Now, by comparison, here is what we are talking about. These three lines for the most part running along roads, 120 miles of the 130 miles would lie along previously developed rights of ways, only 10 new miles of rights of way would be required, 1 mile only of which would be on private land. This, tied electronically by telephone lease cable to the 14-by-14 mile site we are now operating in Wisconsin. That site would have to be upgraded with new transmitter parts since all we have there is laboratory-type equipment, the same type of thing we have on the submarines. Now, what does that do for us? Put the next one on, please. [Slide deleted.] We can send a [deleted] letter message equivalent in about [deleted] minutes to submarines operating at [deleted] out, to this line. Everything in here will get that message in that time. Those beyond it can go slower, which is very practical. In fact, SSBN's would be doing that most of the time. Or they could come shallower and get the message. This means we can cover the whole Mediterranean, this part, by submarines coming up so much shallower. This is a curve we estimate is good for [deleted] percent of the time. Now, that covers just about everything that we are doing today with the exception of say the submarines at Guam, and as we put the Trident in, operating out of here, those submariners will be phased out. So, that it looks to us, Mr. Chairman, as though that will cover our essential needs, and we think it is a good compromise. The problem we have got, of course, is that many people feel that our credibility is zero, and this is a "foot in the door," and I think that I have tried to explain it to the people along these lines. We get most of what we are after with this. We get to talk to submarines in both oceans. We keep them off the surface, away from the surface. If we built the biggest ELF system you could build and cover the whole United States it wouldn't be a communication system, ala the type we use to send long messages, high data rate messages, long intelligence digests, retargeting. You have to have this, you still need to have a wire up once in a while. You do it at the commander's choosing, not forcing him to some schedule that keeps him up there all the time. Now, where do we stand? In January, we went to the Systems Acquisition Review Council; had a program review. We recommended against the big Seafarer system, because of public opposition and everything else, and because this was such a good "backdown" type thing which accommodated, we felt, to the objection of many people, and also did what we thought was an essential minimum type job for the submarines. The President terminated Seafarer by a letter to the Secretary of Defense. He instructed us to look at and plan for this type of system, situated as I have shown you in these States, and instructed us to go out and educate or transmit the knowledge of this type of system to the people, including the Governors, the State officials, and congressional delegations. We have gone. The Under Secretary of the Navy and I together have gone to each of these groups, and we have not had any ringing acclaim of acceptance from anybody. I think a lot of people agree that this is a whole lot more sensible. I think a lot of people agree if we had started this in the beginning we probably would have the system now. But obviously we have problems still and opposition generated by those opposition groups who oppose it wherever it goes, whatever size. Now, technically, it is ready to go. We are still educating, doing that kind of educational process, attempting to gain some support from the groups in those States, and we continue to look at any other alternatives. We have exhausted the alternatives to date, but we are still looking and we will continue to look. That, sir, I think, summarizes it. Senator MCINTYRE. Admiral Kaufman, I appreciate your succinct testimony and your report that the National Academy of Sciences has. in general, concluded that environmental hazards are unwarranted. that you complied with the environmental impact position, and that you have complied with our request that you define a small ELF system that would meet military requirements but use less land. Regarding the one problem that the National Academy of Sciences identified, shock hazard, will you be able to demonstrate that this problem is solved by the time you would request preproduction funds? Admiral KAUFMAN. Yes, sir. Senator MCINTYRE. What additional requirements will you need to meet under the environmental impact legislation, before you proceed to actual deployment of such system? Admiral KAUFMAN. I think we have covered everything we need to. We have just had a review by the Judge Advocate General of the Navy in the last week and have transmitted a finding of the Judge Advocate General down to the Department of Defense. I have not seen the words of the Defense General Counsel as yet, but I understand that they also sided with the view of the JAG that we have complied with the environmental impact statement. We will have to, assuming that this system were deployed-we would have to prior to saying the Wisconsin site is an operational site, submit a final environmental impact statement on the two systems which are operating in conjunction. This would be done in due time after a reasonable test period of about a year. Mr. SMITH. That would provide time for the individuals in both communities to comment? Admiral KAUFMAN. That is right. The process requires public hearings and comment in the same manner that the preliminary and final environmental impact statement test phase did provide for that. Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Senator MCINTYRE. Dr. Zeiberg, are there any sites other than the joint Michigan-Wisconsin one which DOD is seriously considering for the submarine ELF system? Dr. ZEIBERG. I would like to ask Admiral Kaufman to answer that. Admiral KAUFMAN. You said seriously considering, Mr. Chairman. We have looked at an awful lot of sites. One of the things the President's request outlined was to provide him a feel for the comparison of other places, and we did provide that. What our review showed is that costwise that area of Michigan, Wisconsin-basically, the Laurentian Shield area-is the cheapest place to be. You could go other places. You can build this thing darn near anywhere, but you go up to maybe 14 times, 16 times the cost in some places. So when you say seriously, I think that we have looked at an awful lot. We continue to look for some. Mr. SMITH. Will you provide a summary of your analysis that led you to the conclusion that this is the optimum site, for the record? Admiral KAUFMAN. Yes, sir. [The information follows:] SUMMARY Mr. Malcolm F. Baldwin, Senior Staff Member, Council on Environmental Quality recommended in a letter on 22 December 1977 to Mr. George Marienthal, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Environmental and Safety) that the Department of the Navy 'provide a concise comparative analysis ... of the significant impacts of a full scale and a reduced test scale Seafarer System in Wisconsin and Michigan" (1). It may also be useful to review studies which have been conducted since the 1960's for preferred locations for ELF Communications Systems. In 1965, the Radio Corporation of America recommended to the Department of the Navy that the northern part of the State of Wisconsin was the most suitable place in the Continental United States for an ELF Communications System (2). The recommendation was based on a tentative ELF system operational requirement which did not include the extensive criteria which subsequently evolved in 1967 for Project Sanguine. The RCA Communications Research Laboratory completed a new study of potential ELF Communications Systems locations based on Sanguine operational requirements in 1968 (3). At that time, RCA reported the following: Extensive conductivity measurements have been made For this reason alone, suitable sites for the ELF Initially, all of CONUS was considered in the selec- |