[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