SOLID-FUELED ROCKET MOTOR LAUNCHES FROM … · 37 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS..... 63 38 Figures 39 Figure 1-1: Regional Map with Representative Flight Path from the Former FWDA ... FAA

Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release, 4 April

2018. Distribution is unlimited. authority

SOLID-FUELED ROCKET MOTOR

LAUNCHES FROM

FORT WINGATE LAUNCH COMPLEX,

NEW MEXICO

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

APRIL 2018

18. NUMBER

OF

PAGES

Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.

300 Sparkman Drive

Huntsville, AL 35805

Mar 2015 – Apr 2018

256-955-2608

Mark E. Hubbs

US Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC)

US Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic

Command (USASMDC/ARSTRAT)

Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT

NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE

SOLID-FUELED ROCKET MOTOR LAUNCHES FROM FORT WINGATE

LAUNCH COMPLEX, NEW MEXICO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT

W9113M-13-D-0006

N/A

N/A

N/A

84

Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data

needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to

Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should

be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a current ly valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

04-04-2018 NEPA Document

N/A

N/A

N/A

USASMDC

TBD

United States Army Space and Missile Defense Command

P.O. Box 1500

Huntsville, AL 35807-3801

Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release, 4 April 2018. Distribution is unlimited.

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared by the NSWC and USASMDC to analyze the effects of launching

solid-fueled rocket motors from Fort Wingate Launch Complex (FWLC) for impact at the White Sands Missile Range

(WSMR), New Mexico. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide newly-developed, low cost, short-range targets for

intercept on WSMR. The Proposed Action is needed to demonstrate the support of operationally realistic flight tests from Fort

Wingate.

This page left blank intentionally.

April 2018 i

SOLID-FUELED ROCKET MOTOR LAUNCHES FROM FWLC

Draft Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents 1

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................... v 2

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................................... 1 3

1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 4

1.2 Background .......................................................................................................... 1 5

1.3 Scope Of The Environmental Assessment ........................................................... 3 6

1.4 Purpose And Need For The Proposed Action ...................................................... 3 7

1.5 Decision To Be Made .......................................................................................... 4 8

1.6 Related Environmental Documentation ............................................................... 4 9

1.7 Public Notification And Review .......................................................................... 5 10

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ............... 7 11

2.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 7 12

2.2 Description of the Proposed Action ..................................................................... 7 13

2.2.1 Proposed Flight Tests ....................................................................... 7 14

2.2.2 Safety and Range Control ................................................................. 9 15

2.2.3 Target Systems ............................................................................... 10 16

2.3 Alternatives To The Proposed Action................................................................ 14 17

2.4 Other Concurrent Programs To Be Evaluated For Cumulative Impacts ........... 15 18

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................... 17 19

3.1 Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 18 20

3.1.1 Region of Influence (ROI) ............................................................. 18 21

3.1.2 Affected Environment .................................................................... 18 22

3.2 Airspace ............................................................................................................. 19 23

3.2.1 Region of Influence ........................................................................ 19 24


3.3 Biological Resources ......................................................................................... 19 26



3.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 27 29


3.4.2 Affected environment ..................................................................... 28 31

3.5 Geology And Soils ............................................................................................. 30 32



3.6 Hazardous Materials And Waste ....................................................................... 32 35



3.7 Health And Safety .............................................................................................. 33 38



3.8 Infrastructure And Transportation ..................................................................... 33 41



3.9 Land Use ............................................................................................................ 35 44

April 2018 ii





3.10 Noise .................................................................................................................. 35 3



3.11 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................. 35 6



3.12 Water Resources ................................................................................................ 36 9



4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................ 39 12

4.1 Biological Resources ......................................................................................... 39 13

4.1.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................. 39 14

4.1.2 No-Action Alternative .................................................................... 46 15

4.1.3 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................ 47 16

4.2 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 48 17

4.2.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................. 48 18



4.3 Health And Safety .............................................................................................. 51 21

4.3.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................. 51 22



4.4 Land Use ............................................................................................................ 53 25

4.4.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................. 53 26



4.5 Environmental Effects Of The No-Action Alternative ...................................... 54 29

4.6 Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice In Minority Populations And 30

Low-Income Populations (Executive Order 12898) .......................................... 54 31

4.7 Federal Actions to Address Protection of Children From Environmental Health 32

Risks and Safety Risks (Executive Order 13045, As Amended by Executive Order 33

13229) ................................................................................................................ 55 34

5.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 57 35

6.0 AGENCIES CONTACTED............................................................................... 61 36

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS...................................................................................... 63 37

Figures 38

Figure 1-1: Regional Map with Representative Flight Path from the Former FWDA to 39

WSMR with Booster Drop Zone (BDZ) and Booster Drop C Locations ..................... 2 40

Figure 2-1: Fort Wingate Launch Complex Activity Locations ......................................... 8 41

Figure 2-2: Representative Impact Zones ......................................................................... 11 42

Figure 2-3: NSWC Target Configurations ........................................................................ 12 43

April 2018 iii



Figure 2-4: Boosted ZOMBIE Target Configuration ....................................................... 13 1

Figure 3-1: Restricted Airspace at Fort Wingate Launch Complex ................................. 21 2

Figure 3-2: Protected Biological Resources In or Near the Booster Drop Zone .............. 26 3

Tables 4

Table 3-1: Protected Plant and Animal Species That May Occur in the Region 5

of Influence ................................................................................................................. 22 6

Table 4-1: Acoustic Thresholds for Physical Injury and Behavioral Disruption in Fish.. 42 7

Table 4-2: Reactions of Bald Eagles to Peak Noise Levels for Impulsive Noise ............. 43 8

Table 4-3: Conservative Thresholds for Effects on Birds from Impulsive Noise Source 43 9

Appendix 10

Appendix A: Former FWDA Map of Negotiated Property Divisions ............................ A-1 11

Appendix B: Agency Correspondence ............................................................................ B-1 12

13

14

April 2018 iv



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

This page left blank intentionally.14

April 2018 v



ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 1

AQCR Air Quality Control Region

BCC Bird of Conservation Concern

BDZ Booster Drop Zone

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMDO Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

BMDS Ballistic Missile Defense System

C Celsius

CAA Clean Air Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cm Centimeter

CONUS Continental United States

dB Decibel

dBA Decibel A-Weighted Filter For

Hearing

dBO decibels weighted for owl hearing

dB peak Decibel Peak Sound Pressure Level

dB SELcum Decibel Cumulative Sound Exposure

Level

DoD Department of Defense

DOI Department of the Interior

DOT Department of Transportation

DPS Distinct Population Segment

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ETR Extended Test Range

F Fahrenheit

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

ft Foot/Feet

ft2 Square Feet

FWDA Fort Wingate Depot Activity

FWLC Fort Wingate Launch Complex

FY Fiscal Year

gal Gallon(s)

GHG Greenhouse Gasses

HCl Hydrogen Chloride

in Inch

km Kilometer(s)

km2 Square Kilometers

L Liter(s)

LC-96 Launch Complex 96

Lmax Maximum Sound Level

LHA Launch Hazard Area

μPa Micropascal

m Meter(s)

m2 Square Meter(s)

m3 Cubic Meter

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MDA Missile Defense Agency

mi Mile(s)

mi2 Square Miles

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MSL Mean Sea Level

Mt Mount

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality

Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NF National Forest

NG National Grasslands

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NHNM Natural Heritage New Mexico

NM New Mexico

NMEIB New Mexico Environmental

Improvement Board

NOTAM Notice to Airmen

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSWC US Naval Surface Warfare Center

PAC Protected Activity Center

pCi picoCuries

psf Pounds per Square Foot

PTS Permanent Threshold Shift

RCC Range Commanders Council

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SM Standard Missile

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

TAMD Theater Air and Missile Defense

TMD Theater Missile Defense

TTS Temporary Threshold Shift

US United States

USASMDC/

ARSTRAT US Army Space and Missile Defense

Command/Armed Forces Strategic

Command

USC. United States Code

USDA US Department of Agriculture

USFS US Forest Service

USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service

WSMR White Sands Missile Range

1

April 2018 vi



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

This page left blank intentionally. 15

16

April 2018 1



1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 1

1.1 Introduction 2

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared by the United States (US) Army Space and 3

Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command (USASMDC/ARSTRAT) and the US 4

Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) to analyze the effects from activities associated with 5

surface-launching solid-fueled rocket motors from Fort Wingate Launch Complex (FWLC) at the 6

former Fort Wingate Depot Activity (FWDA), New Mexico (NM). Target intercepts or impacts 7

would occur at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), NM, and are covered under previous National 8

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation (Section 1.5 Related Environmental 9

Documentation). Figure 1-1 provides a regional map of the area. 10

1.2 Background 11

Between January and November 1994, the US Army Space and Strategic Defense Command, now 12

USASMDC/ARSTRAT, in cooperation with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, now the 13

Missile Defense Agency (MDA); the US Air Force; the US Navy; the Federal Aviation 14

Administration (FAA); and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepared the Theater Missile 15

Defense (TMD) Extended Test Range (ETR) Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements 16

(EIS). The EIS analyzed extended range tests of target missiles from existing test ranges and from 17

off-range locations. The locations included the use of FWDA for target launches and WSMR for 18

interceptor launches and impacts. 19

In June 2000, the Department of the Interior (DOI), on behalf of itself and its Bureau of Indian 20

Affairs (BIA), entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Ballistic Missile Defense 21

Organization (BMDO), the predecessor of the MDA, for accommodating FWLC mission 22

requirements on former Department of the Army lands within FWDA in the state of New Mexico. 23

This MOA provided for a launch hazard area (LHA) that would be evacuated for launches, would 24

allow the placement of equipment on the property to support missile launch operations, and would 25

allow a future requirement to drop a first-stage booster within the LHA. The MDA would be 26

responsible for clean-up of debris, environmental compliance requirements, and any 27

rehabilitation/restoration of damage to property and natural resources. The DOI/BIA also agreed that 28

no permanent camp or dwellings would be established on the property while the property is within 29

the LHA or until the MOA terminates. The MOA shall terminate upon the conclusion of the MDA’s 30

mission requirements for use of the FWLC and final departure from the FWLC. 31

In January 2017, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, issued a 32

memorandum approving the use of FWLC, with incorporation of Parcel 3, if necessary, to support 33

all DoD activities, expanding the previous approval of the FWLC to support BMDO (now MDA). A 34

map of the former FWDA negotiated property divisions is included as Appendix A. 35

Since 1996, Launch Complex 96 (LC-96) (see Figure 2-1), has been used to launch single-stage 36

STORM targets and two-stage Hera targets in support of missile development programs. 37

(http://www.wsmr.army.mil/testcenter/testing/landf/Pages/LaunchFacilities.aspx). LC-96 is a remote 38

target launch facility located on FWLC. FWLC is located within the former FWDA near Gallup, 39

NM, and operates as a sub-installation on a non-contiguous WSMR land parcel. The facility includes 40

administrative offices, a missile assembly building, a launch control shelter, and a launch pad with 41

retractable environmental shroud. The launch site was designed to launch long-range, high-altitude 42

targets to simulate more realistic, ballistic threat trajectories for intercept over WSMR. 43

April 2018 2



Both the USASMDC/ARSTRAT and the NSWC have developed low-cost, short-range targets using 1

components from legacy rocket systems that are no longer part of the active fleet. (USASMDC/ 2

ARSTRAT, 2013) Operationally realistic flight tests engaging the short-range targets require use of 3

existing ranges with the appropriate distance between the target and missile launch sites that allows 4

for interceptor system tests to be achieved and with a booster drop zone where debris and 5

components can be readily recovered for analysis. 6

Figure 1-1: Regional Map with Representative Flight Path from the Former FWDA to WSMR 7

with Booster Drop Zone (BDZ) and Booster Drop C Locations 8

For these operationally realistic flight tests, the USASMDC/ARSTRAT would launch interceptors 9

from WSMR for the short-range, solid-fueled rocket motor targets launched from FWLC. At 10

WSMR, NM, the Navy has been part of the test community since 1946. For operationally realistic 11

flight tests, the NSWC would launch interceptors from WSMR for the short-range, solid-fueled 12

rocket motor targets launched from FWLC. WSMR is fully instrumented to provide high-quality 13

radar, optical, telemetry, meteorology, and scenario control over the entire extent of the range for 14

target intercepts. 15

Booster Drop Zone (BDZ)

Ari

zon

a

New

Mex

ico

April 2018 3



1.3 Scope Of The Environmental Assessment 1

This EA is prepared in compliance with the following statutes and regulations that direct DoD lead-2

agency officials to consider potential environmental consequences when authorizing or approving 3

federal actions: 4

The NEPA of 1969, as amended; 5

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations that implement NEPA (Code of 6

Federal Regulations [CFR], Title 40, Parts 1500 – 1508); 7

Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 4715.9, Environmental Planning and Analysis; 8

32 CFR Part 651, Environmental Analysis of Army Actions (Department of the Army, 2002); 9

and 10

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST) 5090.1D, Environmental 11

Readiness Program (Department of the Navy, 2014). 12

This EA is narrowly focused and evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed target 13

launches of surface-launch solid-fueled rocket systems from FWLC and target booster drops into the 14

adjacent booster drop zone. The launches support demonstrations of the integrated Ballistic Missile 15

Defense System (BMDS) operational effectiveness for surface-launch solid-fueled rocket systems in 16

operationally realistic flight tests between FWLC and WSMR. The EA identifies and addresses 17

potential environmental effects at FWLC and the defined adjacent areas. Impacts could result from 18

site preparation and pre-flight activities at launch and other support locations, missile flight tests, 19

missile launches during operational flight tests, successful intercept events, and post-flight activities. 20

Intercept events would occur over WSMR. Target launches from FWLC, missile launches from 21

WSMR, target and missile flight paths, intercept events, and affected resource areas are covered by 22

previous NEPA documentation (Section 1.6). This EA also considers the alternative of No-Action. If 23

this alternative were chosen, the flight test activities described in the EA would not take place. On-24

going and future activities for which potential environmental effects have been analyzed and 25

documented would continue. 26

The EA addresses reasonably foreseeable activities in the particular FWLC and defined adjacent 27

areas affected by the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative and focuses on the activities 28

ripe for decision by the DoD, FAA, and other related federal and resource agencies. The majority of 29

activities would use existing facilities and/or be on previously disturbed land. 30

Consistent with the President’s CEQ regulations, the scope of the analysis presented in this EA was 31

defined by the range of potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of 32

the Proposed Action or the No-Action Alternative. Resources that have a potential for impacts were 33

considered in the EA analysis to provide the decision makers with sufficient evidence and analysis 34

for evaluation of the potential effects of the action. For this EA, the environment is discussed in 35

terms of 13 resource areas. Each resource area is discussed proportionate to the potential for 36

environmental impacts. 37

1.4 Purpose And Need For The Proposed Action 38

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to launch newly-developed, low cost, short-range targets for 39

intercept over WSMR. The Proposed Action is needed to support a series of operationally realistic 40

flight tests with targets launched from FWLC. A new drop zone is needed for the target boosters 41

because they will fall partially within an area not analyzed in previous environmental 42

documentation. 43

April 2018 4



1.5 Decision To Be Made 1

The decision to be made, based in part on the analysis in this document, is whether to conduct short-2

range, solid-fueled rocket motor launches from FWLC to WSMR with booster recoveries within a 3

new drop zone area. Intercepts would take place over WSMR in accordance with existing intercept 4

scenarios previously evaluated in other NEPA documents (Section 1.5). 5

The decision-maker(s) could also select the No-Action Alternative, which would be not to conduct 6

short-range, solid-fueled rocket motor launches from FWLC with booster recoveries within a new 7

drop zone area. Other on-going and future actions whose impacts have been appropriately analyzed 8

and approved would continue. 9

1.6 Related Environmental Documentation 10

The following NEPA documents analyzed actions related to the activities proposed in this EA, or 11

they provide information on existing flight tests to which SMDC and the Navy plan to add the use of 12

short-range targets launched from FWLC. This EA does not duplicate the analyses in these 13

documents but focuses on potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed target 14

launches and associated booster drops. Each referenced document was reviewed and approved for 15

public release with unlimited distribution. These documents are available at 16

www.smdcen.us/pubdocs except as noted. 17

Theater Missile Defense Extended Test Range EIS (Draft, Supplement, and Final), 1994; 18

analyzed extended range flights of target missiles and tests of defensive missiles and sensor 19

systems at WSMR using target and defensive missile launches from existing test ranges and 20

from off-range locations. As one of its alternatives, the Environmental Impact Statement 21

(EIS) analyzed the effects of launching target missiles from Fort Wingate and interceptor 22

missiles from WSMR, with intercepts over WSMR. 23

Environmental Assessment for the Theater Missile Defense Hera Target Systems Program 24

(1994); analyzed the demonstration flight tests of the Hera target Missile. 25

PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) Life Cycle EA, May 1997 [WSMR]; analyzed 26

the lifecycle of the PAC-3 interceptor, including flight testing involving PAC-3 launches 27

from existing launch sites at WSMR intercepting target missiles launched from Fort 28

Wingate, with intercept sites on WSMR. 29

Flexible Target Family (FTF) EA, 1 October 2007; analyzed the development, preparation, 30

assembly, integration, testing, transportation, and use of the FTF, including new boosters, 31

technologies, and targets, including launches from FWDA, to support BMDS testing; 32

available at http://www.mda.mil/news/environmental_archive.html 33

White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico Liquid Propellant Targets EA, May 2002; 34

analyzed launching liquid propellant targets, to include some with aerial dispersion 35

experiments. 36

Environmental Assessment for US Navy STANDARD Missile Family Testing Program, 37

White Sands Missile Range, August 2007. (Not available on the Internet) 38

Final Environmental Impact Statement for Development and Implementation of Range-39

Wide Mission and Major Capabilities at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, 40

November 2009; analyzed developing new and expanding current test and training 41

capabilities to meet mission requirements, with changes in land use and activities to 42

support future needs and modernization of the fighting force (e.g., equipment and 43

weaponry) at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), and included extended range sites such 44

as FWLC at FWDA; available at 45

http://www.smdcen.us/pubdocs/pages/TMD_ETR.htm

http://www.smdcen.us/pubdocs/files/pac3_final_ea.pdf

http://www.smdcen.us/pubdocs/files/wsmrlpt_final_052302.pdf

April 2018 5



http://www.wsmr.army.mil/PDF/WSMR_EIS_Volume_I.pdf and 1

http://www.wsmr.army.mil/PDF/WSMR_EIS_Volume_II_Appendices.pdf 2

Use of Tributyl Phosphate (TBP) in the Intercept Debris Measurement Program (IDMP) at 3

White Sands Missile Range, April 2004; analyzed the launch and intercept of targets with 4

chemical simulants to obtain measurements on debris dispersion. 5

1.7 Public Notification And Review 6

In accordance with CEQ, US Army and US Navy regulations and procedures for implementing 7

NEPA, the USASMDC/ARSTRAT is soliciting comments on this Draft EA from interested and 8

affected parties. Advertisements for the Notices of Availability (NOA) for this Draft EA and the 9

enclosed Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) were placed in newspapers in Gallup, Las 10

Cruces, Socorro, and Albuquerque, NM. Hard copies are available for review in the following public 11

libraries: 12

Octavia Fellin Public Library Thomas Branigan Memorial Library 13

115 W Hill Avenue 200 E Picacho Avenue 14

Gallup, New Mexico 87301 Las Cruces, New Mexico 88001 15

16

The Public Library Albuquerque Bernalillo County Socorro Public Library 17

501 Copper Avenue NW 401 Park Street 18

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 Socorro, New Mexico 87801 19

The documents were available over the internet at 20

https://tbe.com/Solid_Fuel_Rocket_Motor_Launches_Documents_For_Public_Review and 21

electronic copies will be provided upon request. 22

April 2018 6



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14


April 2018 7



2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND 1

ALTERNATIVES 2

2.1 Overview 3

The MDA was established to manage and integrate all missile defense programs and 4

technologies into one BMDS. MDA is responsible for developing and testing conceptual 5

BMDSs. Two of the priorities of missile defense are: (1) to defend the US and its deployed 6

forces, allies, and friends; and (2) to employ a BMDS that consists of layers of defenses to 7

intercept ballistic missiles in all phases of their flight (boost, midcourse, and terminal) against all 8

ranges of threats (short, medium, intermediate, and long). MDA conducts system-level flight 9

tests that integrate multiple BMDS components. 10

Use of a land range for the missile flight tests and intercept events is preferable to a sea range to 11

allow for post-flight recovery of components and debris, especially during developmental 12

testing. FWLC and WSMR are being considered as the candidate locations for the proposed 13

solid-fueled short-range rocket motor flight testing program. 14

Solid-fueled rocket motor targets would be launched from or near LC-96 at FWLC, shown in 15

Figure 2-1. Target intercepts would occur over WSMR. Flight tests are proposed to start during 16

fiscal year (FY) 2018. The number of launches would be up to two per year for the first five 17

years and potentially up to five per year for the next five years. 18

2.2 Description of the Proposed Action 19

2.2.1 Proposed Flight Tests 20

The USASMDC and the NSWC propose to launch solid-fueled rocket systems from FWLC to 21

WSMR in support of BMDS layered defense testing. One of the NSWC rockets proposed for 22

launching is a two-stage sounding rocket with a Mark (MK) 70 rocket motor booster as the first 23

stage and the Oriole motor as the second stage. The second configuration would be an MK70 24

first stage and an M124 second stage. Other similar rocket systems could be launched from this 25

site as referred to in the previous environmental documents noted in Section 1.6. The launches 26

may occur in the vicinity of the Juno launch site which contains pre-existing communications 27

and power cabling. The launch would use a mobile launcher to be placed within the original 28

LHA analyzed in the TMD ETR EIS (Space and Strategic Defense Command [SSDC], 1994a). 29

Telemetry/Optics/Radar vans would be used for mission support. The proposed booster drop 30

zone is outside the original boundaries of the former FWDA and FWLC, is within McKinley 31

County, is in the Zuni Mountains in the US Forest Service (USFS) Cibola National Forest and 32

National Grasslands (NF & NG), and would be used for possible future missions. Missile 33

launches could be used for engineering checkout or intercepted as a part of BMDS testing. The 34

booster drop zone would be in the area indicated on Figure 2-1. Any changes to where boosters 35

may fall within the booster drop zone would be in coordination with government program 36

officials. 37

April 2018 8



1

Figure 2-1: Fort Wingate Launch Complex Activity Locations 2

3

April 2018 9



Up to two launches per year are proposed for the first five years and potentially up to five 1

launches per year are proposed for the next five years. 2

For launch time planning purposes, the period between April and July would be considered as 3

the dry season for the booster drop zone. During this period, the USFS and WSMR would 4

provide extra fire protection for the booster drop zone. The USASMDC and NSWC project 5

offices would ensure the USFS is notified through their Mount (Mt.) Taylor Ranger District 6

Office of pending launches in accordance with WSMR Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). 7

No launches would occur per direction of the USFS if conditions warrant. The USFS would be 8

able to notify visitors by posting on their Cibola NF & NG website (http://www.fs.usda.gov/ 9

cibola) of upcoming launches and by posting at campgrounds and trailheads any notices of 10

potential closures of areas of the NF and certain roads. Launch planning also would consider the 11

designated hunting seasons in the proposed drop zone. To further reduce any possible 12

disturbance to protected nesting bird species, launch schedulers would consider scheduling 13

launches outside of primary avian breeding seasons (May-August) when possible. 14

2.2.2 Safety and Range Control 15

Range Safety 16

In accordance with Range Commanders’ Council Standard 321-10, Common Risk Criteria 17

Standards For National Test Ranges, December 2010, target and defensive missile flight tests 18

would require temporary evacuation of land areas. Designated areas could include, depending on 19

the exact systems being tested and the flight trajectories, the LHA and booster drop zone at 20

FWLC, and the downrange intercept debris impact zone and target vehicle impact zone at 21

WSMR in the event of a failed intercept. 22

WSMR, FWLC, and BDZ 23

Intercept debris impact zones, target vehicle impact zones in the event of a failed intercept, and 24

impact zones for scheduled jettisons (such as nozzle adapters and interstage adapters) would be 25

confined either to open areas or to existing range areas at WSMR which have been verified clear 26

of personnel. Should penetration aids (penaids) be used, they would also impact the same area as 27

the target vehicle. Figure 2-2 shows representative target missile LHAs and the booster drop 28

zone, intercept debris impact zones, and intact target vehicle and defensive missile impact zones. 29

Impact zones are areas in which hardware impacts are planned.1 30

Variables to be considered include the specific target and defensive missiles employed, intercept 31

altitude, intercept angle, and relative velocities at intercept. Impact study areas for expended 32

boosters, target vehicles, defensive missile debris resulting from a successful intercept, and intact 33

defensive missile payloads (in the event of a failed intercept) would be determined by range 34

safety personnel for each flight based on detailed launch planning and trajectory modeling. This 35

planning and modeling would include analyses and identification of a flight corridor based on a 36

flight failure during any point in the flight trajectory. Test flights would only be conducted when 37

trajectory modeling shows that flight vehicles and debris would be contained within 38

predetermined areas. Contact information for local fire suppression, hazardous materials 39

emergency response, and emergency medical teams would be available to the launch team during 40

launch operations. 41

1 Note: Intercept debris impact zones and interceptor debris are not considered in this EA because this document

only considers the launch of the target, not its involvement in potential test scenarios.

April 2018 10



During testing, spent boosters would be recovered from the proposed booster drop zone within 1

the Cibola NF. Any hazardous debris would be recovered as soon as practicable. The only 2

contaminant from solid rocket motors is the fuel/oxidizer. This is designed to be consumed 3

rapidly and completely and either burns during the test or becomes inert within a day of exposure 4

to the elements. When possible, critical hardware components would be recovered for post-flight 5

analysis. To assist in locating expended boosters within the Cibola NF, and payloads and 6

intercept debris on WSMR, ground-based and airborne sensors may be positioned to cover 7

anticipated impact areas. Boosters and payloads may be equipped with locator beacons so that a 8

recovery team can quickly arrive at the drop site. 9

Range Control 10

The Proposed Action would include a rocket motor target missile launched from FWLC toward 11

WSMR where it may be intercepted by a defensive missile launched from WSMR. The LHA for 12

previous targets launched at FWLC would be modified to account for site and mission 13

characteristics unique to these locations and mission requirements (Figure 2-1). The town of Fort 14

Wingate, for example, is not included in the tailored LHA even though it is located less than 7.2 15

km (4.5 mi) from the launch site. To exclude the town of Fort Wingate from the LHA, flight 16

safety procedures were modified to provide for early termination of the missile flight if it 17

deviated from its planned trajectory and flew in the direction of the town. Only one booster drop 18

zone would be required for a single mission. The LHA and the associated booster drop zone 19

would be evacuated prior to launch. The Army would enter into agreements with private land 20

owners and affected Government agencies within the booster drop zone. Notification of private 21

land owners and local governments and agencies would occur by mail 30 days and 10 days prior 22

to the scheduled launch. Private land owners would also be notified by courier three days prior to 23

the scheduled launch date. Advertisements including specific road and public recreation areas to 24

be closed would be placed in local newspapers three days prior to the scheduled launch. 25

Additional notification would include: providing the launch schedule to state and federal visitor 26

centers; announcements on local radio and television stations; posting signs with launch 27

schedules along affected highways; posting on the USFS Cibola NF Alerts & Notices webpage 28

(http://www.fs.usda.gov/alerts/cibola/alerts-notices) plus physical posting on trailhead and 29

campground public information kiosks and boards; and providing chambers of commerce and 30

agency information centers with launch schedules. 31

The evacuation period would be a maximum of 12 hours per missile launch event with a 32

minimum of 48 hours between events. 33

2.2.3 Target Systems 34

The solid-fuel rocket flight tests from FWLC would be supplied with solid-fueled rocket motor 35

targets by either USASMDC/ARSTRAT or the NSWC. The following sections describe 36

representative targets that could be used. 37

2.2.3.1 NSWC Target Configurations 38

One target configuration is composed of a Terrier MK70 as the first stage with either an Orion as 39

variant A or an Oriole motor as variant B for the booster stage, spin motors for dispersion 40

reduction, and a separating conical nose tip. Figure 2-3 shows examples of the two variations. 41

Once the nose tip is separated, four retro motors would be ignited to allow the nose tip to move 42

away from the spent Oriole or Orion booster. 43

44

45

April 2018 11



NSWC Target Transportation 1

Up to two NSWC targets would be shipped to FWLC for launch, a primary test vehicle and a 2

back-up. The back-up vehicle would be used if there is a problem or malfunction of the primary 3

vehicle or if a second launch is needed. All hardware would be transported from Holloman Air 4

Force Base, NM, approximately five weeks before the test date. Upon arrival at the FWLC, the 5

hardware would be moved into a missile assembly building for integration and testing prior to 6

launch. 7

NSWC Pre-Flight Activities 8

The target vehicle inert payload would be built up and integrated onto the booster on its handling 9

cart. The vehicle would then be loaded onto the launch rail in two pieces, the kick stage and 10

upper stage, and the pieces would be mated on the rail. 11

All pre-flight assembly and integration activities would be conducted in accordance with 12

applicable ground safety and ordnance handling procedures. 13

Figure 2-2: Representative Impact Zones 14

for Proposed Flight Test Activities 15

Defensive Missile Launch Hazard Area

Representative Flight Path Ground Projection

Defensive Missile Payload Impact Zone (if no intercept)

Defensive Missile Booster Drop Zone

Defensive Missile Intercept Debris Impact Zone

Existing White Sands Missile Range Area

Representative Booster Drop Zone (BDZ) in Zuni Mts

Representative Target Launch Hazard Area at FWLC

Representative Flight Corridor

Not to scale

Target Intercept Debris Impact Zone

Intercept Point Target 2nd Stage Impact Zone

Target Vehicle Impact Zone (if no intercept)

Defensive Missile Launch Hazard Area

April 2018 12



At a pre-planned time on the day of the flight test, the NSWC target would be launched from the 1

rail on an existing concrete pad on FWLC. The LHA established around the launch rail would 2

represent the footprint of maximum hazard associated with debris impact and explosive 3

overpressure. No clearing of vegetation or ground disturbance would be required. The target 4

would be engaged by an interceptor over WSMR. The non-nuclear warhead for that weapon 5

system would intercept and destroy the target with debris resulting from the intercept being 6

deposited on WSMR. All debris would conform to the risk guidelines in Range Commanders 7

Council (RCC) Standard 321-10, Common Risk Criteria Standards For National Test Ranges, 8

December 2010. No debris hazardous to human health would be deposited on inhabited land. 9

NSWC Post-Flight Activities 10

Booster drop zones are established to ensure the risk to the public is eliminated, booster recovery 11

time is minimized, security can be enforced, and that adverse environmental effects are 12

minimized. Missile trajectories are preplanned prior to firing so spent boosters would impact in 13

designated drop zones. Assistance would be requested from the WSMR Range Services Branch 14

to provide teams for booster and debris recovery. The recovery team would include explosive 15

ordnance experts, an environmental monitor to assist with avoiding sensitive species and 16

monitoring environmental conditions at the impact site, and a qualified professional 17

archaeologist to assist in avoidance of known cultural sites. Boosters would be recovered by the 18

teams using vehicles, off-road vehicles, helicopters, and on foot. Off-road vehicular travel would 19

be limited; most travel would occur on existing paved roads and USFS unpaved roads or 20

approved paths. For boosters with locator beacons, the team would remain on NM 400 or the 21

unpaved Forest Service roads until they are proximate to the booster to minimize impacts to 22

vegetation and cultural resources from the off-road vehicles. WSMR Range Services would be 23

responsible for obtaining a special use permit from the USFS for off-road travel. 24

After the integrated flight test concludes, any unused back-up target vehicle would be de-25

integrated in a missile assembly building on the FWLC. It would then be returned to Holloman 26

Air Force Base in the reverse of the process used to transport it to FWLC. 27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Figure 2-3: NSWC Target Configurations 40

41

Target Variation A Photo credit: NASA

Target Variation B Photo credit: NASA

April 2018 13



2.2.3.2 Boosted ZOMBIE/Black Dagger Target Missile 1

The USASMDC/ARSTRAT Boosted ZOMBIE target missile consists of a Terrier MK70 first 2

stage and an M124, excess Army inventory for the second stage. The inert warhead section does 3

not separate from the booster. The Boosted ZOMBIE/Black Dagger configuration is shown in 4

Figure 2-4. 5

6

7

8

9

Figure 2-4: Boosted ZOMBIE Target Configuration 10

Boosted ZOMBIE/Black Dagger Transportation 11

Up to two Boosted ZOMBIE/Black Dagger targets would be shipped to FWLC for launch, a 12

primary test vehicle and a back-up. The back-up vehicle would be used if there were a problem 13

or malfunction of the primary vehicle or if a second launch is needed. All hardware would be 14

transported from WSMR approximately five weeks before the test date. Upon arrival at FWLC, 15

the hardware would be moved into a missile assembly building, for integration and testing prior 16

to launch. 17

Boosted ZOMBIE/Black Dagger Pre-Flight Activities 18

The Boosted ZOMBIE/Black Dagger vehicle payload would be built up and integrated onto the 19

motor in the missile assembly building. The vehicle would then be loaded onto the launch rail in 20

two pieces, first-stage booster and upper stage, and the pieces would be mated on the rail. 21

All pre-flight assembly and integration activities would be conducted in accordance with 22

applicable ground safety and ordnance handling procedures. 23

Boosted ZOMBIE/Black Dagger Flight Test Activities 24

At a pre-planned time on the day of the flight test, the Boosted ZOMBIE/Black Dagger would be 25

launched from the rail on an existing concrete pad or other existing suitable area on FWLC. The 26

LHA established around the launch rail would represent the footprint of maximum hazard 27

associated with debris impact and explosive overpressure. No clearing of vegetation or ground 28

disturbance would be required. The Boosted ZOMBIE/Black Dagger would be viewed or 29

engaged by an interceptor over WSMR. The interceptor would hit and destroy the Boosted 30

ZOMBIE/Black Dagger with resulting debris being deposited on WSMR. All debris would 31

conform to the risk guidelines in Range Commanders’ Council Standard 321-10, Common Risk 32

Criteria Standards For National Test Ranges, December 2010. No debris hazardous to human 33

health would be deposited on inhabited land. 34

Boosted ZOMBIE/Black Dagger Post-Flight Activities 35

Booster drop zones are also established to ensure the risk to the public is eliminated, booster 36

recovery time is minimized, security can be enforced, and that adverse environmental effects are 37


designated drop zones. Assistance would be requested from the WSMR Range Services Branch 39

to provide teams for debris recovery. The recovery team would include explosive ordnance 40

experts, an environmental monitor to assist with avoiding sensitive species and monitoring 41

environmental conditions at the impact site, and a qualified professional archaeologist to assist in 42

Ogive M124 MK70

April 2018 14



avoidance of known cultural sites. Boosters would be recovered by the teams using vehicles, off-1

road vehicles, helicopters, and on foot. Off-road vehicular travel would be limited with most 2

travel occurring on paved roads and USFS unpaved roads or approved paths.For boosters with 3

locator beacons, the team would remain on NM 400 or the unpaved Forest Service roads until 4

they are proximate to the booster to minimize impacts to vegetation and cultural resources from 5

the off-road vehicles. WSMR Range Services would be responsible for obtaining a special use 6

permit from the USFS for off-road travel. 7

After the integrated flight test concludes, any unused back-up target vehicle would be 8

disassembled in a missile assembly building on the FWLC. It would then be returned to WSMR 9

in the same manner it was transported to FWLC. 10

Cultural resources Protective Measures 11

If a previously recorded heritage site were affected by a booster impact, or effects on cultural 12

resources could not be avoided by recovery operations, further consultation with the Cibola NF 13

and NM SHPO to evaluate the significance of the affected resources and to consider measures to 14

reduce the adverse effect would be performed. 15

To further avoid the unlikely occurrence of a booster drop igniting a fire, launch schedules would 16

consider wildfire risk potential based on site and weather conditions. To minimize possible 17

effects to cultural resources, all booster recovery and any fire suppression personnel would be 18

instructed concerning the prohibition on collecting cultural resources materials and be instructed 19

to report any such observed materials to the professional archaeologist, who would provide the 20

report to the Forest Service. Potential impacts on archaeological resources could result from the 21

booster striking the ground where surface or subsurface archaeological deposits are located. The 22

probability of this occurring would be remote. If the booster were to impact on an eligible or 23

potentially eligible site, mitigation would be coordinated with the USFS and the New Mexico 24

State Historic Preservation Officer (NMSHPO). 25

2.2.4 Test Participants on WSMR 26

Launches and intercepts at WSMR are covered in previous analyses and will not be analyzed 27

further in this document. 28

2.3 Alternatives To The Proposed Action 29

2.3.1 Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward 30

No other alternative locations were considered reasonable for the Proposed Action because of the 31

requirement to maximize use of existing facilities in order to minimize cost and the potential 32

environmental impacts of new construction. Maximizing the use of existing interceptors 33

launched from WSMR reduces the flight test cost considerably. FWLC and WSMR were 34

selected for the solid-fuel rocket launches based on five primary factors. First, WSMR is a 35

national test range within the bounds of the Continental United States (CONUS), which reduces 36

costs. Second, WSMR is the only national test range within the CONUS that possesses adequate 37

range space to perform these short-range solid-fuel rocket launches and intercept tests. Third, 38

WSMR has significant instrumentation capabilities and experience in similar test programs that 39

are unique among CONUS test ranges, enhancing both test execution and safety. Fourth, FWLC 40

is at the appropriate location and distance from WSMR for the boosters to safely drop and be 41

readily recovered, and for the short-range targets to be intercepted on WSMR. Fifth, FWLC has 42

an existing missile assembly building and launch area, and in-place communications and power 43

cabling, which reduce costs and minimize pre-launch site preparation compared to a site that 44

would require construction. 45

April 2018 15



WSMR is the only US-operated, Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty-compliant, overland 1

range with significant instrumentation capabilities and experience with similar test programs to 2

support flight and intercept tests. FWLC is the only location within the required range of 3

distances for interceptor system tests to be achieved, with missile assembly and launch facilities, 4

and with a booster drop zone in the Cibola NF that allows for debris and component recovery for 5

post-test analysis. As alternatives to FWLC, the Northern Call Up Area at WSMR is too close to 6

allow intercepts and Green River annex in Utah is not approved as a launch site. Other potential 7

test ranges such as the Gulf Test Range in Florida, the Western Test Range off the coast of 8

California, Wake Island, and Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific, are less 9

desirable from a technical requirements standpoint because intercepts would occur over water 10

and recovery and analysis of debris and components could not be accomplished. 11

2.3.2 No-Action Alternative 12

The No-Action Alternative would be not to conduct short-range, solid-fuel rocket launches from 13

FWLC with booster recoveries as described in the proposed action. The USASMDC/ARSTRAT 14

and the NSWC would not be able to demonstrate the effectiveness of their lower-cost targets in 15

an operationally realistic flight test. Previously planned and on-going activities FWLC and 16

WSMR would continue. 17

2.4 Other Concurrent Programs To Be Evaluated For Cumulative Impacts 18

Possible concurrent programs could include: 19

EA for Travel Management on Mt Taylor District, Cibola NF. This analysis of travel 20

through the Cibola NF Mt Taylor District developed new restrictions for off highway 21

vehicle use and was finalized in 2011. Activities covered under this EA are on-going. 22

Zuni Mountain Trails Project EA. This analysis of current and proposed trails within the 23

Zuni Mountains area of the Cibola NF is in-progress with a public comment period that 24

closed in June 2015. This EA is an off-shoot of the EA for Travel Management on Mt 25

Taylor District, Cibola NF, and will also assist in limiting public activities in 26

unauthorized areas. 27

EA for Designation of Critical Habitat for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker. Critical habitat 28

proposed for the Zuni bluehead sucker occurs south of booster drop zone but the drop 29

zone is potentially within a portion of the same watershed. The public comment period 30

for this EA closed in May 2015. Critical habitat was designated in the Federal Register 31

(Volume 81, Number 109) June 7, 2016. 32

Final EIS for the Proposed Revision to the Regulations for the Nonessential Experimental 33

Population of the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi). This EIS was completed in 34

January 2015 and analyzed phased expansion of habitat for the Mexican Wolf. The 35

habitat will eventually expand into the booster drop zone area. 36

Uranium Exploration Drilling EIS. This EIS in in progress and was intended to have a 37

public comment period ending in July 2015, but the project is delayed. According to 38

USFS NEPA personnel, activities associated with this EIS will not occur within Cibola 39

NF. 40

EA for Rio Puerco Project within the Zuni Mountains, Mt Taylor Ranger District, Cibola 41

NF. This EA was planned to begin in the fall of 2015 with completion in 2016. USFS 42

personnel report the 1985 Cibola Forest Plan is being revised, both the 1985 and Draft 43

Revised Forest Plan will be incorporated into the Rio Puerco Project, and the associated 44

EA is delayed until 2019; the EA will analyze plans to reduce fuel load to minimize 45

April 2018 16



wildfire potential and restore habitat within the northwestern portion of the Zuni 1

Mountains. 2

3

4

April 2018 17



3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 1

This chapter describes the environmental resources that may be affected by the Proposed Action 2

and Alternative Actions. The information provided serves as a baseline point of reference for 3

understanding potential impacts. The affected environment is concisely described, with 4

components of concern described in greater detail. This Environmental Assessment (EA) 5

evaluates the potential environmental impacts of performing solid-fueled rocket motor launches 6

from FWLC to WSMR. 7

Available reference materials, including EAs and EISs were reviewed. To fill data gaps and to 8

verify and update information, questions were directed to program and facility personnel and 9

Internet searches were performed. 10

Environmental Resources 11

Thirteen broad resources of environmental consideration were considered to provide a context 12

for understanding the potential effects of the Proposed Action and to provide a basis for 13

assessing the severity of potential impacts. These areas included air quality, airspace, biological 14

resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials and waste, health and 15

safety/electromagnetic radiation, infrastructure and transportation, land use, noise, 16

socioeconomics, and water resources. In compliance with NEPA, CEQ, and 32 CFR part 651 17

guidelines, analyses of the affected environment (i.e., existing conditions) focuses only on those 18

resource areas potentially subject to impacts. 19

Environmental Setting 20

FWLC 21

The FWLC is within the former FWDA, located in northwestern New Mexico, approximately 13 22

kilometers (km) (8 miles [mi]) east of Gallup, NM, in McKinley County. The former FWDA is 23

sited on rolling terrain and consists of 88.7 square kilometers (km2) (34.1 square miles [mi

2]) of 24

property. 25

The regional climate is semiarid, characterized by spring and fall droughts. Summer precipitation 26

accounts for approximately 60 percent of the annual precipitation of 28.3 cm (11.5 inches [in]) 27

per year. Winter precipitation is highly variable. Periods of drought are not uncommon. Average 28

temperatures range from a mean high of 17.8 degrees Celsius (C) (64 degrees Fahrenheit [F]) to 29

a mean low of 2.2 degrees C (36 degrees F), with an average diurnal variation of 17 degrees C 30

(30 degrees F). Extremes range from over 38.7 degrees C (100 degrees F) to -17.8 degrees C (0 31

degrees F). Approximately 151 days are frost-free. Wind direction is generally from the 32

southwest, averaging 16 km (10 mi) per hour. The nearby town of Gallup, NM, should be very 33

climatologically similar to the FWLC area (SSDC, 1994a). 34

FWLC is bounded to the west by the Hogback, a ridge of steeply dipping rocks; to the south by 35

the Zuni Mountains; to the east by a small valley terminating at the base of the Zuni Mountains, 36

and on the north by areas of FWDA adjacent to the south fork of the Puerco River. Elevations 37

range from 2,024 meters (m) (6,640 feet [ft]) mean sea level (MSL) at the northern boundary to 38

2,518 m (8,260 ft) MSL at the southern boundary. Fort Wingate is a nearby community that is 39

located a few kilometers east of FWLC. 40

BOOSTER DROP ZONE, CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST 41

Straddling the Continental Divide and the Zuni Mountains is the Zuni Mountains Division of the 42

Mt Taylor Ranger District, Cibola NF. The booster drop zone is located in the northwest corner 43

April 2018 18



of the Zuni Mountains area that abuts FWLC. While the Forest Service and private lands tend to 1

be used for the harvest of timber and grazing of managed livestock, they also include some 2

important recreational areas, such as McGaffey Lake, off the southeastern corner of the booster 3

drop zone. McGaffey Lake is a day-use only recreational area and a popular local fishing spot 4

when the lake is not dry. 5

All areas of the Cibola NF are restricted to road use only except for camping corridors along a 6

very few roads and use of established hiking and mountain biking trails. Within the booster drop 7

zone area there is one developed Forest Service camping site, Quaking Aspen Campground, with 8

19 camping units. Just outside the southeastern corner of the drop zone, about 11 km (7 mi) 9

south of FWLC, off state road NM 400, is the summer home community of McGaffey. 10

McGaffey has 13 dwelling units, small cabin-like structures, and the McGaffey Campground, 11

which has 30 camping units. Like other national forests, this is an area with multiple-use 12

recreational opportunities such as camping, hiking, mountain biking, and fishing in defined 13

areas; however, off-road vehicle driving is banned. (SSDC, 1994a) 14

WSMR 15

The environmental setting for launches and intercepts at WSMR and flight corridors between 16

FWLC and WSMR is covered in previous analyses (Section 1.6) and will not be discussed 17

further in this document. 18

3.1 Air Quality 19

The existing air quality of the affected environment is defined by examining air quality 20

monitoring records from monitoring stations maintained by the New Mexico Environmental 21

Improvement Board (NMEIB) of the New Mexico Environment Department. The NMEIB 22

currently operates an air quality monitoring network with stations located throughout New 23

Mexico. The data recorded at these monitors can be used as a conservative representative of 24

existing air quality in the FWLC area. As a closed facility, there are no FWDA air emissions 25

sources. Additionally, no monitoring data for ozone are available for any sites near FWLC. 26

McKinley County is in attainment (or unclassifiable) for all Federal criteria pollutants. 27

Monitored pollutant levels generally remain well below their respective ambient air quality 28

standards. Air quality in the FWLC area is considered good. (https://www.env.nm.gov). 29

3.1.1 Region of Influence (ROI) 30

For the air quality analysis, the ROI for project operational activities would be the existing 31

airsheds surrounding FWLC. For regulatory purposes, project emissions would be compared to 32

emissions generated in McKinley County, NM. 33

3.1.2 Affected Environment 34

Within the study area, the NMEIB has adopted the NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality 35

Standards) to regulate pollutant levels. Additionally, the NMEIB has also promulgated state 36

ambient air quality standards for TSPs and photochemical oxidants and a 24-hour average for 37

nitrogen dioxide (NM Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Quality Control Regulations, 38

Regulation Number 201). 39

New Mexico's State Implementation Plan establishes eight Air Quality Control Regions 40

(AQCRs) within the state. Fort Wingate is located in New Mexico AQCR 1 (US Environmental 41

Protection Agency AQCR 014, the Four Corners Intrastate). There is one mandatory Federal 42

Class I area established under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977 within a distance 43

of approximately 100 km (62 mi) of FWLC, the Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona. The 44

April 2018 19



National Park Service is the Federal Land Manager for the Petrified Forest National Park (40 1

CFR Part 81, Subpart D). 2

Presidential EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic 3

Performance and the Council on Environmental Quality Final Guidance for Federal 4

Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of 5

Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Revies (2016) require an evaluation of 6

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions resulting from Federal actions. While launch support requires 7

some mobile sources of air emissions, including a combination of generators, helicopters, 8

vehicles, off-road vehicles, and the target missiles, the resulting emissions were analyzed in 9

previous NEPAdocument and were determined not to be significant. Emission of criteria 10

pollutants and GHG from these sources would be both minor and temporary. No new permanent 11

stationary sources of emissions are required. 12

FWLC lies in an area that has some of the highest average afternoon and lowest morning mixing 13

heights in the continental United States (US Environmental Protection Agency, 1972). This 14

means that the potential for pollutants to disperse is quite good in the afternoon and quite poor in 15

the morning. 16

3.2 Airspace 17

3.2.1 Region of Influence 18

The ROI for airspace is the airspace immediately above the LHA, the two restricted airspace 19

areas near FWLC, and an area within the Cibola NF adjacent to the FWLC, which comprises the 20

BDZ. 21


The former FWDA, including FWLC, is located in northwest New Mexico. The FWDA facility 23

was originally a munition storage depot and was a controlled firing area. It is presently in 24

caretaker status; however, FWLC remains active. In 2000, FAA established four restricted areas 25

designated R-5117, Fort Wingate, NM; R-5119, Socorro, NM; R-5121, Fort Wingate, NM; and 26

R-5123, Magdalena, NM. (65 FR 21306, 2000) These restricted areas provide airspace to contain 27

launch, ascent, reentry, and impact of missiles and boosters to accommodate TMD and other 28

flight testing. The restricted areas R-5117 and R-5121 are shown in Figure 3-1. 29

3.3 Biological Resources 30

Existing information on plant and animal species and habitat types in the ROI at and near FWLC 31

were reviewed, with special emphasis on the presence of any species listed by Federal, state, or 32

local agencies as rare, threatened, or endangered. The best available current information on 33

species ecology and distribution was assembled from current literature and in cooperation with 34

various agencies in the ROI. 35


The ROI for biological resources analyzed in this document is the LHA at FWLC and the booster 37

drop zone located to the east of FWLC within Cibola NF boundaries (Figures 2-1 and 3-1). 38


Vegetation 40

The ROI is located in the Arizona-New Mexico Mountains Ecoregion. Landcover in the ROI is 41

dominated by Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper 42

Woodland. The area also contains other landcover classes including Rocky Mountain Montane 43

April 2018 20



Dry-Mesic Woodland, Lower Montane Riparian, and Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub. 1

Plant community distribution varies with soil type and increasing elevation. Lower elevations of 2

the booster drop zone are dominated by Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (approximately 26% of the 3

booster drop zone). Pinyon pine (Pinus edulis), single-leaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla), Rocky 4

Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), alligator juniper (Juniperus deppeana), Gambel oak 5

(Quercus gambelii), and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) are common tree species of this 6

biotic community (Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP], 2005). Understory in these 7

lower elevation woodlands consists largely of grasses, which are gradually replaced by more 8

woody species such as barberry (Berberis trifoliolata), cliff rose (Cowania mexicana), and 9

mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus) as elevation increases (CNHP, 2005). 10

Semi-desert scrub (approximately 1% of the booster drop zone) is most commonly found at 11

lower elevations where temperature fluctuations and extremes are great and sandy soil is present. 12

The species associated with this community have adaptations for drought tolerance and often 13

saline or alkaline soil conditions. Shrubs, grasses, and forbs, both annual and perennial, are 14

typical. Common shrub species include four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), big sagebrush 15

(Artemisia tridentata), and greasewood (Sarcobatus spp). Native grasses such as blue grama 16

(Bouteloua gracilis) and western wheat (Pascopyrum smithii) along with native forbs compose 17

the scrub understory (CNHP, 2005). Native grasses and forbs seldom persist in heavily disturbed 18

areas. These areas are commonly invaded by weeds such as Russian thistle (Salsola kali), rabbit 19

brush (Chrysothamnus latisguameus), or tumble mustard (Sisymbrium linifolium). 20

At higher elevations, ponderosa pine woodlands dominate (approximately 67% of the booster 21

drop zone). Here, temperature minimums are low, soil moisture varies throughout the year, and 22

conifers dominate. Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) is the predominant conifer in this 23

woodland with Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), white fir (Abies concolor), and limber pine 24

(Pinus flexilis) trees also common (CNHP, 2005). The understory is usually shrubby with 25

Artemisia, Arctostaphylos, and Cercocarpus species present. 26

Also found interspersed with ponderosa pine woodlands at higher elevations, are montane dry-27

mesic mixed woodlands (approximately 4% of the booster drop zone). These woodlands have a 28

mix of conifer and deciduous tree species depending on the temperature and moisture conditions 29

at the site. The conifer species listed above, especially Douglas fir, white fir, and ponderosa pine, 30

are interspersed with quaking aspen and Gambel oak (CNHP, 2005). 31

Wildlife 32

Wildlife on FWLC and within the booster drop zone and nearby areas consists of transient and 33

resident species which occupy one or more vegetation zones discussed above Common wide- 34

ranging resident animals include side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), yellow-rumpled 35

warbler (Dendroica coronata), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis lawrencei), coyote (Canus latrans), 36

and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) (SSDC, 1994a). 37

Typical resident species of semi-desert scrub include short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglasi 38

ornatissimum), western diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox), roadrunner (Geococcyx 39

californianus), thirteen-lined ground squirrel (Spermophilus tridecimlineatus hollisteri), bobcat 40

(Lynx rufus), and black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus). Pinyon-juniper woodland species 41

include many avian residents such as pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus), house finch 42

(Carpodacus mexicanus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), acorn woodpecker 43

(Melanerpes formicivorus), and transients such as American robin (Turdus migratorius), western 44

flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), and hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina). (SSDC, 1994a) 45

April 2018 21



Figure 3-1: Restricted Airspace at Fort Wingate Launch Complex 1

2

3

Launch Hazard Area

April 2018 22



Coniferous, Ponderosa pine, and montane mixed forests on FWLC and within the booster drop 1

zone all support habitat for many mammals as well as bird species. Band-tailed pigeon (Columba 2

fasciata), spotted owl (Strix occidentalis), Steller jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), brown creeper 3

(Certhia americana), and pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) are common breeding birds of 4

coniferous forests. Typical mammals include porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum couesi), least 5

chipmunk (Eutamias minimus atristriatus), ringtail (Bassariscus astutus flavus), raccoon 6

(Procyon lotor mexicanus), and mountain vole (Microtus spp.) (SSDC, 1994a). 7

Protected Species 8

Several state and federally protected plant and animal species are known to occur in the region 9

that includes FWLC and the booster drop zone within the Cibola NF (Table 3-1). 10

Table 3-1: Protected Plant and Animal Species That May Occur in the Booster Drop Zone 11

Scientific Name Common Name Federal

Status

New Mexico State

Status Rank

Plants Astragalus accumbens Zuni milkvetch S3

A. humistratus var.

crispulus

villous groundcover

milkvetch

†

A. micromerius Chaco milkvetch †

Clematis hirsutissima var.

hirsutissima Arizona leatherflower †

Erigeron acomanus Acoma fleabane S1, S2

E. rhizomatus Zuni fleabane T E S1

E. sivinskii Sivinski’s fleabane S2

Penstemon breviculus short-stem beardtongue S3

P. lentus handsome beardtongue S3

Phacelia neomexicana New Mexico scorpionweed S3

Puccinellia parishii Parish’s alkali grass E S1

Fish

Catostomus discobolus

yarrow

Zuni bluehead sucker E E S1 C. plebeius Rio Grande sucker S2

Rhinichthys osculus speckled dace S3

Amphibians

Lithobates pipiens northern leopard frog S1

Birds

Accipiter gentilis northern goshawk S2

Athene cunicularia burrowing owl BCC1

Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle BCC2

Baeolophus ridgwayi juniper titmouse BCC2

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk BCC1

Calypte costae Costa’s hummingbird BCC1

Carpodacus cassinii Cassin’s finch BCC2

Chardrius montanus mountain plover BCC1 S2

Coccyzus americanus yellow-billed Cuckoo T S3

Contopus cooperi olive-sided flycatcher BCC1

Dendroica graciae Grace’s warbler BCC1

Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher BCC1

E. t. extimus southwestern willow

flycatcher

E E S1

Falco perigrinus peregrine falcon BCC1

F. mexicanus prairie falcon BCC2

Gymnorhinus

cyanocephalus

pinyon jay BCC2 S2

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle BCC3

Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike BCC2

April 2018 23



Scientific Name Common Name Federal

Status

New Mexico State

Status Rank

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’s woodpecker BCC2

Otus flammeolus flammulated owl BCC1 S3

Sphyrapicus thyroideus Williamson’s sapsucker BCC1

Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow BCC4

Strix occidentalis lucida Mexican spotted owl T S2

Vireo vicinior gray vireo BCC1 T S3

Mammals

Corynorhinus townsendii pale Townsend’s big-eared

bat

†

Cynomys gunnisoni Gunnison’s prairie dog S2

Euderma maculatum spotted bat †

Sorex merriami Merriam’s shrew S2

Thomomys bottae

paguatae

Cebolleta southern pocket

gopher

† Sources: Natural Heritage New Mexico (NHNM) Species Information 2015, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2015. 1 Federal Status: E=ESA endangered, T=ESA threatened, BCC=Bird of Conservation Concern, 1=listed for breeding season, 2=listed year round, 2

3=listed for wintering season, 4=listed for migration season (USFWS 2015). 3 State Status: E=New Mexico State endangered, T=New Mexico State threatened (as determined by the New Mexico Department of Game and 4

Fish; NHNM Species Information 2015). 5 State Rank: S1=critically imperiled in New Mexico because of extreme rarity or vulnerability to extirpation, S2=imperiled in New Mexico due 6

to rarity or vulnerability to extirpation, S3=rare or uncommon in New Mexico, (for migratory birds these ranks are listed for the breeding 7 season; NHNM Species Information, 2015). †=listed as sensitive species by the USFS, Cibola National Forest and Grassland (USFS, 2016). 8

Plants. One plant species listed as a threatened species under the US Endangered Species Act 9

(ESA) and as a New Mexico State Endangered Species, the Zuni fleabane (Erigeron 10

rhizomatus), is known to occur in the ROI. The Zuni fleabane is a rare endemic to western New 11

Mexico and north-eastern Arizona where it inhabits steep, mostly barren, shale covered slopes on 12

north- or east-facing slopes in open piñon-juniper woodlands from 2,200-2,400 m (7,300-8,000 13

ft; New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council [NMRPTC], 1999). This plant has historically 14

been found at three locations in the Zuni Mountains near FWLC as well as at least 30 locations 15

in the Sawtooth and Chuska Mountains (NMRPTC, 1999). Zuni fleabane has been known to 16

occur historically east of FWLC at old Fort Wingate (SSDC, 1994a). The US Department of 17

Agriculture (USDA) 2014 Cibola National Forest Monitoring Report (USDA, 2015) reports that 18

the Zuni fleabane was observed at 34 sites within two metapopulations in the Cibola NF. There 19

are two known locations of Zuni fleabane in or near the booster drop zone (Figure 3-2; USFS, 20

2016). Threats to this species include habitat disturbance, especially as it relates to historic and 21

potential uranium mining activities, road construction and resulting erosion, and cattle grazing 22

(NMRPTC, 1999). 23

While no other federally listed plant species are known to occur in the ROI, one other New 24

Mexico State endangered species, Parish’s Alkali Grass (Puccinellia parishii), has the potential 25

to occur in the ROI (NHNM Species Information, 2015); however, it is not known to occur in the 26

booster drop zone. Several other plant species that are New Mexico State ranked as rare or 27

uncommon are known to occur in the region that includes the ROI (Table 3-1) including Zuni 28

milkvetch (Astragalus accumbens), Acoma fleabane (Erigeron acomanus), Sivinski’s fleabane 29

(E. sivinskii), short-stem beardtongue (Penstemon breviculus), handsome beardtongue (P. 30

lentus), and New Mexico scorpionweed (Phacelia neomexicana; NHNM Species Information, 31

2015). Of these species, only Zuni milkvetch and Sivinski’s fleabane are documented or likely to 32

occur in the Mt Taylor Ranger District which includes the BDZ (USFS, 2016). Three other 33

species are not federally or New Mexico State listed; however they are considered sensitive 34

species within the Cibola National Forest and Grasslands (Table 3-1). The villous groundcover 35

milkvetch (Astragalus humistratus var. cripulus), the Chaco milkvetch (Astragalus 36

micromerius), and the Arizona leatherflower (Clematis hirsutissima var. hirsutissima) are forest 37

April 2018 24



service sensitive species which have been documented or are likely to occur in the Mt Taylor 1

Ranger District (USFS, 2016). 2

Fish. One fish species listed as federally endangered has the potential to occur in the ROI, the 3

Zuni bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus yarrowi). This species is also listed as endangered 4

and a species of special concern by the State of New Mexico (NHNM Species Information 5

2015). The Zuni bluehead sucker, a subspecies of the bluehead sucker, is limited in range to 6

portions of the Lower Colorado River headwaters in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico 7

(Federal Register 78, no. 17 [January 25, 2013: 5351). This fish is found in moderate to fast 8

flowing streams with gravel/cobble substrate and inhabits pools during prolonged dry periods 9

(NHNM Species Information 2015). Zuni bluehead sucker spawning occurs over riffles between 10

April and June and larvae may only move short distances throughout their life (NatureServe, 11

2015). Threats to this species include water withdrawals, logging, livestock grazing, 12

impoundments, road construction, development, and long-term drought (NatureServe, 2015). 13

While the current population is uncertain, historic population declines have resulted in a highly 14

fragmented population of Zuni bluehead suckers that is vulnerable to stochastic events 15

(NatureServe, 2015). In January 2013, the USFWS proposed designation of critical habitat for 16

the Zuni bluehead sucker (Federal Register 78, no. 17 [January 25, 2013: 5351). This critical 17

habitat includes portions of the Zuni River and the Zuni River headwaters found to the south of 18

FWLC and the booster drop zone. While the ROI is within the same watershed as the Aqua 19

Remora, Rio Nutria, and Tampico Draw portions of the Zuni bluehead sucker’s designated 20

critical habitat, the ROI is at least 4.8 km (3 mi) from these designated areas. While the Zuni 21

bluehead sucker is known to occur in the Aqua Remora within the Cibola NF Mt Taylor Ranger 22

District (USDA, 2015), it is not known to occur in the ROI. No other federally listed or State of 23

New Mexico listed fish species are known to occur in the ROI. One fish species, the speckled 24

dace (Rhinichthys osculus), that is ranked by the State of New Mexico as rare or uncommon in 25

the state has the potential to be found in the region. However, some documentation suggests that 26

this species is possibly extirpated from the Zuni River watershed in New Mexico (NatureServe, 27

2015) which includes the ROI. A second fish species, the Rio Grande sucker (Catostomus 28

plebeius), is listed as imperiled due to rarity in New Mexico. While this fish species has been 29

documented in the Mt Taylor Ranger District (USFS, 2016) it is not likely to occur in the 30

watershed that includes the booster drop zone. 31

Amphibians. No amphibians that occur in the booster drop zone are listed as threatened or 32

endangered federally or by the State of New Mexico. One frog species, the northern leopard frog 33

(Lithobates pipiens), is ranked as a critically imperiled species by the State of New Mexico 34

because of its rarity in the state. Although the species has been documented in the Mt Taylor 35

Ranger District, the status of the species in the ROI is unknown (USFS, 2016). 36

Birds. All migratory birds in the ROI are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 37

(MBTA) of 1918 and eagles are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. In 38

addition to the broad protections afforded to all migratory birds in the ROI there are three bird 39

species protected under the Endangered Species Act and several species of birds listed as Birds 40

of Conservation Concern by the USFWS which have the potential to occur in the ROI (Table 3-41

1; USFWS, 2008). There is one ESA endangered species, the southwestern willow flycatcher 42

(Empidonax traillii extimus), that has the potential to occur in the ROI and two ESA threatened 43

species, the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) and the Mexican spotted owl (Strix 44

occidentalis lucida). 45

The southwestern willow flycatcher is listed as an ESA endangered species and is also listed as 46

endangered by the State of New Mexico where it is considered critically imperiled (NHNM 47

April 2018 25



Species Information, 2015). This species is a small Neotropical migratory bird that breeds and 1

nests in dense riparian habitats associated with rivers, swamps, and other wetlands, including 2

lakes and reservoirs (USFWS, 2002). The flycatcher’s breeding range extends through many 3

southwestern states where it is found primarily in lower elevation riparian habitats (USFWS, 4

2002). The flycatcher nests between May and August in native vegetation such as willows, 5

buttonbush, boxelder, and Baccharis; and in thickets dominated by the non-native tamarisk and 6

Russian olive (USFWS, 2002). In New Mexico, it has been documented that the southwestern 7

willow flycatcher persists in the Rio Grande, Chama, Zuni, San Francisco, and Gila watersheds 8

(USFWS, 2002). Threats to the flycatcher include habitat loss and modification, changes in 9

abundance of other species (such as exotics and brood parasites), vulnerability of small 10

populations, and migration and wintering range stress (USFWS, 2002). Critical habitat was 11

designated for the flycatcher in January 2013 (Federal Register 78, no. 2 [January 3, 2013: 343]). 12

There is no critical habitat for the flycatcher in the ROI. The closest critical habitat is found on 13

the west fork of the little Colorado River in Arizona and portions of the Gila River in Arizona 14

and New Mexico (Federal Register 78, no. 2 [January 3, 2013: 343]). The flight corridor may 15

intersect an area of southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat between FWLC and WSMR. 16

The status of the southwestern willow flycatcher in the ROI is largely unknown. The USDA’s 17

2014 Cibola National Forest Monitoring Report (USDA, 2015) states that one potential habitat 18

was monitored in the Mt Taylor Ranger District of the forest; however, no flycatchers were 19

observed. These flycatchers are not known to occur in the booster drop zone and the only 20

reported observation of southwestern willow flycatcher in the area is a 10 year-old auditory 21

record more than 33 km (21 miles) from the booster drop zone (USFS, 2016). 22

The yellow-billed cuckoo is listed at an ESA threatened species and is considered rare or 23

uncommon in the State of New Mexico. The western distinct population segment (DPS; 24

Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) occurs throughout the southwestern United States where the 25

birds inhabit wooded areas with dense cover and water nearby (USFWS, 2015). These long 26

distance migrants breed seasonally as their food sources, mainly caterpillars, increase (Hughes, 27

2015). These birds are facultative brood parasites and can either build their own nests or lay eggs 28

in the nests of other, similar sized birds (Hughes, 2015). Threats to this species include habitat 29

destruction and modification. A critical habitat designation was proposed in August 2014 and 30

includes portions of the San Juan, San Francisco, Gila, Mimbres, and Rio Grande Rivers in New 31

Mexico (Federal Register 79, no. 158 [August 15, 2014: 48548]). There is no designated critical 32

habitat in the Zuni River watershed, where the ROI is located. The status of this species is 33

largely unknown in the ROI. While there are no known recent observations of the yellow-billed 34

cuckoo in the ROI, the species has the potential to occur in this area. The USFS (2016) posits 35

that there is no habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo in the booster drop zone area and therefore, 36

the species is not likely to occur here. 37

The Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), is listed as a threatened species under the 38

ESA and is also listed as an imperiled species in the State of New Mexico because of rarity. The 39

Mexican spotted owl occurs in forested mountains and canyonlands throughout the southwestern 40

US and Mexico where they occupy primarily mature or old-growth forest habitats (USFWS, 41

2012). These owls are mostly resident species which remain on or near their breeding territories 42

throughout the year (USFWS 2012). The breeding season for these birds is March through 43

August and they tend to be sporadic breeders, with successful reproduction occurring when 44

conditions are favorable (USFWS 2012). Threats to this species include destruction or 45

modification of habitat, overutilization, disease or predation, and other natural and manmade 46

factors such as fire (USFWS 2012). The ROI is within the Colorado Plateau Ecological 47

Management Unit for the Mexican spotted owl where critical habitat has been designated in 48

April 2018 26



Figure 3-2: Protected Biological Resources In or Near the Booster Drop Zone 1

surrounding areas (Federal Register 69, no. 168 [August 31, 2004: 53212]). Most of the nearby 2

critical habitat is in the Cibola NF; however, there is no designated critical habitat within the 3

ROI, and FWDA is excluded from the designation because it does not contain areas essential to 4

the conservation of the species. There are several areas of critical habitat for this species adjacent 5

to the flight corridor. The closest critical habitat for this species exists approximately 3.2 km (2 6

mi) from the booster drop zone. Owls are known to occur in the booster drop zone and 7

surrounding areas. During 2014 USFS monitoring in the Cibola NF, two pairs of spotted owls 8

were recorded with successful fledglings and there were six other observations of owls at five 9

sites in the Mt Taylor Ranger District (USDA, 2015), although it is unknown if those 10

observations were within the Zuni Mountains Division. Mexican spotted owls are known to 11

occur in the booster drop zone and there are two Protected Activity Centers (PAC) for Mexican 12

spotted owls within this area (Figure 3-2). 13

April 2018 27



In addition to the three ESA listed species discussed above, there are 20 bird species federally 1

designated as Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that have the potential to occur in the ROI 2

(Table 3-1). The BCC list is a list of bird species which are likely to become candidates for 3

listing under the ESA without additional conservation actions (USFWS, 2008). The BCC 4

designation indicates that these bird species are the highest conservation priorities in the United 5

States due to declining populations (USFWS, 2008). Several of these BCC species (seven) are 6

also ranked by the State of New Mexico as rare or uncommon, imperiled because of rarity, or 7

critically imperiled because of extreme rarity in the state (Table 3-1; NHNM Species 8

Information, 2015). Two of these BCC bird species are known to occur in the Mt Taylor Ranger 9

District, although it is unknown if they are within the Zuni Mountains Division, and are also 10

listed as sensitive species by the USFS (2016), the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon. 11

One additional species, the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), is not federally designated but 12

is ranked as imperiled because of rarity by the State of New Mexico (NHNM Species 13

Information, 2015) and is listed as a sensitive species (USFS, 2016). The USFS has designated a 14

protected area for the northern goshawk which has a small area of overlap with the booster drop 15

zone (Figures 3-2) (USFS, 2016). 16

Mammals. There are no mammal species in the ROI that are listed as threatened or endangered 17

under the federal ESA or by the State of New Mexico. There are two mammal species ranked by 18

the State of New Mexico as imperiled due to rarity, Gunnison’s prairie dog and Merriam’s 19

shrew, that have the potential to occur in the ROI (Table 3-1). Of these, only Gunnison’s prairie 20

dog has been documented in the Mt Taylor Ranger District (USFS, 2016). Three other mammal 21

species are not federally or New Mexico State listed; however, they are listed as sensitive species 22

in the Cibola National Forest and Grasslands. The pale Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhiums 23

townsendii), the spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), and the Cebolleta southern pocket gopher 24

(Thomomys bottae paguatae) are documented within the Mt Taylor Ranger District, Cibola NF 25

(USFS, 2016). 26

Sensitive Habitat 27

Two areas on the former FWDA have been designated as wetlands by the US Department of the 28

Interior and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Lake McFerren is a small 0.8-hectare (2-acre) 29

impoundment in the southeastern corner of FWDA, and Lake Knudsen is an 8-hectare (20-acre) 30

ephemeral playa-type lake located in the east-central portion. Both wetlands support rushes 31

(Juncas spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), and cattails (Typha spp.) but have no naturalized breeding 32

fish due to drying and siltation. The booster drop zone contains freshwater ponds and riverine 33

systems. There are two small freshwater ponds on the southern portion of the booster drop zone 34

and a large network of 1st and 2

nd order streams (Figure 3-2). These are largely ephemeral 35

streams which only have water flow during and immediately following rain events or snowmelt. 36

These riparian areas are important habitats for many plants and animals in the Arizona-New 37

Mexico Mountains Ecoregion. 38

3.4 Cultural Resources 39

Section 101(a) of NEPA establishes a national policy, and 101(b) carries out the policy, and 40

section 101(b)(4) states to preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our 41

national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and 42

variety . Regulations implementing NEPA stipulate that Federal agencies must consider the 43

consequences of their undertakings on historic and cultural resources. (40 CFR Part 1502.16[g]) 44

These guidelines are typically met under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 45

Requirements under Section 106 include the identification of significant historic properties that 46

April 2018 28



may be impacted by the proposed action, as well as consultation with the SHPO, or Tribal 1

Historic Preservation Officer. 2

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC. 470 et seq.) (NHPA) establishes a 3

national policy to preserve, restore, and maintain cultural resources. Cultural resources include 4

prehistoric and historic artifacts, archaeological sites (including underwater sites), historic 5

buildings and structures, and traditional resources (e.g., Native American religious sites). 6

Cultural resources of particular concern include properties listed or eligible for inclusion in the 7

National Register of Historic Places (National Register or NRHP). The NHPA establishes the 8

National Register as the mechanism to designate public or privately owned properties deserving 9

protection. The term “eligible for inclusion in the National Register” includes all properties that 10

meet the National Register listing criteria which are specified in Department of Interior 11

regulations at 36 CFR 60.4. Only those cultural resources determined to be potentially significant 12

under 36 CFR 60.4 are subject to protection from adverse impacts resulting from an undertaking. 13

To be considered significant, cultural resources must meet one or more of the criteria established 14

by the National Park Service that would make that resource eligible for inclusion in the National 15

Register. Therefore, sites not yet evaluated may be considered potentially eligible to the National 16

Register and, as such, are afforded the same regulatory consideration as nominated properties. 17


The ROI for cultural resources includes the booster drop zone within the Cibola NF. 19

3.4.2 Affected environment 20

Prehistoric residence within the region around FWLC represents an almost complete 21

occupational sequence spanning the period from 10,000 Before Christ (BC) to anno Domini 22

(AD) 1540. The Chacoan culture flourished from about AD 1000 until 1150. By AD 1200 the 23

Chacoan heartland was largely abandoned. Between AD 1200 and 1540, the Zuni area southwest 24

of FWLC experienced a dramatic population influx with at least 36 large plaza-oriented pueblos 25

constructed in the Zuni River drainage basin. Athabaskans (i.e., Navajos and Apaches) entered 26

the northern Southwest in the AD 1500s. European presence is documented as early as 1540 27

when Coronado's expedition travelled to the Zuni Pueblo. 28

Following the American annexation of the New Mexican territory in 1848, the US Army 29

reconnoitered the area seeking routes for a transcontinental railroad and sites for military 30

outposts to protect settlers from Indian attack. In October 1862, the Army established the Fort 31

Wingate garrison post approximately 50 miles east of the present FWLC, to protect the eastern 32

end of the Wingate Valley. That Fort Wingate location was abandoned in 1868 and a new Fort 33

Wingate was established July 22, 1868, at Bear Springs. Between 1870 and 1881, 130 square 34

miles were added to the Fort area. The fort building complex was transferred to the Bureau of 35

Indian Affairs in 1925 for use as a boarding school. Approximately 9,000 acres of the military 36

reservation north of the Santa Fe Railroad were transferred to the US Department of Interior and 37

added to the Navajo Indian Reservation in 1928. In 1941, the FWDA administration buildings 38

and ammunition storage igloos were built. Principal missions at FWDA have been associated 39

with materiel handling and storage. Fort Wingate was redesignated Fort Wingate Depot Activity 40

in 1971 when 4,556 acres at the southern end of the facility were transferred to the USFS. 41

Within the Cibola NF, the McGaffey area at the southern end of the proposed booster drop zone 42

was the site of a sawmill and the timbering operations of The McGaffey Company, a logging 43

company contracted to cut and supply crossties to the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway 44

for approximately 30 years in the early 1900s. 45

April 2018 29



There is an extensive body of literature devoted to historic and prehistoric cultural resources of 1

west-central New Mexico. Numerous ruins related to the Cibola Anasazi Chacoan development 2

occur in the region, including Chaco Canyon site to the north, Heaton Canyon Village, Fort 3

Wingate Ruin Chaco outlier, Las Ventanas, Casamero Pueblo, other outliers to the southeast and 4

southwest, and El Morro and El Malpais National Monuments to the southeast, and are the 5

subject of continued research and investigation. Cultural resource investigations have been 6

conducted in the area surrounding FWDA but very few are within property boundaries. Some of 7

the earliest investigations were conducted by the Museum of New Mexico in 1955 and 1962 (US 8

Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command, 1984a). The National Park Service 9

(1984a) prepared A Cultural Resources Overview and Management Plan for the Fort Wingate 10

Depot Activity to provide a context for evaluations and recommend operational management 11

policy appropriate to preservation planning (US Army Materiel Development and Readiness 12

Command, 1984a). Results of a recent survey investigation on Fort Wingate are included in 13

Reconnaissance Survey of Eight US Air Force Training Drop Zones in New Mexico (National 14

Park Service, 1989). Additionally, the USFS has conducted archaeological surveys between 1975 15

and 2015 within the Zuni Mountains where the proposed boosted drop zone occurs (personal 16

communication, Cheryl Prewitt, 2015; NM Cultural Resource Information System [NMCRIS], 17

October 2015). 18

There are 82 previously recorded heritage sites identified within or on the boundary of the BDZ 19

APE. Nine of the 82 previously recorded heritage sites show occupation in both the prehistoric 20

and historic period and are considered multicomponent. Therefore, there are 91 previously 21

recorded heritage sites of past use within the BDZ. Sixty-six (66) are noted as eligible or are 22

potentially eligible for NRHP listing. The previously recorded heritage sites range from Archaic 23

to Historic. Artifacts and features include stone flakes; rock alignments; stone foundation, wall, 24

and hearth remnants; peeled trees; portions of collapsed corrals, cabins, or outbuildings; short 25

sections of railway beds with associated metal and timber materials; and refuse dumps. The total 26

area of the previously recorded heritage sites, as provided in NMCRIS online is 13,357,500 ft2 27

(1,240,950 m2), or approximately 307 acres (124 hectares). Based on reviews of NMCRIS 28

online and the Cibola NF files, while there are numerous collapsed structures, there are no 29

standing historical buildings on USFS property in the BDZ APE. 30

Two of the 55 historic previously recorded heritage sites appear to be Navajo in origin based on 31

artifact types and known settlement patterns. Two previously recorded heritage sites with peeled 32

ponderosa pine trees are attributed to either Navajos or Zunis, each with 4 peeled trees. Five 33

additional previously recorded heritage sites with peeled trees are not attributed to a specific 34

culture; one of those notes 42 culturally modified trees, one with four trees, and three with single 35

trees. The trees were altered by native peoples as part of their traditional use of the forest. Dating 36

of the trees indicates the cambium was peeled in the late 1800s. This area of trees is eligible for 37

listing on the NRHP 38

According to the extant site records, the historic use across the BDZ appears to date primarily 39

within the period of 1900 to 1950 with an additional three previously recorded heritage sites 40

extending that period into the 1960s. Eight sites were dated as early as the 1800s with end dates 41

ranging between 1869 and into the 1980s or 1990s. Two previously recorded heritage sites did 42

not specify historic dates. One of the two undated sites, reported in a 2010 survey, had an erosion 43

control structure or check dam affiliated with EuroAmerican culture. The other undated site was 44

reported in a 2016 survey that included 22 water control features, a stock pond, two earthen 45

berms, and prehistoric and historic artifact scatters. 46

April 2018 30



There is currently no site-specific Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of the 1

Army and the New Mexico SHPO and ACHP. However, the Department of the Army, the 2

National Conference of Historic Preservation Officers, and the ACHP developed and executed a 3

preliminary Memorandum of Agreement for the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in 4

1990 which applies to FWDA (SSDC, 1994a). 5

Traditional Resources 6

There are no known recorded traditional American Indian resources within the FWLC or the 7

proposed BDZ. 8

3.5 Geology And Soils 9

Geology and soils include those aspects of the natural environment related to the earth, which 10

may be affected by the Proposed Action. This resource is described in terms of land forms, 11

geology, and associated soil development as they may be subject to erosion, flooding, mass 12

wasting, mineral resource consumption, contamination, and alternative land uses resulting from 13

proposed site preparation activities and launch activities. 14


The ROI for geology and soils includes the booster drop zone. 16


Geology 18

The BDZ is located within the Zuni Mountains, east and southeast of the former FWDA, and lies 19

between the Continental Divide to the east and the Hogback to the west, a high ridge monocline 20

of steeply dipping sandstone, shale and coal. The Zuni Mountains are an oval area of uplift in the 21

Datil section of the Colorado Plateau physiographic province, defining the southern boundary of 22

the San Juan Basin. Elevation above mean sea level within the mountains ranges from 6,500 ft 23

(2,000 m) to more than 9,200 ft (2,800 m). 24

The Zuni Mountains have a central core of igneous and metamorphic rocks surrounded by 25

alternating valleys and cuestas of sedimentary deposits penetrated by Tertiary and Pleistocene 26

volcanoes. The uplift is deeply eroded such that the mountains are now a broad, elongated dome 27

almost completely ringed with high, inward-facing cliffs of sandstone and shale. The oldest 28

rocks are exposed along the crest and successively younger ones are arranged along the flanks. 29

The Glorieta sandstone crops out on the north and west flanks as a caprock on high escarpments 30

and broad dip slopes. In places it forms the walls of deep, narrow canyons. The Zuni Mountains 31

contain high-quality cherts and obsidian that were used for lithic tool production prehistorically. 32

Copper and fluorspar deposits were mined in the historic period. 33

Deposition within the BDZ varies according to topography. Valley bottoms accumulate the 34

greatest amounts of sediments, while ridge lines hold shallow deposits and slopes with very little 35

or no accumulated deposits. Soils developed from the underlying sandstone, limestone, granite, 36

schist, shale, and basalt rocks and range from soft loam sand to heavy clay. Predominant surface 37

soils are clay loam or silt loam. 38

In the northern part of the former FWDA the Cretaceous beds are absent and Triassic-age or 39

older strata are present. In the southeastern corner of FWDA, Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Triassic 40

formations are absent, leaving Permian strata exposed. Depth to rock varies from 30 cm (12 in) 41

over much of the Installation to 46 m (150 ft) along canyon drainages and in the Rio Puerco 42

River valley. (SSDC, 1994a) 43

April 2018 31



The dominant topographic and structural feature on the US Geological Survey Fort Wingate 1

geological quadrangle is the northern segment of the Nutria monocline. It is known locally as the 2

Hogback and it essentially follows the western margin of the former FWDA. Two major ridges 3

or hogbacks developed on Cretaceous sandstones are commonly present, extending in parallel 4

fashion, approximately 305 to 366 m (1,000 to 1,200 ft) apart, northward and northwestward to 5

the northern end of the Zuni uplift. The southwest margin of the Zuni uplift is defined by the 6

Hogback (Nutria monocline), which locally has as much as 1,829 m (6,000 ft) of structural relief 7

(Kelley, 1955) down to the southwest. Dips commonly exceed 60 degrees and locally exceed 80 8

degrees. The monoclinal belt is cut by a thrust fault in the southwest corner of the quadrangle. 9

This thrust eliminates all Jurassic and Triassic strata and brings Permian rocks against the Dakota 10

Sandstone (Upper Cretaceous). 11

Another monocline feature is present in the southeast corner of the booster drop zone near 12

McGaffey and McGaffey Lake. This monocline is the northward continuation of Oso Ridge. The 13

ridge of this monocline is formed of Permian rock (San Andres and Glorieta Formations), which 14

locally dips to the west. The ridge is eroded to deeper structural levels than the Hogback to the 15

west, exposing Precambrian granite basement rock in the extreme southeastern corner of the 16

booster drop zone, east of McGaffey. Moderately steep, rocky, ridged topography extends from 17

McGaffey westward to the boundary of the booster drop zone. The conspicuous Nutria Hogback 18

is just beyond this boundary to the west, where there are many narrow, V-shaped draws and 19

canyons. 20

Although there are coal mines to the west-northwest of Gallup; uranium deposits northeast of 21

Gallup; and sand and gravel quarries northeast of Gallup and southwest and southeast of 22

McGaffey, there are no known mineral resources within the ROI. Sand and gravel resources may 23

be present along the Rio Puerco River valley. 24

Paleontological Resources 25

There are no recorded paleontological resources on FWLC. 26

Within the proposed booster drop zone, paleontological resources are identified in the geologic 27

strata, primarily in the Chinle Group, Bluewater Creek Formation mudstones. Amphibian and 28

phytosaur bones are noted as fairly common and are sometimes exposed at the surface. 29

Megafossil ferns and various paleoflora including petrified logs and wood fragments, leaves, 30

leafy shoots, stems, spores, and pollen are found throughout the ROI, as are fossil fish scales 31

from coelacanths, vertebrate coprolites, trace fossils, bivalves, brachiopods, gastropods. Near the 32

eastern boundary of the Fort Wingate US Geological Survey topographic quadrangle, at the 33

periphery of the proposed booster drop zone, is a locality that has produced fragmentary remains 34

of at least four early dinosaurs. This location was noted as being “particularly important in 35

understanding the early radiation of dinosaurs” and “is the most diverse late Carnian dinosaur 36

assemblage in North America, and includes some of the oldest known dinosaurs.” (Heckert, 37

1997) 38

Soils 39

Bamac gravelly loam covers much of the area on FWLC and has a moderate potential for erosion 40

by water. Some of the soils in the area have a moderate to severe potential for erosion by water 41

and a moderate to severe potential for erosion by wind. (SSDC, 1994a) 42

Ten soil types are found within the booster drop zone, with the majority being silty, clayey, 43

sandy, or gravelly loams. Shallow rocky and deep clayey soils both form on the uplands 44

depending upon the underlying rock type, while soils in swales and alluvium show a moderate 45

April 2018 32



permeability and low to moderate erosion hazard. Erosion hazards are highest in rocky areas 1

with poor infiltration. Slopes range from 2 to 20 percent through the area and depth to bedrock 2

varies from surface outcrop exposures to depths of 10 feet or greater. Jekly soils on swales and 3

alluvium are the best in the area for ponderosa pine while Polich soils on gentle slopes are better 4

for suited grasses. 5

3.6 Hazardous Materials And Waste 6

In general, hazardous materials and wastes are defined as those substances that, because of their 7

quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, would present 8

substantial danger to public health and welfare or to the environment when released into the 9

environment. 10

As defined by the US Department of Transportation (DOT), a hazardous material is a material 11

that is capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, or property when transported in 12

commerce and has been so designated. Hazardous waste is further defined by the USEPA as any 13

solid waste not specifically excluded in 40 CFR 261.2 of the Resource Conservation and 14

Recovery Act regulations, which meets specified concentrations of chemical constituents or has 15

certain toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity characteristics. In addition to the Federal 16

regulations cited there, the New Mexico Environment Department is responsible for regulation 17

of hazardous materials in New Mexico. Any spills of hazardous material will be required to be 18

reported to New Mexico Environment Department. 19


The ROI for hazardous materials/waste includes the FWLC and the booster drop zone. Since 21

proposed operations will be limited in scope (launch of target and defensive missile systems), it 22

is unlikely that off-site locations will be impacted, and thus they are not considered as part of the 23

ROI. Consideration will also be given to observance of proper DOT packaging, shipping, and 24

receiving procedures for hazardous materials/waste since observance of these requirements will 25

preclude significant influence of these substances along transportation routes beyond the defined 26

ROI. 27

No activities have been identified that involve the use of hazardous materials or production of 28

hazardous waste in the booster drop zone. 29


Hazardous materials associated with the test flights include solid propellants, unleaded gasoline, 31

oils, and hydraulic fuel. The unleaded gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fuel are primarily used by 32

ground vehicles. Usage of hazardous materials at FWLC must conform with Federal and DoD 33

hazardous materials management requirements, as well as with the Range Pollution Prevention 34

Program and Environmental Compliance Program. 35

Hazardous materials are stored in a designated hazardous materials storage location until use. 36

Users of hazardous materials provide storage in accordance with established procedures 37

applicable to individual operations. Most of the hazardous material brought to FWLC is used up 38

in operational processes. Any remainder is collected as hazardous waste. Hazardous waste is 39

transported from FWLC by a licensed hazardous waste transporter to an approved offsite 40

hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facility. 41

At the present time, FWLC has hazardous waste satellite accumulation points and there is an 42

associated Standard Operating Procedure (personal communication, Cathy Giblin, 2017). Only 43

small quantities of hazardous waste are generated. 44

April 2018 33



3.7 Health And Safety 1

Health and safety includes consideration of any activities, occurrences, or operations that have 2

the potential to affect one or more of the following: 3

The well-being, safety, or health of workers: Workers are considered to be persons directly 4

involved with the operation producing the effect or who are physically present at the operational 5

site. 6

The well-being, safety, or health of members of the public: Members of the public are 7

considered to be persons not physically present at the location of the operation, including 8

workers at nearby locations who are not involved in the operation and the off-site population. 9

Also included within this category are hazards to equipment and structures. 10


The ROI for health and safety at FWLC includes all of the facility and the immediate off-site 12

areas which would potentially be affected in the event of a flight termination during launch 13

activities, and the booster drop zone. 14


Through WSMR, FWLC provides a Safety and Health program for all employees, and ensures 16

that visitors are advised of potential hazards present at the facility. Emergency Services provides 17

emergency response to fire, explosion, chemical release, and associated medical emergencies. 18

Any program involving missile flight safety at FWLC must undergo a thorough safety review, a 19

risk analysis, and preparation of SOPs. Before conducting operations that may involve ground 20

impact of objects within the range, an evaluation is made to ensure that populated areas, critical 21

range assets, and any civilian property potentially susceptible to damage are outside potential 22

impacts limits. Range Commanders Council (RCC) 321-02, Common Risk Criteria for National 23

Test Ranges, is used to set requirements for acceptable risk criteria to occupational and non-24

occupational personnel, test facilities, and nonmilitary assets during range operations (MDA, 25

2007). WSMR follows the Military Munitions Rule (MMR), 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart M. While 26

the airspace is in use for a mission, the flight corridor and launch hazard areas are considered to 27

be part of the WSMR Operational Range; therefore, booster and debris recovery are performed 28

under the MMR. Therefore, professional Explosive Ordnance personnel would be used during 29

initial recovery efforts and WSMR personnel would recover debris. (personal communication, 30

Cathy Giblin, 2017) 31

3.8 Infrastructure And Transportation 32

Infrastructure addresses transportation and utilities. Transportation addresses the modes of 33

transportation (road, air, and marine) that provide circulation within and access to the 34

installation. Utilities include the facilities and systems that provide drinking water, reclaimed 35

water, wastewater treatment, collection/disposal of solid waste, and electricity. 36


The ROI for infrastructure and transportation is the former FWDA, FWLC, the nearby 38

surrounding communities, and the portion of the Cibola NF that lies within the booster drop 39

zone. 40

41

42

April 2018 34




Infrastructure 2

Fire Services – Currently, FWDA is in caretaker status, with no fire protection services 3

provided. In the past, McKinley County assisted FWDA with fire protection via a mutual-aid 4

agreement. Fire protection for Gallup and a large part of McKinley County is provided by the 5

City of Gallup, which operates four fire stations and one airport substation 6

(http://www.gallupnm.gov). During launches from FWLC, WSMR would provide fire protection 7

services within FWDA. The USFS would be the lead for fire protection within the booster drop 8

zone with WSMR providing back-up services and equipment as needed. 9

Health – Currently, FWDA is in caretaker status, with no health care services provided. The 10

hospitals in McKinley County include the 60-bed Rehoboth McKinley Christian Hospital and the 11

Indian Health Service-operated 99-bed Gallup Indian Medical Center in Gallup, and the 45-bed 12

Zuni Comprehensive Health Center in Zuni. No health care services are located within FWLC. 13

Police – Currently, FWDA is in caretaker status, with no police protection services provided. 14

Law enforcement in the area is provided by the McKinley County Sheriff’s Office and the 15

Gallup Police Department. The New Mexico State Police maintains a district office east of 16

Gallup and is responsible for state and Federal highways. All law enforcement agencies in the 17

county use the McKinley County Adult Detention Center in Gallup, which has a capacity of 300 18

persons. The Navajo and Zuni Indian Reservations maintain their own law enforcement 19

operations and detention facilities. Security at FWLC is provided through WSMR or project 20

proponent contractors on a mission by mission basis. 21

Power – Currently, FWDA is in caretaker status. Electrical power is acquired commercially to 22

maintain facility operational conditions, and lines and incidental equipment (transformers) are in 23

place for use at FWLC. 24

Solid Waste – Currently, FWDA is in caretaker status, with no solid waste disposal services 25

provided. Solid waste is properly collected and disposed of through WSMR or project 26

proponents during flight testing from FWLC. 27

Wastewater – Currently, FWDA is in caretaker status, with no wastewater treatment provided. 28

WSMR operates limited wastewater management and treatment for flight testing personnel at 29

FWLC as needed. 30

Water – Currently, FWDA is in caretaker status, with no potable water provided. Potable water 31

is trucked in using small storage tanks by WSMR personnel during flight testing at FWLC. 32

Transportation The former FWDA, including the FWLC, has approximately 241 km (150 mi) 33

of road (81 paved, 69 gravel or dirt-surfaced). The primary roads, which have an asphaltic 34

concrete or low bituminous surface, form the arterial system of the depot and link the various 35

activity areas and igloo clusters. Most of the roads in the primary system are in poor to fair 36

condition. 37

The primary roadway within the booster drop zone is State Road NM 400 running north to south 38

through approximately the center of the drop zone quadrangle. Numerous unpaved USFS roads 39

branch off to the east and west from NM 400. NM 400 is paved to McGaffey; all other roads in 40

the area are unpaved dirt or gravel roads. Maintenance of NM 400 is performed by the McKinley 41

County Road Department; all others are maintained by the Cibola NF, Mt Taylor District. 42

Gallup, the transportation hub for McKinley County, is serviced by US Interstate 40 running east 43

and west, US Highway 491 to the north, and NM Highway 602 to the south. The north-south 44

April 2018 35



road system and interconnecting roads are not extensively developed because of the rural, 1

sparsely populated character of the county (SSDC, 1994a). 2

The Santa Fe Railroad carries freight and Amtrak passenger trains daily through McKinley 3

County. Railroad access to the former FWDA is via an intertie with the Santa Fe Railroad line. 4

The internal rail system comprises 35 km (22 mi) of track rated at a 41-kilogram (90-pound) 5

capacity, a classification yard with 306-railcar capacity, 17 loading docks, a scale, and a 6

locomotive garage maintenance facility (SSDC, 1994a). 7

Gallup has a fully equipped airport for light aircraft. There are no scheduled passenger air 8

services currently in operation (http://www.gallupnm.gov). 9

3.9 Land Use 10

This section describes current land-based uses which are typically regulated by management 11

plans, policies, ordinances, and encroachment of one land use on another. 12


The ROI for land use includes the former FWDA, the FWLC, the LHA, and the booster drop 14

zone. 15


While lands within the former FWDA are being considered for return to the public domain as a 17

real property disposal alternative following the Department of Army's proposed closure action, 18

the Secretary of the Army has granted MDA a permit for the use of FWLC. This permit (Permit 19

Number DACA63-4-10-0593) was renewed for a five-year period on 29 May 2015. The five 20

year term will be for the period beginning 1 June 2015 through 31 May 2020. 21

Lands within booster drop zone are controlled by the USFS and a few private land owners. 22

3.10 Noise 23


The ROI for noise is defined as the area within the Lmax (maximum sound level) 85 dB contour, 25

which would be approximately 56 km (35 mi) from the launch site at FWLC for target missiles. 26


The primary noise sources in the vicinity of FWLC include aircraft operations, range operations, 28

and surface traffic on local roads. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors are ranches near FWLC 29

and in the communities of Fort Wingate, Bread Springs, Church Rock, Wingate, and McGaffey. 30

Another local source of noise is from logging activities within the Cibola NF in the booster drop 31

zone. 32

For the FWLC LHA, there are hearing protection requirements for launch personnel and the 33

LHA is evacuated. For the booster drop zone, the area also is evacuated during launches. 34

3.11 Socioeconomics 35

Socioeconomic impact regions typically include: current and projected population and relevant 36

demographic characteristics; local government revenues, expenditures, and revenue-sharing 37

arrangements; current and projected housing capacity; current and planned public service 38

capacity (water, sewer, transportation, police, fire, health, education, and welfare); economic 39

structure and labor force characteristics; local government characteristics; local organizations 40

http://www.gallupnm.gov/

April 2018 36



and interest groups; social structure and life styles; and local support or opposition to the 1

proposed project. 2


FWLC and the booster drop zone are located in McKinley County, NM, near the community of 4

Gallup. For purposes of this study, the ROI includes McKinley County, NM. 5


Population and Income 7

McKinley County, located in the northwestern section of NM, had a population of 71,491, as of 8

the 2010 census. The 2016 population estimate shows an estimated increase to 74,923 (US 9

Census Bureau, 2017). McKinley is the only NM county in which American Indians, 10

predominately the Navajo tribe, are in the majority. 11

McKinley County has a relatively young population with a small percentage (11.2 percent) of the 12

population in the over-65 age category (US Census Bureau, 2017). The median age for county 13

residents was below 26 years as compared to over 31 years for Arizona and NM. (McKinley 14

County, 2014) 15

In 2016 the per capita income for McKinley County was $12,882 and is extremely low as 16

compared to state average income levels. McKinley County's per capita figure is only slightly 17

better at 50 percent of New Mexico's median income of $10,599. Reported persons in poverty 18

are 34.4 percent. (US Census Bureau, 2017) 19

Transient Housing 20

Gallup, NM is the closest ROI market able to provide transient accommodations for FWLC 21

personnel during the proposed launch test periods. As of 2011, Gallup offered 42 hotels with an 22

estimated total of 2,160 rooms with higher seasonal room rates and an increased occupancy 23

occurring during the summer tourism period (Place Dynamics, 2011). 24

Employment 25

Employment in McKinley County has increased slightly from 13,913 jobs in 1970 to 30,141. 26

Governmental positions offer the largest employment opportunities in McKinley County (37.2 27

percent). A large portion of this is derived from Federal employment. (McKinley County, 2014) 28

3.12 Water Resources 29

Water resources include both surface water and groundwater. To protect these resources, 30

Congress has enacted the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Pursuant to these 31

acts, the EPA and the State of New Mexico have established water quality standards to protect 32

waters. 33


The ROI for water resources includes the booster drop zone. 35


Precipitation in the area averages about 28.3 cm (11.5 in) per year. Water for the former FWDA 37

was provided by wells on the installation. Water is brought from WSMR in storage tanks to 38

accommodate needs for launches. 39

40

April 2018 37



Surface Water 1

The ROI for surface water is the FWLC and the booster drop zone. All but the extreme 2

southwest corner of the former FWDA drains north across the Installation via two intermittent 3

drainages, Fenced-up Horse Canyon and Milk Ranch Canyon, into the south fork of the Rio 4

Puerco (US Department of the Interior, 1981a;b). Surface water is not used as a source of potable 5

water on FWLC. 6

Several springs are located in or near the booster drop zone and wetlands, lakes, ponds, and 7

riparian systems are located within the former FWDA area and the booster drop zone (Figure 3-8

2). The booster drop zone is located within the headwaters of the Rio Puerco River. USFS and 9

private sector stock tanks and small bermed ponds are located throughout the Zuni Mountains to 10

collect and retain rainfall and runoff. McGaffey Lake, a small dammed lake, is just outside the 11

southeast corner of the booster drop quadrangle. 12

Groundwater 13

The major aquifer in the region is the Glorieta sandstone/San Andres limestone, which provided 14

water to the former FWDA through a single deep artesian well located beneath Building 69 in 15

the administration area. Depth to the aquifer is 405 m (1,330 ft). The recharge area for the 16

aquifer is the southeastern corner of the Installation. Water enters the aquifer through a mantle of 17

soil and moves down gradient to the northwest. Most recharge is from snowmelt which 18

contributes approximately 2.8 million m3 (2,300 acre-feet) of groundwater recharge per year. In 19

1970, the free-flowing yield from the well was 341 liters (L) (90 gallons [gal]) per minute. A 20

yield of 45 L (12 gal]) per minute with a maximum pump rate at 625 L (165 gal) per minute was 21

typical in the 1990s (SSDC, 1994a) but would potentially diminish in periods of drought and 22

with use. 23

The water was set up to be pumped from the supply well into a 378,540-L (100,000-gal) 24

underground storage tank prior to entering a treated and untreated distribution system. Untreated 25

water was used for firefighting and irrigation, while the other system provided water to the water 26

treatment plant in Building 2. The water was treated and chlorinated before distribution into the 27

potable water system. Two additional water tanks, an elevated 946,350-liter (250,000-gallon) 28

tank and a 757,080-L (200,000-gal) ground tank, provided water storage (SSDC, 1994a). 29

Currently, containerized water is provided from WSMR during testing. 30

Undeveloped, shallow alluvial aquifers composed of sand, silt, and clay with gravel lenses occur 31

along the northern edge of the former FWDA. As reported in 1994, the depth to water was 6 to 9 32

m (20 to 30 ft) with the aquifer being discontinuous and generally having a low yield (SSDC, 33

1994a). 34

Water quality at FWDA was generally reported as good. Prior to closure, the Bureau of Indian 35

Affairs water analysis laboratory in Gallup performed chemical, radiological, and bacteriological 36

analyses on raw and treated water on a weekly basis. Samples were collected from 14 sampling 37

points on the former FWDA that tapped the San Andres-Glorieta aquifer. The analyses showed 38

no significant change in water quality, with all parameters within applicable standards except for 39

iron, sulfates, and total dissolved solids which may affect taste but do not pose a hazard to health. 40

Frequently a high gross alpha radiation level (18 to 20 picocuries per liter [pCi/L]) was found in 41

the raw water. The EPA maximum contaminant level for the gross alpha is 15 pCi/L. (SSDC, 42

1994a) 43

The region around Gallup, including the former FWDA, was declared an underground water 44

basin, which prohibits any major new groundwater withdrawals without approval by the State 45

April 2018 38



Engineer. In 1981, the total treated water usage for FWDA was approximately 9,600 m3 (7.8 1

acre feet) which is well below the estimated recharge rate of 2.8 million m3 (2,300 acre-feet) 2

(SSDC, 1994a). 3

The potential for surface-water and groundwater contamination was identified on the former 4

FWDA prior to closure (SSDC, 1994b). An Installation Action Plan was updated in 2016 5

(https://www.ftwingate.org/docs/pub/Current_IAP.pdf), the facility Resource Recovery and 6

Conservation Act hazardous waste permit was modified in 2014 to accommodate waste from 7

restoration processes, and the US Army Corps of Engineers most recently surveyed the public in 8

2017 for interest in participating in a Restoration Advisory Board to provide input to the 9

restoration process (USACE, 2017). 10

April 2018 39



4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 1

This chapter describes the potential environmental consequences of the No-Action and Proposed 2

Action Alternatives by comparing these activities with the potentially affected environmental 3

components described in Chapter 3.0. The amount of detail presented in each section is 4

proportional to the potential for impacts. Impacts at WSMR and along the flight paths have been 5

addressed in previous environmental documentation and no significant impacts were identified. 6

This section addresses only the environmental impacts at FWLC, the LHA, and the booster drop 7

zone. 8

To assess the potential for and significance of environmental impacts, a list of activities was 9

developed (Chapter 2.0) and the environmental setting was described, with emphasis on any 10

special environmental sensitivities (Chapter 3.0). Program activities were then assessed with the 11

potentially affected environmental components to determine the environmental impacts of these 12

activities. The following resources were eliminated from environmental consideration because 13

their analyses in previous environmental documentation for similar activities resulted in no 14

significant impacts: air quality, airspace, geology and soils, hazardous materials and waste, 15

infrastructure and transportation, noise, socioeconomics, and water resources. 16

4.1 Biological Resources 17

4.1.1 Proposed Action 18

The environmental consequences of the proposed action are analyzed based on the major 19

activities of the action including launch preparation, launch activities, and post-launch activities. 20

The effects of the proposed action on plants and animals in the area are considered with special 21

focus on effect on ESA and New Mexico State-listed threatened and endangered species. 22

The proposed time period for the action is 10 years beginning in Fiscal Year 2018. Up to two 23

targets will be launched from FWLC in each of the first five years and up to five targets launched 24

in each of the following five years. A maximum total of 35 targets will be launched as part of the 25

proposed action analyzed in this EA. 26

Vegetation 27

Launch Preparation Activities 28

No ground disturbing activities are planned as part of the Proposed Action. Placement of the 29

mobile launchers and any support equipment would occur in areas of FWLC that have been used 30

for launches and support activities on many previous occasions without impacts. Solid 31

propellants would be used for the targets, eliminating the potential for spills during missile 32

assembly. Hazardous materials are stored in a designated hazardous materials storage location 33

until use. Most of the hazardous material brought to FWLC is used up in operational processes. 34

Any remainder is collected as hazardous waste. Hazardous waste is transported from FWLC by a 35

licensed hazardous waste transporter to an approved offsite hazardous waste treatment, storage 36

and disposal facility. Adherence to hazardous waste procedures would minimize the potential for 37

impacts to plants species. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur to vegetation from 38

launch preparation. 39

April 2018 40



Launch Activities 1

The booster would impact within the proposed booster drop zone. The impact area is expected to 2

be less than 21 square meters (m2) (225 square feet [ft

2]). Booster impact in the booster drop 3

zone may affect vegetation due to direct contact with the falling booster, possible fire resulting 4

from booster impact, and chemical exposure. 5

Direct contact from falling booster components is not expected to significantly impact protected 6

plant species in the booster drop zone. Falling first stage booster components are expected to 7

impact in an area no larger than 21 m2 (225 ft

2). Given the composition of plant communities in 8

the booster drop zone and the relative abundance of the majority of plants that make up these 9

communities, some plants are likely to be crushed by falling debris resulting in damage or death 10

of plants. However, these small impact areas are not likely to adversely affect the persistence of 11

plant species or plant community composition in the area. While the distribution and abundance 12

of protected plant species such as the Zuni fleabane are relatively unknown, they are rare species 13

with limited distributions. If falling booster components contacted individual plants of this 14

species, components would have the potential to injure or kill these individuals. Given the 15

limited distribution and scarcity of Zuni fleabane in the booster drop zone, it is highly unlikely 16

that booster components would contact plants of this species; therefore, the Proposed Action is 17

not likely to impact this species significantly. 18

Fire from an early flight termination or from falling booster components could impact any plant 19

species that may be present near the launch site or in the booster drop zone. The chance of an 20

event occurring in proximity to an endangered or threatened plant species is very low. In the 21

event that fire did spread to areas containing Zuni fleabane, individuals of this species could be 22

damaged or killed. As a mitigation measure to further avoid this unlikely occurrence, launch 23

schedules will consider wildfire risk potential based on site and weather conditions. Fire 24

suppression teams would be available during flight test activities to minimize the area burned in 25

the event of a fire. Therefore, potential impacts from fire are expected to be not significant for 26

protected species. 27

Exposure to chemicals has the potential to effect plants. There are no known hazardous 28

chemicals associated with the booster that are expected to be released into the environment of the 29

booster drop zone. Hydrogen chloride (HCl), which is emitted during missile launches, when 30

mixed with water to form hydrochloric acid, is known to cause leaf injury to plants as a result of 31

launching very large flight vehicles such as the space shuttle. However, results of a monitoring 32

program conducted following a Strategic Target System launch indicated no significant impact to 33

vegetation due to HCl emissions. The amount of HCl produced by the Strategic Target System 34

boosters to be used for the Proposed Action is less than the largest proposed TMD booster 35

previously analyzed for launch from the FWLC (SSDC, 1994a; WSMR, 2010); therefore, the 36

Proposed Action is not likely to impact vegetation significantly. 37

Other hazardous materials associated with flights include solid propellants, unleaded gasoline, 38

oils, and hydraulic fuels. The unleaded gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fuel are primarily used by 39

ground vehicles at FWLC. Most other hazardous material brought to FWLC will be used up in 40

operational processes. Any remainder will be collected as hazardous waste and transported from 41

FWLC. Users of hazardous materials provide storage in accordance with established procedures 42

applicable to individual operations. No adverse effects on vegetation are expected from these 43

hazardous materials. 44

April 2018 41



Post Launch Activities 1

Recovery of the booster or flight termination debris would be accomplished using four-wheel all-2

terrain vehicles (ATVs) under permit from the Cibola NF, Mt Taylor Ranger District, 3

helicopters, and on foot. 4

In the LHA, there are no changes in scope of post-launch activities from previously analyzed 5

actions (SSDC, 1994a; WSMR, 2010) and these actions are not examined further. Post-launch, 6

any launch and/or booster debris will be recovered from the booster drop zone. Booster recovery 7

or flight termination debris recovery would be in accordance with the WSMR SOP for 8

Environmental Protection During Recovery Action. This SOP focuses on guidelines for 9

avoidance of known sensitive areas. 10

In the booster drop zone, fallen booster debris would be recovered by hand and removed with the 11

use of ATVs and/or helicopters. Protected plant species, specifically Zuni fleabane, are known to 12

occur in the booster drop zone (Figure 3-2); however, these plants have a very sparse distribution 13

and very low abundance in the area. With the use of appropriate mitigation measures outlined 14

below, recovery would not significantly impact protected plant species. Mitigation measures to 15

avoid impact to protected plant species would include: 16

Off-road vehicle operators should, whenever possible use designated roads and trails in 17

the booster drop zone. A map of current designated roads and recreational trails is 18

available from the USFS. 19

Areas where protected species are known to occur should be avoided during transit to 20

booster debris drop sites (Figure 3-2). Recovery teams should be made aware of 21

protected species and areas. 22

If booster debris falls in an area that is known to have protected plant species, recovery 23

efforts should be coordinated with Cibola NF or WSMR biologists to avoid these 24

protected resources. 25

Wildlife 26

Launch Preparation Activities 27

No ground disturbing activities are planned as part of the Proposed Action. Placement of the 28

mobile launchers and any support equipment would occur in areas that have been used for 29

launches and support activities on many previous occasions without impacts. Solid propellants 30

would be used for the targets, eliminating the potential for spills during missile assembly. 31

Hazardous materials are stored in a designated hazardous materials storage location until use. 32

Most of the hazardous material brought to FWLC is used up in operational processes. Any 33

remainder is collected as hazardous waste. Hazardous waste is transported from FWLC by a 34

licensed hazardous waste transporter to an approved offsite hazardous waste treatment, storage 35

and disposal facility. Adherence to hazardous waste procedures would minimize the potential for 36

impacts to wildlife resources. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur to wildlife resources 37

from launch preparation. 38

Launch Activities 39

Normal launch activities are expected to not significantly impact wildlife species. Launch 40

activities have the potential to impact wildlife species due to launch noise, contact from falling 41

booster debris, chemical exposure, and sonic booms. Launch activities at FWLC would take 42

place in previously disturbed areas that are routinely used for flight testing. 43

April 2018 42



Elevated Noise Levels Due to Launch. The LHA, booster drop zones, and surrounding areas 1

will be subject to short duration elevated noise levels from normal launch activities and debris 2

impact. These elevated noise levels have the potential to impact wildlife in these and surrounding 3

areas. The previously evaluated and larger TMD missile (SSDC, 1994a) was estimated to have a 4

launch noise level of approximately 90 dBA at a distance of less than 8 km (5 mi) from the 5

launch site. Since the boosters to be used in the current action are smaller, it is expected that the 6

noise levels would be less than those of TMD and the TMD estimates are used as a maximum for 7

the tests analyzed in this EA. The only sound pressure information available for these test flights 8

at this time is presented in dBA (decibels A-weighted for human hearing). While this is not ideal 9

when dealing with the varying hearing capabilities of wildlife, this best available information at 10

the time and was used in current analyses to evaluate the effects of elevated noise levels on 11

wildlife. 12

Elevated sound levels have the potential to have several effects on wildlife species ranging from 13

masking of animal communication to physical injury or death. Any sound level elevation above 14

ambient levels has the potential to impact wildlife species. Very loud sounds may produce 15

pressure levels high enough to cause physical injury in animals, also called permanent threshold 16

shift (PTS). Some sounds which are not loud enough to cause physical injury may still impact 17

wildlife by causing physiological or behavioral disturbance (sometimes referred to as temporary 18

threshold shift [TTS]). Often behavioral disturbance is temporary; however, it may affect nesting 19

activities or foraging which may influence the daily energy budget for some animals. Lower 20

levels of sound, while not causing physical or behavioral affects, may mask natural 21

communication for wildlife, especially birds. Masking is generally only a concern for sound 22

elevations of long duration or continuous sounds. 23

There are no absolute standards of short-term noise impacts of test flight for wildlife species as 24

effects of elevated sound levels depend on the frequency, exposure level, and duration of the 25

exposure. However, review of the best available information can be used to establish some 26

conservative thresholds for behavioral disruption and/or physical injury in many wildlife species. 27

For fish, the current threshold standards of 206 dB peak (decibels peak sound pressure level) and 28

187 dB SELcum (decibels cumulative sound exposure level) for fish larger than 2 grams or 183 29

dB SELcum for fish under 2 grams (Table 4-1; Oestman and Buehler, 2009) are used to estimate 30

adverse effects of elevated sound levels on fish. 31

Table 4-1: Acoustic Thresholds for Physical Injury and Behavioral Disruption in Fish 32 Potential Effect Fish Size Class Threshold

Onset of Physical Injury

> 2 grams 187 SELcum or 206 peak dB (re 1 μPa)

< 2 grams 183 SELcum or 206 peak dB (re 1 μPa)

Behavioral Disruption All sizes 150 dBRMS (re 1 μPa) Source: Oestman and Buehler, 2009 33

For birds, there is evidence that sound levels required to adversely affect birds depend on the 34

species of bird. However, thresholds based on data gathered from several sources to estimate the 35

impacts of elevated, episodic sounds on birds (Table 4-2 and Table 4-3; Brown et al., 1999; 36

Dooling and Popper, 2007) are used in this EA. Data collected on the effects of impulsive noise 37

on Bald Eagles suggests that at 100 dB peak, sound pressures may elicit minor physiological 38

responses, while at 126dB levels, birds may be disturbed to the point of taking flight and at 160 39

dB birds either take flight or temporarily flush (Brown et al. 1999). Conservative estimates of 40

April 2018 43



sound effects on birds have also been presented by the California Department of Transportation 1

(Dooling and Popper, 2007). These estimates based on dBA (decibels A-weighted for human 2

hearing) do not provide accurate estimates of the noise level in the frequency range where birds 3

hear and communicate; however, they can provide an overestimate of effects and therefore very 4

conservative (if not realistic) thresholds of effect (Dooling and Popper, 2007). Estimates of a 93 5

dBA TTS threshold for continuous noises and 140 dBA threshold for physical injury from 6

impulsive noise have been suggested as very conservative estimates (Dooling and Popper 2007). 7

It is important to point out that unlike most other animals, physical damage caused by elevated 8

noise in birds is usually temporary (Dooling and Popper, 2007). Elevated noise can damage 9

sensory cells of the inner ear. Birds are more resistant than mammals to temporary and 10

permanent hearing loss because they are able to regenerate the sensory cells of the inner ear and 11

recover normal hearing (Dooling and Popper, 2007). In this EA, 100 dB and 93dBA are used as 12

conservative thresholds for adverse physiological or behavioral effects on birds. 13

Table 4-2: Reactions of Bald Eagles to Peak Noise Levels for Impulsive Noise 14

Response Peak In-Air Noise Level

No Physiological Response Less than 100 dB

No Response or Minor Physiological Response

(i.e., head turn, body or wing movement, or vocalization) 100–126 dB

Minor Physiological Response or Take to Flight 126–160 dB1

Take to Flight or Temporary Flush 160 dB

Source: Brown et al., 1999 15 1Effects for this range are an extrapolation of the lower and higher noise levels. 16

Table 4-3: Conservative Thresholds for Effects on Birds from Impulsive Noise Sources1 17

Potential Effect Threshold1

Physical Injury2 140 dBA

Physiological or Behavioral Distruption3 93 dBA

3

Source: Dooling and Popper, 2007 1 Based on dBA which is decibels weighted to human hearing. This is known to be an overestimate of the dB experienced by

birds and is a conservative estimate of effects. 2 Unlike mammals and fish, hearing damage is temporary in birds because they are able to regenerate their auditory sensory hairs (Dooling and Popper, 2007). 3 No data were available for TTS in birds caused by impulsive noise; the presented threshold estimate is for continuous noise

(Dooling and Popper 2007) which is likely to be an overestimate

Based on the above stated estimates of expected sound levels for launch (90 dBA at 8,000 m) 18

and using the spherical spreading model for sound, RL=SL-20logR (where RL=relative sound 19

level in dB, SL=source sound level in dB, and R=range in meters), the estimated launch sound 20

source level (SL) would be approximately 168 dBA. This SL would result in sound levels 21

elevated above 140 dBA out to 25 m (82 ft) from the launch site and sound levels above 93 dBA 22

out to 5.6 km (3.5 mi). Based on the above discussed thresholds for effect, it is very 23

conservatively estimated that there may be behavioral disturbance effects on birds out to 24

approximately 5.6 km (3.5 mi) from the launch. 25

For birds, elevated sound levels capable of permanent damage to hearing in birds (140 dBA) are 26

expected to extend out to only 25 m (82 ft) from the launch site. Due to the highly mobile nature 27

of birds, the disturbed nature of habitat at the launch site, and birds’ likely avoidance of pre-28

launch activities, it is not likely that birds will be in the injury threshold area. The threshold for 29

behavioral disruption in birds (93 dBA) extends out to 5.6 km (3.5 mi) from the launch area. 30

These sound levels have the potential to affect birds by altering behavior. These effects would be 31

April 2018 44



temporary and would likely only briefly affect behavior of avian species. Some research suggests 1

that effects of elevated noise are very short lived for single impulse sounds (10-40 seconds for 2

ducks after aircraft overflight; (Conomy et al., 1998) and slightly longer for sounds of longer 3

duration (10-15 min for spotted owls after helicopter overflights (Delaney et al, 1999) for sounds 4

of longer duration. The most concerning effects would be those on protected bird species like the 5

Mexican spotted owl, the yellow-billed cuckoo, and the southwestern willow flycatcher; 6

however there is no evidence that these species would be any more susceptible to noise impacts 7

than other birds species. In fact, Delaney et al. (1999) observed no flush response from Mexican 8

spotted owls as a result of sounds at 92 dBA. The yellow-billed cuckoo and the southwestern 9

willow flycatcher are not known to occur in the booster drop zone or in other areas which will 10

experience elevated noise levels capable of eliciting a behavioral response. 11

Mexican spotted owls do occur within the area that would be subject to elevated noise levels 12

capable of causing behavioral disruption in birds. One Mexican spotted owl PAC also is located 13

within the behavioral effects threshold (Figure 3-2). The Mexican spotted owl recovery plan 14

(USFWS, 2012) summarizes the current best available information on noise and owl disturbance. 15

It is likely that infrequent noise producing activities have relatively little long-term impact on 16

spotted owls (USFWS, 2012). Owls may react to noise disturbance by changing their behavior 17

and/or flushing from their perches (USFWS, 2012). In fact, some researchers suggest that spotted 18

owls may even flush due to sounds as low as 80 dBO (decibels weighted for owl hearing) which 19

corresponds to about 69 dBA (USFWS, 2012). However, researchers also suggest that an owl’s 20

response to noise may depend of the source of the noise (owls were more likely to react to 21

chainsaw noise than to the sound of helicopters at the same distance; USFWS, 2012). While 22

launch noise certainly has the potential to cause behavioral disruptions in spotted owls, these 23

effects are likely to be temporary and the infrequent test flights of the Proposed Action are not 24

likely to impact spotted owls long term. 25

Given the low abundance and high mobility of protected species in the area and the temporary 26

nature of the disturbance, elevated noise due to launch activities is not likely to adversely impact 27

protected wildlife species in ROI. 28

To further reduce any possible disturbance to protected nesting bird species, launch schedulers 29

should consider scheduling launches outside of primary avian breeding seasons (May-August) 30

when possible. 31

For fish, levels of elevated noise that exceed the threshold for behavioral disruption only extend 32

out to 8 m (26 ft) from the launch. There are no fish located within this 8 m buffer. 33

Sonic Booms A sonic boom would occur after a target missile launch once the launch vehicle 34

has exceeded the speed of sound. The sonic boom would be directed toward the front of the 35

launch vehicle and downrange of the launch site along the expected flight path. No specific 36

estimates of sonic boom pressures are available for the ZOMBIE/Black Dagger payload; 37

however, some information is available from the larger but similar TMD target and defensive 38

missiles (SSDC, 1994a). The TMD missile sonic boom estimates apply as upper bounds for 39

ZOMBIE/Black Dagger sonic boom effects and as conservative estimates of sonic boom effects 40

on wildlife. The operational TMD target missiles were estimated to have a small (less than 0.5 41

pounds per ft2) sonic boom created along a portion of the flight path close to the launch site 42

(SSDC, 1994a). Model estimates placed this sonic boom as reaching the ground approximately 43

80 km (50 mi) downrange from the launch site, outside of the ROI, and extending up to about 44

161 km (100 mi) downrange (SSDC, 1994a). Other models for much larger missiles operating at 45

April 2018 45



and near WSMR indicate that these type of flights are usually at a high enough altitude and a low 1

enough frequency to generate sound levels no greater than 70 dBA on the ground (SSDC, 1997). 2

Analyses also indicate that the average sonic boom levels range from 50 to 60 dB (SSDC, 1997). 3

While sonic booms have the potential to elicit behavioral response in wildlife (Manci et al., 4

1988), the expected sound pressure levels occur outside the ROI and would be well below the 5

thresholds for physical injury and likely below levels which would elicit behavioral response. 6

Manci et al. (1988) reviewed the available literature on the effects of aircraft noise and sonic 7

booms on wildlife. Sonic booms have been reported to have effects on several wildlife species 8

including reindeer, mink, pinniped species, seabirds, raptors, and songbirds (Manci et al., 1988). 9

For almost all of these species, the effects were stated to be short term startle responses (Manci et 10

al., 1988). Some species such as songbirds were reported to return to normal singing behavior 11

within 10 seconds after audible booms (Manci et al., 1988). There are also indications that 12

wildlife may become habituated to sounds in their environment that they hear on a relatively 13

frequent basis and have reduced behavioral response to these sounds (Manci et al., 1988). 14

Given the low abundance and distribution of protected species in the ROI and the temporary 15

nature of the disturbance, if any, sonic boom pressures resulting from the Proposed Action are 16

not likely to adversely impact protected wildlife species in ROI. 17

Direct Contact from Falling Debris. There is a possibility of falling debris in the LHA due to 18

early flight termination. There would also be falling booster components in the booster drop 19

zone, and there is the potential that this falling debris could strike wildlife species. If falling 20

debris contacted a protected species, this would likely result in injury or death. The booster 21

components are expected to impact in an area of the booster drop zone no larger than 21 m2 (225 22

ft2). Sensitive species of wildlife, including threatened and endangered bird species, have 23

relatively low abundance, are widely scattered, are highly mobile, and the probability of falling 24

debris striking a threatened or endangered species is remote. Another effect of falling debris may 25

be temporary behavioral avoidance response to the noise of falling debris which could in fact 26

help them avoid the falling booster. Any behavioral avoidance response is expected to be 27

temporary. Therefore, falling debris from the flight tests is not expected to significantly impact 28

wildlife species. 29

Chemical Exposure. HCl emissions from test launches are known to have effects on wildlife. 30

However, studies on representative birds and mammals reviewed in the Final Environmental 31

Impact Statement for the Strategic Target System (SSDC, 1992) indicate low level short-term 32

exposure to HCl would not significantly impact threatened or endangered species or other 33

wildlife. (SSDC, 1994a) Any hazardous debris would be recovered as quickly as possible (see 34

Post-Launch Activities below). 35

Other hazardous materials associated with the proposed flights include solid propellants, 36

unleaded gasoline, oils, and hydraulic fuels. The unleaded gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fuel are 37

primarily used by ground vehicles at FWLC. Most other hazardous material brought to FWLC 38

will be used up in operational processes. Any remainder will be collected as hazardous waste and 39

transported from FWLC. Users of hazardous materials provide storage in accordance with 40

established procedures applicable to individual operations. No adverse effects on wildlife are 41

expected from these hazardous materials. 42

Fire. Fire from an early flight termination or from falling booster components could impact any 43

wildlife species that may be present near the launch site or in the booster drop zone. The 44

probability of a fire event occurring in proximity to an endangered or threatened wildlife species 45

April 2018 46



is low and these species are highly mobile. As a mitigation measure to further avoid fire 1

affecting wildlife species, launch schedules will consider wildfire risk potential based on site and 2

weather conditions. Fire suppression teams from WSMR will also be available during flight test 3

activities to minimize the area burned in the event of a fire. Therefore, impacts due to fire are 4

expected to be not significant for protected species. 5

Post-launch Activities 6

Post-launch, any launch and/or booster debris would be recovered from the ROI. In the LHA, 7

this is not a change in scope from previously analyzed actions (SSDC, 1994a) and is not 8

examined further. 9

In the booster drop zone, fallen booster debris would be recovered by hand and removed from 10

off-road areas by ATVs and/or helicopters. The debris recovery activities would be of short 11

duration and are expected to last less than one day for each test flight. In particularly sensitive 12

areas fragments would not be recovered when recovery activities are determined by a WSMR or 13

USFS biologist to cause more of a disturbance than the impact of the debris fragments. Debris 14

recovery efforts would involve equipment already in place and in use at FWLC or brought from 15

WSMR. 16

Debris recovery has the potential to cause behavioral disturbance in wildlife species. For most 17

wildlife species, the temporary behavioral disturbance caused by debris recovery would likely 18

have no great effect. For protected species such as the Mexican spotted owl; however, behavioral 19

disturbance can be more meaningful, especially if located near an owl nest during the breeding 20

season (March-June). If debris were to land in a Mexican spotted owl PAC, debris recovery 21

teams would coordinate with USFWS or WSMR biologist to avoid disturbing owls. 22

Given the limited distribution of protected wildlife species in the ROI, the mobility of these 23

species, and with the use of appropriate mitigation measures outlined below, recovery of debris 24

would not significantly impact protected wildlife species. Mitigation measure to avoid impact to 25

protected wildlife species would include: 26

Off-road vehicle operators would, whenever possible use designated roads and trails in 27

the booster drop zone. A map of current designated roads and recreational trails is 28

available from the USFS. 29

Areas where protected species are known to occur should be avoided during transit to 30

booster debris drop sites (Figure 3-2). Recovery teams should be made aware of 31

protected species and areas. 32

If booster debris falls in an area that is known to have protected wildlife species (such as 33

a spotted owl PAC), recovery efforts should be coordinated with Cibola NF or WSMR 34

biologists to avoid these protected resources. 35

To reduce any possible disturbance to protected nesting bird species, launch schedulers 36

should consider scheduling launches outside of spotted owl breeding season (March-37

June) when possible. 38


Under the No-Action Alternative, ongoing activities and programs would continue at FWLC and 40

WSMR. The effects to biological resources would remain the same. There would be no 41

additional impacts to biological resources from the No-Action Alternative. 42

April 2018 47



4.1.3 Cumulative Impacts 1

Launches will be discrete events with time in between; therefore, no cumulative impacts are 2

expected. Other activities which are occurring or will occur in the Action Area include 3

modification of off-road vehicle use in in the Mt Taylor Ranger District and the Rio Puerco 4

Project in the Zuni Mountains. The EA for Travel Management on Mt Taylor District in Cibola 5

National Forest was completed in 2011. Decisions made based on the analysis included no public 6

off-road vehicle use within the area represented in the proposed booster drop zone. Another EA, 7

the Zuni Mountain Trails Project EA, is a sub-project of the above covering closure and 8

decommissioning of some roads within the Zuni Mountains using various methods and 9

designation of mountain bike and hiking trails in the same area. The USFS is responsible for the 10

management of biological resources within the Cibola NF and the establishment of specific trails 11

for mountain bikers and hikers and the restriction of off-road vehicle use would preserve 12

protected biological resources from those activities. The Rio Puerco Project within the Zuni 13

Mountains, Mt Taylor Ranger District is a plan to reduce fuel load to minimize wildfire potential 14

and restore habitat. The EA for this project is in progress; however the project is not expected to 15

begin until at least 2019 (personal communication, Andrew Pacheko, 2015). 16

Because of the procedures and protections in place through SMDC, NSWC, and USFS, these 17

projects, in combination with the Proposed Action, would have no significant cumulative 18

impacts to biological resources within the proposed booster drop zone. Environmental 19

assessment documents for potentially contemporary activities include: 20

EA for Travel Management on Mount (Mt) Taylor District, Cibola NF. This analysis of 21

travel through the Cibola NF Mt Taylor District developed new restrictions for off 22

highway vehicle use and was finalized in 2011. Activities covered under this EA are on-23

going. The travel restrictions will assist in limiting public activities in remote or 24

unauthorized areas of Mt Taylor Ranger District. 25


Zuni Mountains area of the Cibola NF is in-progress with a public objection period that 27

closed in March 2017; a Draft EA was expected in May 2017. This EA is an off-shoot of 28

the EA for Travel Management on Mt Taylor District, Cibola NF, and will also assist in 29

limiting public activities in unauthorized areas. 30









habitat will eventually expand into booster drop zone area. 39




NF. 43




April 2018 48






Mountains. 4

4.2 Cultural Resources 5


Launch Preparation 7

To minimize possible effects to cultural resources, all personnel would be instructed concerning 8

the prohibition on collecting cultural resources materials and be instructed to report any such 9

observed materials to the Launch Director, who will provide the report to the Forest Service. No 10

ground disturbing activities are planned as part of the Proposed Action. Placement of the mobile 11

launchers and any support equipment would occur in areas that have been used for launches and 12

support activities on many previous occasions without impacts. Solid propellants would be used 13

for the targets, eliminating the potential for spills during missile assembly. Hazardous materials 14

are stored in a designated hazardous materials storage location until use. Most of the hazardous 15

material brought to FWLC is used up in operational processes. Any remainder is collected as 16

hazardous waste. Hazardous waste is transported from FWLC by a licensed hazardous waste 17

transporter to an approved offsite hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facility. 18

Adherence to these procedures would minimize the potential for hazardous materials and wastes 19

impacts to cultural resources. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur to cultural resources 20

from launch preparation. 21

Launch Activities 22

Within minutes after a launch, the booster would impact within the proposed booster drop zone; 23

the impact area would be expected to be less than 21 m2 (225 ft

2). Potential impacts on 24

archaeological resources could occur as a result of the booster striking the ground where surface 25

or subsurface archaeological deposits are located. Potential impacts on cultural resources also 26

could occur as a result of flight termination debris striking the ground where cultural resources 27

are located. The probability of either of these occurring would be remote. If the booster were to 28

impact on an eligible or potentially eligible site, mitigation would be coordinated with the USFS 29

and the New Mexico SHPO. Fire resulting from an early flight termination could impact cultural 30

resources that may be near the launch site or within the nearby booster drop zone. Fire 31

suppression equipment and services would be provided by USFS and coordinated with WSMR. 32

All fire suppression personnel would be instructed concerning the prohibition on collecting 33

cultural resources materials and would be instructed to report any such observed materials to the 34

WSMR archaeologist available for the booster recovery team, who will provide the report to the 35

Forest Service. Adherence to these procedures would minimize the potential for impacts to 36

cultural sites. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources from launch activities are expected to be 37

not significant. 38

Post-Launch Activities 39

Booster recovery or flight termination debris recovery would be in accordance with the WSMR 40

SOP for Environmental Protection During Recovery Action. This SOP focuses on guidelines for 41

avoidance of known sensitive areas and provides specific guidance for recovery in areas of 42

unknown cultural resources sensitivity. To further minimize effects, recovery procedures in areas 43

with a high probability of cultural resources would include at least one qualified archaeologist 44

April 2018 49



from WSMR with each recovery team to assist in avoidance of known sites and all recovery 1

personnel would be instructed concerning the prohibition on collecting cultural resources 2

materials and the requirement to report observed materials to the WSMR archaeologist, who will 3

provide the report to the Forest Service. 4

While the new booster drop zone encompasses an area measuring approximately 6.4 kilometers 5

by 7 kilometersm (4 miles by 4.4 miles), the area is strategically about two times larger than 6

would be practically required. If the boosters from each of the 35 planned launches were to drop 7

in a different location within the drop zone, the combined footprint of those impacts would 8

measure approximately 27 meters by 27 meters (89 feet by 89 feet) (736 square meters; 7,921 9

square feet) or just 0.0016% of the entire drop zone (490,659,840 square feet). A portion of the 10

new booster drop zone also is overlain by the Theater Missile Defense Launch Hazard Area 11

(LHA), which was evaluated for impacts in 1994 and again in 2009. In those documents, the 12

probability of a spent booster landing on an archaeological site within the Theater Missile 13

Defense LHA (within the Zuni Mountains Unit, adjacent to FWDA), which encompasses more 14

than half of the new booster drop zone, or within Booster Drop Zone C (within the Magdalena 15

District, not to be used for these smaller missiles) was determined to be very low; the NM SHPO 16

concurred with that finding in both evaluations. 17

Recovery of the booster or flight termination debris would be accomplished using ATVs under 18

permit from the Cibola NF, Taylor Ranger District, helicopters, and on foot. Where necessary to 19

go off-road to access a booster, the team would use the minimum number of ATVs with rubber 20

tires and follow existing paths to the extent possible to utilize the shortest, most direct route 21

while avoiding any identified sites. 22

Booster impact locations would be inspected by a qualified professional archaeologist to 23

determine if any cultural resources were affected by the impact. In the unlikely event a booster 24

impacts on or in the vicinity of an archaeological site, the archaeologist would advise recovery 25

personnel on procedures to minimize further damage to the resource that could result from the 26

removal of booster components. The archaeologist would also provide to the USFS a follow-on 27

damage assessment of effects prepared in accordance with Forest Service procedures. Any 28

environmental restoration activities required in the vicinity of an archaeological site would be 29

postponed until a site damage assessment is prepared and measures to protect or recover affected 30

archaeological materials and data are considered. Before engaging in any post-recovery survey 31

activities, the archaeologist would obtain the required Forest Service lands cultural resources 32

survey permits. Archaeological excavation permits would also be obtained if data recovery at an 33

impacted archaeological site is necessary. Cultural resources survey activities would be reported 34

promptly and in accordance with New Mexico Cultural Resources Information System 35

(NMCRIS) standards for site and survey recording. If effects on cultural resources cannot be 36

avoided by recovery operations, or if a site is affected by a booster impact, further consultation 37

with the NM SHPO to evaluate the significance of the affected resources and to consider 38

measures to reduce the adverse effects would be performed. Adherence to these practices and 39

procedures would minimize the potential for impacts to cultural sites. 40

On September 19, the USFS conducted a pre-consultation with the NMSHPO regarding the 41

appropriate inventpry strategy to determine the potential effects of the undertaking to historic 42

properties, in accordance with Stipulation V.C.3 of the Region 3 First Amended Programmatic 43

Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities. On September 30, 2016, 44

NMSHPO agreed with the USFS that USASMDC/ARSTRAT's proposal to conduct a literature 45

review of existing survey within the proposed drop zone was adequate to determine potential 46

April 2018 50



effectsof the undertaking on historic properties. USASMDC/ARSTRAT submitted the Solid-1

Fueled Rocket Motor Target Launches Booster Drop Zone within the Cibola National Forest, 2

Previously Recorded Heritage Site Inventory NMCRIS Online and Cibola National Forest File 3

Review and Site Clearance Report (Report 2016-03-061/NMCRIS 139330; Mark E. Hubbs, 4

USASMDC-DCSEN archaeologist) to the USFS on December 21, 2017. February 2, 2018, the 5

NMSHPO concurred with the no adverse effect as determined by the USFS on behalf of the 6

USASMDC/ARSTRAT and the US Navy. USFS Cibola NF & NG Forest Supervisor Ms. Elaine 7

Kohrman provided a letter dated February 28, 2018, to USASMDC/ARSTRAT stating the 8

NMSHPO concurred with the finding of no adverse effect on cultural resources provided that the 9

mitigation measures detailed in the Site Clearance Report are followed. Ms Kohrman’s letter 10

approved the final cultural resources clearance for this undertaking. 11

Based on the proposed practices and procedures, with USFS and NMSHPO concurrence, no 12

significant impacts to cultural resources from post-launch activities are expected. 13


No activities other than those routinely conducted on FWLC would happen if the No-Action 15

Alternative were selected by the proponent. Therefore, no impacts to cultural resources would 16

result. 17


In 2011, the Cibola NF completed the Environmental Assessment for Travel Management on Mt 19

Taylor District, Cibola NF. This EA provided an analysis of travel through the Cibola NF, Mt 20

Taylor District, with new restrictions for off highway vehicle use. Decisions made based on the 21

analysis included no public off-road vehicle use within the area represented in the proposed 22

booster drop zone. Another EA, the Zuni Mountain Trails Project EA, is a sub-project of the 23

above covering closure and decommissioning of some roads within the Zuni Mountains using 24

various methods and designation of mountain bike and hiking trails in the same area. The USFS 25

is responsible for the maintenance of identified cultural sites within the Cibola NF and has 26

procedures in place for the protection of cultural sites under the USFS Heritage Program. The 27

establishment of specific trails for mountain bikers and hikers and the restriction of off-road 28

vehicle use would preserve significant cultural sites from those activities. Because of the 29

procedures and protections in place through SMDC, NSWC, and USFS, these projects, in 30

combination with the Proposed Action, would have no significant impacts to cultural resources 31

within the proposed booster drop zone. Environmental assessment documents for potentially 32

contemporary activities include: 33








closed in March 2017; a Draft EA is expected in May 2017. This EA is an off-shoot of 41





April 2018 51













NF. 11







Mountains. 18

No cumulative impacts to cultural resources are expected as a result of the proposed action. 19

4.3 Health And Safety 20


Launch operations at FWLC follow established safety programs managed through WSMR Range 22

Operations. All prelaunch operations will be governed by US Army Materiel Command 23

Regulation 385-100, Safety, and established WSMR safety programs. All handling of explosives 24

at FWLC would require implementation of a written procedure which has been approved by the 25

WSMR Safety Office and must be conducted under the supervision of an approved ordnance 26

officer using explosive-certified personnel. All storage and handling of explosives is required to 27

take place in facilities designed to handle explosives and which have been sited in accordance 28

with the requirements of Army Materiel Command Regulation 385-100, Safety. The regulation 29

specifies the required Explosive Safety Quantity Distances for a facility to ensure safety in the 30

event of explosion, based upon the maximum quantity of explosive material permitted for the 31

facility. Proper siting would prevent a chain-reaction where each explosion initiates explosions 32

in adjacent storage facilities. Prelaunch activities conducted in accordance with all established 33

safety procedures are considered to be a not significant impact. 34

The LHA provides a designated hazard area which is cleared of people based upon the potential 35

to be affected by missile debris resulting from an unsuccessful launch. The LHA size is 36

determined by simulating the missile/target's capability to veer off course for the full time it 37

would take FWLC tracking equipment to identify a launch anomaly and allow the range safety 38

officer to initiate the Flight Termination System. The analysis covers all directions (360 degrees) 39

about the launcher. The outer perimeter of the debris for all chosen directions is plotted and 40

defines the dimensions of the LHA (WSMR Flight Safety, undated). WSMR would control all 41

flight activities from FWLC and will be responsible for emergency response to any unplanned 42

flight termination occurring during flight operations. Due to the implementation of LHAs at the 43

launch sites, safety impacts due to debris impact associated with launches are considered to be 44

not significant. 45

April 2018 52



Because booster drop zones are established to ensure the risk to the public is eliminated, booster 1

recovery time is minimized, and security can be enforced, adverse environmental effect are 2


designated drop zones. A helicopter would sweep the booster drop zone prior to launch to ensure 4

evacuation. Either the USASMDC/ARSTRAT or NSWC would request the WSMR Range 5

Services Branch to provide teams for debris recovery. Off-road vehicular travel would be limited 6

and a qualified environmental monitor would be part of the recovery team. Booster recovery or 7

flight termination debris recovery would be in accordance with the WSMR SOP for 8

Environmental Protection During Recovery Action. This SOP focuses on guidelines for 9

avoidance of known sensitive areas and provides specific guidance for recovery in areas of 10

unknown sensitivity. 11

Because actions would be taken in accordance with the WSMR SOP, impact to health and safety 12

would be not significant. 13


Implementation of the No-Action Alternative would mean launches of solid rocket motors would 15

not occur on FWLC. No impacts to health and safety would occur from the No-Action 16

Alternative. 17


Other flight testing operations currently occurring at FWLC have undergone separate NEPA 19

evaluation with findings of no significant impacts. The number of flight tests from FWLC to 20

WSMR between 1998 and 2015 was fifteen. The addition of a maximum of two flights per year 21

for the first five years and up to five flights per year for the following five years would occur in 22

accordance with the by US Army Materiel Command Regulation 385-100, Safety, with the 23

established WSMR safety programs, and the WSMR SOP for Environmental Protection During 24

Recovery Action; hence, no cumulative safety effects would result. 25


projects, in combination with the Proposed Action, would have no significant impacts to health 27

and safety within the proposed booster drop zone. 28
















April 2018 53










NF. 8







Mountains. 15 16

No cumulative impacts to health and safety are expected from the Proposed Action. 17

4.4 Land Use 18


Although FWDA is currently closed and in caretaker status, the land use was formerly dedicated 20

to a Department of the Army and DoD mission and is being used as FWLC in accordance with 21

Permit Number DACA63-4-10-0593 that has been extended until 31 May 2020. 22

USASMDC/ARSTRAT and NSWC plan to execute two launches within the first five years with 23

up to five launches per year for the following five years. Because booster drop zones are 24

established to ensure the risk to the public is eliminated, booster recovery time is minimized, and 25

security can be enforced, adverse environmental effects are minimized. Missile trajectories are 26

preplanned prior to firing so spent boosters would impact in designated drop zones. Either the 27

USASMDC/ARSTRAT or NSWC would request assistance from the WSMR Range Services 28

Branch to provide teams for debris recovery. Off-road ATV travel would be limited and a 29

qualified environmental monitor would be part of the recovery teams. Closure of the booster 30

drop zone area within the Cibola NF to recreational use and evacuation of private lands within 31

the same area would be temporary and launches would be discrete events with time in between. 32

Impacts to land use would not be significant from the Proposed Action. 33


Implementation of the No-Action Alternative would mean launches of solid rocket motors would 35

not occur on FWLC. No impacts to land use would occur from the No-Action Alternative. 36


Intermittent activities at FWLC would continue for the solid rocket motor launch program. No 38

other new program activities that would run concurrently with the Proposed Action have been 39

identified; therefore, no known additive, incremental cumulative land use impacts exist. 40


projects, in combination with the Proposed Action, would have no significant impacts to land use 42

within the proposed booster drop zone. 43

April 2018 54

























NF. 23







Mountains. 30 31 No cumulative impacts to land use are expected to result from the Proposed Action. 32

4.5 Environmental Effects Of The No-Action Alternative 33

Under the No-Action Alternative, SMDC and NSWC would not conduct solid-fueled rocket 34

motor launches as described in the Proposed Action. There would be no additional impacts to the 35

environment based on the No-Action Alternative. 36

4.6 Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice In Minority Populations And 37

Low-Income Populations (Executive Order 12898) 38

Proposed activities would be conducted in a manner that would not substantially affect human 39

health and the environment and would not create Environmental Justice concerns. No native 40

population resides at FWLC or within the booster drop zone in the Cibola NF. This EA has 41

identified no effects that would result in disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority or 42

low-income populations in the area. The activities also would be conducted in a manner that 43

would not exclude persons from participating in, deny persons the benefits of, or subject persons 44

to discrimination because of their race, color, national origin, or socioeconomic status. 45

April 2018 55



4.7 Federal Actions to Address Protection of Children From Environmental Health 1

Risks and Safety Risks (Executive Order 13045, As Amended by Executive Order 2

13229) 3

This EA has not identified any environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately 4

affect children, in compliance with EO 13045, as amended by EO 13229. 5

6

April 2018 56



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13


15

April 2018 57



5.0 REFERENCES 1

Brown, B.T., G. S. Mills, C. Powels, W. A. Russell, G. D. Therres, and J. J. Pottie. 1999. 2

The Influence of Weapons-Testing Noise on Bald Eagle Behavior. Journal of Raptor 3

Research 33(3) 227-232. 4

Cather, S.M., 2004, The Laramide orogeny in central and northern New Mexico and 5

southern Colorado, in Mack, G.H., and Giles, K.A., eds., The Geology of New 6

Mexico, A Geologic History: New Mexico Geological Society Special Publication 7

11, p.203-248. 8

CNHP (Colorado Natural Heritage Program). 2005. Ecological System Descriptions and 9

Viability Guidelines for Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado 10

State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 11

Conomy, JT; Dubovsky, JA; Collazo, JA; Fleming, WJ. 1998. Do black ducks and wood 12

ducks habituate to aircraft disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management Vol. 62, no. 13

3, pp. 1135-1142. 14

Delaney, DK; Grubb, TG; Beier, P; Pater, LL; Reiser, MH. 1999. Effects of helicopter 15

noise on Mexican spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management Vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 16

60-76. 17

Dooling, R. J. and A. N. Popper. 2007. The Effects of Highway Noise on Birds. 18

California Department of Transportation. September 30. 19

Hughes, J. M. 2015. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), The Birds of North 20

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from 21

the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/418. 22

Manci, K.M., D.N. Gladwin, R. Villella, and M.G. Cavendish. 1988. Effects of aircraft 23

noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: a literature synthesis. US 24

Fish and Wildlife Service. National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO. 25

NERC-88/29. 26

McKinley County. 2014. Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, McKinley 27

County, New Mexico. October 28

Missile Defense Agency, 2007. Flexible Target Family Environmental Assessment, 29

October. 30

Missile Defense Agency. 2004. Use of Tributyl Phosphate in the Intercept Debris 31

Measurement Program at White Sands Missile Range Environmental Assessment. 32

April. 33

National Park Service. 1989. Reconnaissance Survey of Eight US Air Force Training 34

Drop Zones in New Mexico. August. 35

Natureserve. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web 36

application]. Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. USA. Available 37

http://explorer.natureserve.org. Accessed: November 2015. 38

Naval Surface Warfare Center. 2007. Environmental Assessment for US Navy 39

STANDARD Missile Family Testing Program. August. 40

April 2018 58



NMCRIS, Historic Preservation Division, ARMS database. Accessed October 2015-1

December 2017. 2

NHNM Species Information. From Natural Heritage New Mexico. 2015. NMBiotics 3

Database. Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico, 4

Albuquerque, NM. Online: http://nhnm.unm.edu. Accessed on January 22, 2016. 5

NMRPTC (New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council). 1999. New Mexico Rare Plants. 6

Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Rare Plants Home Page. 7

http://nmrareplants.unm.edu (Latest update: 20 April 2015). Accessed November 8

2015. 9

Oestman, R., D. Buehler, J. Reyff, and R. Rodkin. 2009. Technical Guidance for 10

Assessment and Mitigation of the hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish. 11

Place Dynamics, LLC. 2011. Market Analysis for the Retail, Lodging, and Dining 12

Sectors in the City of Gallup, New Mexico. http://www.placedynamics.com, accessed 13

March 2016. 14

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2014. http://www.swf.usace.army.mil, accessed 15

March 2016 and March 2018. 16

US Census Bureau. 2015. “State and County QuickFacts.” 17

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35/35031.html. Last accessed 12 November 18

2015. 19

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), 2015. Cibola National Forest and 20

National Grasslands Fiscal Year 2014 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. August 21

2015. 22

US Department of the Army. 2015. “Fort Wingate, New Mexico; Exercise Renewal 23

Option for Permit No. DACA63-4-10-0593.” May 29. 24

US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. 2000. Establishment 25

of Restricted Areas R-5117, R-5119, R-5121 and R-5123; NM. 65 Federal Register 26

21306. April 21. 27

USFS (US Forest Service) 2016. Personal communication from Cibola National Forest 28

and National Grassland Wildlife Biologist, Consuelo Zamora. 29

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 30

Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 31

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. 32

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 33

Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. 34

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Final Recovery Plan for the Mexican 35

Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), First Revision. U.U. Fish and Wildlife 36

Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. 413 pp. 37

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015. Environmental Conservation Online 38

System (ECOS) Species Profiles. http://ecos.fws.gov. Accessed November 2015. 39

SSDC (US Army Space and Strategic Defense Command). 1992. Final Environmental 40

Impact Statement for the Strategic Target System. May 1992. 41

http://ecos.fws.gov/

April 2018 59



SSDC (US Army Space and Strategic Defense Command) 1994a. Theater Missile 1

Defense Extended Test Range Final Environmental Impact Statement. November 2

1994. 3

SSDC (US Army Space and Strategic Defense Command) 1994b. Theater Missile 4

Defense Hera Target Systems. January 1994. 5

SSDC (US Army Space and Strategic Defense Command). 1997. PATRIOT Advanced 6

Capability-3 (PAC-3) Life Cycle Environmental Assessment. May 1997. 7

8

April 2018 60



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13


April 2018 61



6.0 AGENCIES CONTACTED 1

Correspondence with the following agencies is found in Appendix B. 2

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service 3

Cibola National Forest & National Grasslands 4

2113 Osuna Road, NE 5

Albuquerque, NM 87113 6

New Mexico Historic Preservation Division 7

Department of Cultural Affairs 8

Bataan Memorial Building 9

407 Galisteo Street, Suite 236 10

Santa Fe, NM 87501 11

12

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 13

Ecological and Environmental Planning Division 14

One Wildlife Way 15

Santa Fe, NM 87507 16

17

18

April 2018 62



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15


April 2018 63



7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 1

Government Preparers 2

Mark E. Hubbs, Environmental Protection Specialist/Archaeologist, US Army Space and 3

Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command 4

M.A., Archaeology and Heritage, University of Leicester, UK 5

M.S., Environmental Management, Samford University 6

B.A., History, Henderson State University 7

Years of Experience: 26 8

9

Sharon Mitchell, Environmental Engineer, US Army Space and Missile Defense 10

Command/Army Forces Strategic Command 11

B.S.E., Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Alabama in Huntsville 12


Contractor Preparers 14

S. Clayton Hendrix, Professional Geologist, Environmental Scientist, Teledyne Brown 15

Engineering, Inc. 16

M.S., Environmental Management, Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama 17

B.S., Geography and Geology, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky 18


Karen Hoksbergen, Biologist, Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. 20

M.S., Biology, Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan 21

B.S., Biology, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Steven Point, Wisconsin 22

B.S., Wildlife University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Steven Point, Wisconsin 23


Rickie D. Moon, Senior Environmental Scientist, Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. 25

M.S., Environmental Management, Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama 26

B.S., Chemistry and Mathematics, Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama 27

Years of Experience: 3028

April 2018 64



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11


April 2018 A-1



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Appendix A 13

14

Former FWDA Map of Negotiated Property Division 15

16

April 2018 A-2



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11


13

14

April 2018 A-3



1

April 2018 A-4



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

This page left blank intentionally.12

April 2018 B-1



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Appendix B 12

13

Agency Correspondence 14

15

16

17

18

April 2018 B-2



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11


April 2018 B-3



1

2

April 2018 B-4



1

2

April 2018 B-5



1

2

April 2018 B-6



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11


13