launch date and signs a contract.
That amount takes the project to about 65 percent of design, but not engineering work, Campbell said.
The corporation stopped deliberately short of detailed engineering in an attempt to accommodate Orbital Sciences, another space company that has expressed an interest in launching from Kodiak.
Orbital's Antares rocket is designed differently than Lockheed's Athena III, and the new launch pad would need extra equipment to serve both rockets. Orbital is considering both Kodiak and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California as its West Coast launch site for the Antares, but it is not expected to decide between the two until early next year, after it launches its first Antares from a spaceport in Virginia.
"I don't want to get into an engineering and design concept for a solid-based rocket only to find out Orbital is coming here with a liquid-based rocket," Campbell said.
While the delay may pay off for Kodiak if another customer is willing to spend millions for permission to launch rockets from Alaska, the slow pace of development could continue if Congress drags its feet on the federal budget.
The vast majority of America's space projects are at least partially funded by the federal government, and Congress' inability to pass a new defense budget means multibillion-dollar contractors like Lockheed and Orbital don't know how much they can sell. That, in turn, means those companies don't know how many rockets they need to launch from places like Kodiak.
In addition, said Alaska Aerospace chief operating officer Mark Greby, companies like Orbital and Lockheed are awaiting the results of November's presidential election. President Barack Obama and Republican hopeful Mitt Romney have similar space policies, but a few percent difference in funding represents hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, Greby said. "In all honesty, they're all stalling to see which way the climate is going."
Until that weather forecast changes, Launch Pad 3 looks to be stuck in the cold.
___
Information from: Kodiak (Alaska) Daily Mirror, http://www.kodiakdailymirror.com

This article appears in the October Issue 1 2012 issue of Alaska Journal of Commerce

Read more: http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-Journal-of-Commerce/October-Issue-1-2012/Kodiak-Launch-Complex-expansion-faces-delay/#ixzz2C8OCyBkr

Alaska Aerospace lays off 5 Kodiak-based workers

August 21, 2012

AP Staff Writer

The Associated Press

KODIAK, Alaska (AP) — The Alaska Aerospace Corp. has laid off five workers, or 20 percent of its Kodiak workforce, after a launch was delayed a year to 2014.
Interim CEO Craig Campbell tells the Kodiak Daily Mirror (http://is.gd/9wH8uH) that the corporation also must stay within its $8 million budget set by the Alaska Legislature.
The layoffs included an engineer, a safety officer, two technicians and a scheduler, all based at the Kodiak launch complex.
The layoffs do not alter the corporation's plans to expand for use by larger rockets. Once those launches are scheduled, Campbell anticipates refilling the positions.
___
Information from: Kodiak (Alaska) Daily Mirror, http://www.kodiakdailymirror.com