[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 154 (Thursday, August 11, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19549]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 11, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

 

Theater Missile Defense (TMD) Programmatic Life-Cycle Final 
Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO).

ACTION: Record of Decision text is as follows:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

    This document records BMDO's decision to conduct research and 
development (R&D) that will eventually enable the U.S. to produce and 
deploy a TMD system. This decision is the Proposed Action of the 
Theater Missile Defense Programmatic Life-Cycle Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (FEIS), dated September 1993.
    As the lead agency, the United States Army Space and Strategic 
Defense Command (USASSDC) prepared the FEIS. BMDO and the other 
military services--the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps--served as 
cooperating agencies. The FEIS was filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), and a Notice of Availability was published in 
the Federal Register on February 8, 1994 (59 FR page 5758).
    This Record of Decision (ROD) is submitted pursuant to the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), Department of 
Defense (DoD) Directive 6050.1, Environmental Effects in the United 
States of Department of Defense Actions (34 CFR Part 188), and service 
regulations that implement these environmental laws and regulations.
    Ideally, an operational TMD system would combine three components: 
Active Defense to destroy enemy missiles in flight; Counterforce to 
destroy an enemy's ability to launch missiles; and Passive Defense to 
evade detection and otherwise survive a missile attack. A Command, 
Control, Communications and Intelligence (C3I) network would manage and 
integrate the various elements of the system. An operational TMD system 
could be deployed by the mid- to late-1990s.
    The Programmatic FEIS is a first-tier document. It addresses 
program-wide issues and the potential impacts of technologies 
associated with the Proposed Action and its Alternatives. It considers 
the potential impacts of research, development, testing, production, 
basing (not site-specific deployment), and eventual decommissioning of 
TMD. It also identifies measures to mitigate those impacts. As the TMD 
program matures, decisions will be made regarding testing, and eventual 
production and deployment. In the event these decisions have the 
potential for significant environmental impact, they will be evaluated 
in accordance with NEPA and CEQ regulations. Supplemental or additional 
documentation tiered from this EIS will be prepared, if appropriate.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

    The Proposed Action is to conduct research and development that 
will enable the U.S. to produce and deploy an integrated, comprehensive 
TMD system. The system would include three components: Active Defense, 
Counterforce, and Passive Defense. The mixture of components would be 
based on mission needs, feasibility, lethality, mobility, technical 
maturity and cost, as well as environmental considerations and other 
factors.
    In addition to the Proposed Action, the FEIS also considered four 
Alternatives to the proposed Action:
    1. Improve Active Defense Only
    2. Improve Counterforce Only
    3. Improve Passive Defense Only
    4. No Action.
    Although the first three alternatives are considered in the FEIS as 
separate Alternatives to the Proposed Action, their evaluation also 
provides the information necessary to estimate the environmental 
impacts of a TMD system that blends two or three components. Pursuing 
only one of the first three Alternatives would yield only a limited TMD 
capability with only one technology area enhanced.
    Under the fourth Alternative, No Action, no new research, 
development, testing, production or basing would be conducted; and, 
therefore, no integrated, comprehensive TMD system would be developed. 
Normal improvement and maintenance of existing systems (aircraft, 
missiles, and radar) would continue, to assure their effectiveness 
against traditional combatant forces. New systems leading to an 
integrated TMD would not be developed.

Impacts and Mitigation

    The FEIS found no unavoidable, significant environmental impacts 
for the Proposed Action or any of the four Alternatives. In other 
words, any unavoidable effect, such as construction noise, will be 
temporary and not significant. Any conceivable significant impact, such 
as destruction of archaeological artifacts during construction, may be 
readily avoided by taking normal precautions and following standard 
procedures.
    Alternative 3, Passive Defense, might be termed the environmentally 
preferred alternative, since its impacts were analyzed to be minimal or 
none. This is because Passive Defense does not entail basing and 
decommissioning. Since no unavoidable, significant environmental 
impacts were identified for any Alternative, no unavoidable significant 
cumulative impacts were identified for the Proposed Action. 
Furthermore, because decisions on specific components and sites will be 
made later, specific and cumulative impacts will be addressed in the 
environmental documents that form those decisions, if appropriate.
    The No-Action Alternative involves no new development, but does 
continue routine improvement and maintenance of existing systems. The 
analysis of impacts associated with those activities is outside the 
scope of the TMD FEIS. They would be the subject of site-specific or 
program-specific documents prepared at a later date, if appropriate.

Decision

    The Proposed Action arises from compelling national security needs. 
Recent political and military changes throughout the world have 
required adjustments in U.S. defense strategy. Both Congress and the 
Executive Branch have placed a high priority on Theater Missile 
Defense, now the number one priority initiative within BMDO.
    The Missile Defense Act of 1991 stated ``* * * (it) is a goal of 
the United States to provide highly effective theater missile defenses 
to forward deployed and expeditionary elements of the armed forces of 
the United States and to friends and allies of the United States.'' 
This threat to U.S. interests is growing with improvements in missile 
performance and warhead design, proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, and increasing numbers of missile-armed nations.
    In May 1993, the Secretary of Defense announced changes in the 
ballistic missile defense program, and assigned a high priority to 
early deployment of improved theater missile defenses. He reiterated 
this priority in his September 1993 report on DoD's ``bottom-up'' 
review of ballistic missile defense. The requirement for a TMD 
capability relying on more than one technology or component was 
articulated in the Joint Requirements Oversight Mission Needs Statement 
(MNS) for TMD, ``* * * the theater missile threat cannot yet be 
countered by a single technical solution.''
    The FEIS found that neither the Proposed Action, nor any of four 
alternative approaches to satisfying this national security 
requirement, would create significant environmental impacts. In other 
words, there is no compelling environmental argument against the 
Proposed Action or in favor of any one Alternative. After careful 
review of the FEIS and consideration of national defense policy 
requirements, I [Director, BMDO] have decided to carry out the research 
and development program, within the responsibilities of BMDO, as 
described in the Proposed Action.

Monitoring and Enforcement

    In regard to TMD research and development activities and the 
contracts to support them, I [Director, BMDO] direct BMDO Deputies and 
Program Executive Officers to monitor these activities and ensure that 
environmental standards and controls described in this FEIS are 
followed. As subsequent decisions are made regarding system components 
and basing locations, and as their accompanying environmental documents 
elaborate specific requirements for monitoring and enforcement, I 
[Director, BMDO] will implement appropriate safeguards.

Date and Signature

    Record of Decision was signed July 30, 1994 by Malcolm R. O'Neill, 
Lieutenant General, United States Army, Director, Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Major Tracy Bailey, BMDO Environmental 
Coordinator, BMDO/AQT, Washington, DC 20301-7100, (703) 693-1744.

    Dated: August 5, 1994.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 94-19549 Filed 8-10-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M