[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 9, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43414-43419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-17312]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Record of Decision for the Enhanced Integrated Air and Missile
Defense System on Guam Environmental Impact Statement
AGENCY: Missile Defense Agency (MDA), Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The MDA, as the lead agency, and the United States Army (USA),
as a cooperating agency, are issuing this joint Record of Decision
(ROD) to implement the construction,
[[Page 43415]]
deployment, and operations and maintenance of the Enhanced Integrated
Air and Missile Defense (EIAMD) system on Guam, a territory of the U.S.
This action will enable MDA and USA to meet their congressional mandate
for a persistent 360-degree layered Integrated Air and Missile Defense
capability on Guam to address the rapid evolution of missile threats
from regional adversaries. Specifically, this ROD documents the
decision made, alternatives considered, and discussions of all related
and anticipated impacts. In addition to the USA, the United States Air
Force (USAF), United States Navy (USN), and Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) are participating as cooperating agencies due to
their jurisdiction or special expertise as it pertains to certain
components of the selected alternative or for potentially affected
operations and resources. The ROD details significant environmental
impacts, outlines mitigation measures, and identifies the
environmentally preferred alternative.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the EIAMD
System on Guam Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or this ROD,
please contact Mr. Mark Wright, MDA Public Affairs, at 571-231-8212 or
by email at mda.info@mda.mil">mda.info@mda.mil.
Downloadable electronic versions of the Final EIS and ROD are
available on MDA's website at https://www.mda.mil/system/eiamd/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. MDA and USA Decision and Regulatory Background
On February 25, 2025, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
published an interim final rule that removed all iterations of its
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations (as
required by Executive Order (E.O.) 14154, Unleashing American Energy),
effective April 11, 2025.
The EIS complies with guidance for implementing NEPA in effect at
the time of the preparation of the EIAMD System on Guam EIS: Section
102(2)(C) of NEPA of 1969, Sections 4321 et seq. of Title 42 United
States Code (U.S.C.); CEQ regulations; MDA's NEPA Implementing
Procedures (79 Federal Register 46410); USAF's Environmental Impact
Analysis Process (32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 989); USA's
NEPA Implementing Procedures (32 CFR part 651); USN's Procedures for
Implementing NEPA (32 CFR part 775); and Chief of Naval Operations
Instruction 5090.1E, Environmental Readiness Program; and Chief of
Naval Operations Manual M-5090.1, Environmental Readiness Program
Manual; and FAA NEPA implementing policies (FAA Order 1050.1F,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures).
The MDA and USA are issuing this ROD to select the Proposed Action,
as described in the EIAMD System on Guam Final EIS. This action will
allow them to construct and implement the EIAMD system capability,
along with its associated mission support facilities and infrastructure
requirements, on Guam. The other option, the No Action Alternative,
would be not to construct and implement the EIAMD system capability,
along with the associated mission support facilities and infrastructure
requirements, on Guam; this would not meet the purpose of or need for
the Proposed Action. The MDA and USA will request the FAA establish or
modify existing restricted airspace on Guam, as described in the EIAMD
System on Guam Final EIS, to address the High Intensity Radiated Fields
hazard introduced by the operation of the EIAMD system.
B. FAA Role
The FAA is a cooperating agency for the EIS because it is assigned
responsibilities pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40101 for civil aviation and
regulation of air commerce in the interests of aviation safety and
efficiency. The MDA and USA will request that the FAA, as a cooperating
agency, consider and adopt, in whole or in part, the EIS as the
required NEPA documentation to support FAA decisions on the
establishment and configuration of special use airspace. The FAA will
publish a separate public notification as part of its rulemaking
process and issue a separate ROD for the EIS in accordance with FAA
Joint Order 7400.2R, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.
C. Background
The selected action will construct, deploy, and operate and
maintain a comprehensive, persistent, 360-degree EIAMD system to defend
the entirety of Guam against the rapidly evolving threats of advanced
cruise, ballistic, and hypersonic missile attacks from regional
adversaries. The proposed EIAMD system includes a combination of MDA,
USA, and USN components that have been integrated for air and missile
defense and positioned on 16 sites on DoD lands across Guam. Site
preparation could begin late in calendar year 2025. Following
construction, testing, and final system check, the EIAMD system would
become operational.
D. Purpose and Need
Guam is a key strategic location for sustaining and maintaining
U.S. influence, deterring adversaries, responding to crises, and
maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific. Within the context of
homeland defense, an attack on Guam would be considered a direct attack
on the U.S. and would be met with an appropriate response. The
Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command has identified the need for a
comprehensive, persistent, 360-degree layered Integrated Air and
Missile Defense capability on Guam to address the rapid evolution of
missile threats from regional adversaries. The U.S. Congress codified
this requirement in the Fiscal Year (FY)22 and FY23 National Defense
Authorization Acts. This defensive architecture must be adaptable to
expand capability and capacity as the threat evolves. The purpose of
the Proposed Action is to provide an enhanced integrated air and
missile defense system to defend the entirety of Guam against rapidly
evolving threats of advanced cruise, ballistic, and hypersonic missile
attacks from regional adversaries as soon as possible.
E. NEPA Process
The NEPA process includes a robust public participation component.
The MDA initiated a 60-day formal public scoping period by publishing a
Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register on May 5,
2023. The public comment period was extended to 105 days to account for
impacts from Typhoon Mawar, which struck Guam on May 24, 2023. Three
public scoping meetings were held on Guam on August 2, 3, and 4, 2023.
The MDA received 136 comments during the scoping period, which closed
on August 18, 2023. The Draft EIS was released for a 75-day public
review and comment period from October 25, 2024, through January 8,
2025, with a Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register
on October 25 and 28, 2024. Two public meetings were held on Guam on
November 14 and 15, 2024. The MDA received 72 comment letters during
the public comment period, which closed on January 8, 2025. A Notice of
Availability for the EIAMD System on Guam Final EIS was published in
the Federal Register on July 25, 2025. This ROD concludes the NEPA
process.
[[Page 43416]]
F. Alternatives Considered
Although current U.S. forces are capable of defending Guam against
regional ballistic missile threats, regional threats to Guam continue
to increase and advance technologically. Guam's geographical location
in the Pacific, topography, existing DoD lands, and critical
infrastructure the island the only reasonable location capable of
accommodating the unique 360-degree EIAMD system performance
requirements. System components need to be distributed at locations
throughout Guam to provide the performance required to defend against
threats. As such, alternatives analyzed in the EIAMD System on Guam EIS
consist of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative.
1. No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the EIAMD system would not be
established on Guam. By implementing the No Action Alternative,
defensive capabilities would not expand to provide enhanced defense
capability for Guam against the rapidly evolving threats of potential
missile attacks from regional adversaries. The No Action Alternative
serves as the baseline against which the Proposed Action is compared.
2. Proposed Action
The Proposed Action is to implement an EIAMD system capability by
constructing, deploying, and operating and maintaining a comprehensive,
persistent, 360-degree EIAMD system for air and missile defense
positioned on 16 sites on DoD properties on Guam. Of the proposed 16
sites, which include mission support sites, 8 are on Naval Base Guam
(NBG) (including the NBG Munitions Site [NMS]), 6 are on Andersen Air
Force Base (AAFB), and 2 are on Marine Corps Base Camp Blaz (MCBCB).
Two sites (MCBCB South and NBG Nimitz Hill) would have Explosive Safety
Quantity Distance arcs that encroach on non-DoD land, potentially
requiring real estate actions on those properties. Additionally, one
site (NMS Northeast) would require a road easement across Government of
Guam lands to access the EIAMD system site on DoD property. In
addition, the Proposed Action would include modifications and
restrictions to existing airspace.
G. Environmental Impacts
The EIAMD System on Guam Final EIS includes an analysis of
potential impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative on
the following resource areas; airspace management, health and safety,
cultural resources, terrestrial biological resources, socioeconomics,
protection of children and environmental justice, land use and
recreational resources, transportation, visual quality, utilities, air
quality, greenhouse gases,\1\ noise, water resources, and geological
and soil resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While climate change and greenhouse gases were analyzed as a
resource area, subsequent guidance and changes in regulatory
requirements drove the decision to exclude climate change and
greenhouse gases from consideration in making the decision of which
alternative to select.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion below summarizes only those resource areas expected
to have significant impacts as a result of implementation of the
Proposed Action. Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIS, all
other resource areas were determined to have less than significant
impacts.
1. Terrestrial Biological Resources
Site Preparation and Construction: Implementation of the Proposed
Action would result in removal of limestone forest (biologically
important habitat for native wildlife and federal Endangered Species
Act (ESA)-listed species) across nine sites. Implementation of
mitigation measures would reduce expected impacts on terrestrial
biological resources on Guam but impacts from the loss of limestone
forest would remain major, long term, and significant with
implementation of the Proposed Action.
There would be significant impacts from the removal of
approximately 5,459 individuals of the federal ESA-listed threatened
plant Cycas micronesica at five locations. Implementation of mitigation
measures would reduce impacts from the implementation of the Proposed
Action. Due to the ongoing population decline of Cycas micronesica on
Guam, combined with the additional loss of approximately 5,459
individuals, the impacts on Cycas micronesica would remain major, long
term, and significant.
There would be significant impacts on the ESA-listed threatened
Mariana fruit bat due to loss of 235 acres of limestone forest habitat.
Given this loss of foraging and roosting habitat and the critically low
numbers of fruit bats on Guam, the loss would be a major, direct, long-
term, and significant impact on Mariana fruit bats but mitigable to
less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures
(e.g., improving foraging and roosting habitat through the
establishment of habitat enhancement sites [HESs]).
2. Socioeconomics (Housing and Health Care)
Site Preparation and Construction: Construction of the Proposed
Action would require an average of 400 construction workers annually,
and span over 10 years, with approximately 240 workers (60 percent)
expected to be in-migrant laborers originating off Guam. Construction
contractors may house in-migrant workers in suitable temporary
workforce housing facilities or be required to find accommodations
within the local housing market. The 2020 Guam Housing and Needs Study
identified a need for an additional 9,908 housing units between 2020
and 2025 to meet community demand. In-migrant workers accommodated
within the local housing market would further impact housing
availability on Guam. Impacts on housing associated with the influx of
in-migrant workers, although temporary, would have direct and indirect
long-term, major, and significant impacts on the availability of
housing on Guam.
Operations and Maintenance: Because the overall availability of
housing on Guam is low, EIAMD system personnel arriving from other
locations would serve on a rotational basis until adequate community
support facilities are available. DoD recognizes the need for
additional Life Support Facilities on Guam, including housing, to
support the additional mission requirements. DoD is reviewing these
needs holistically and plans to address the EIAMD system housing needs
before the arrival of dependents in 2031. In the interim, for the
Proposed Action, the USA plans to phase the deployment of EIAMD system
personnel arriving on Guam. All EIAMD system personnel and dependents
(except for civilian personnel and DoD contractors) arriving prior to
2031 will be housed in military housing units located on military
installations as available. This phased approach would minimize the
initial need for housing for EIAMD system personnel and limit the
impact on Guam's housing market.
Beginning in 2031, approximately 2,300 permanent military and
civilian personnel and their dependents, and 44 contractors supporting
the EIAMD system, would reside on Guam. An estimated 20 percent (469
individuals) would require off-base housing. The projected housing
requirement to support these personnel and their dependents is 324
units, which is approximately 18.8 percent of the currently available
rental units on Guam that meet military housing standards. The local
housing market and military housing may have sufficient capacity to
meet the number of units required for
[[Page 43417]]
operations personnel and their dependents arriving in 2031. The extent
of impacts on housing, however, would depend on the availability of
military housing, both the number of units and the timing of the
construction of new units with the arrival of personnel, to support
multiple DoD projects on Guam. Considering the limited availability of
housing and the unmet community demand for housing units on Guam,
impacts on housing are expected to be long term, major, and
significant.
Given the increase in population associated with the Proposed
Action, impacts on medical and health care services were determined to
be long term and significant based on Guam's status as a Medically
Underserved Area and the likelihood that the 2,300 permanent personnel
and their dependents arriving on the island in 2031 would require
access to local medical services, increasing the demand on a system
that is already significantly overburdened. The DoD is also looking at
medical services holistically and plans to address these needs prior to
the arrival of dependents in 2031; military personnel associated with
the Proposed Action would receive general health services at the
military treatment facilities, which would minimize impacts on Guam.
3. Transportation
Site Preparation and Construction: Site preparation and
construction would result in significant short-term impacts on traffic
at six intersections.
Operations and Maintenance: When compared to the 2035 baseline
traffic conditions (conditions after completion of construction), 13
intersections are currently operating at level of service (LOS) F but
would have an increase of at least 50 additional vehicles during peak
AM/PM hours as a result of the Proposed Action. Therefore, impacts from
operations and maintenance would be long term, major, and significant.
4. Cumulative
Pursuant to E.O. 14154, the CEQ issued guidance, ``Implementation
of the National Environmental Policy Act,'' dated February 19, 2025,
directing federal agencies to establish or update their NEPA
implementing procedures by February 19, 2026, consistent with NEPA as
amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-5). With
respect to cumulative impacts considerations, the CEQ guidance
provides: ``Effects: Federal agencies should analyze the reasonably
foreseeable effects of the proposed action consistent with section 102
of NEPA, which does not employ the term `cumulative effects;' NEPA
instead requires consideration of `reasonably foreseeable' effects,
regardless of whether or not those effects might be characterized as
`cumulative.''' Because of the regulations in effect at the time of the
preparation of the EIS, the Final EIS supporting this ROD continues to
provide an analysis of cumulative effects, however, the decision in
this ROD must only consider those effects resulting from the reasonably
foreseeable impacts of the Proposed Action. This approach is consistent
with the May 29, 2025, decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Seven
County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 605 U.S.
___; 145 S. Ct. 1497; 221 L. Ed. 2d 820 (2025). Further explanation of
the cumulative effects can be found in Chapter 4 (Cumulative Impacts)
of the Final EIS.
Cumulative impacts for all resources, except terrestrial biological
resources, socioeconomics (specifically, housing, medical services, and
Government of Guam that provide infrastructure support on the island),
and transportation, were determined to be less than significant.
There would be significant, adverse, cumulative impacts on
terrestrial biological resources due to the removal of limestone forest
and the removal of approximately 5,459 individuals of the Federal ESA-
listed plant species Cycas micronesica.
Any additional demand on the local housing market as a
result of the increase in EIAMD system personnel on Guam would result
in a significant cumulative impact. In addition, given that Guam is
designated as a Medically Underserved Area and Government of Guam
services related to infrastructure support are already strained, any
additional demands on these services are also considered significant
cumulative impacts.
Significant cumulative impacts would occur at 6
transportation roadway intersections from site preparation and
construction and at 13 transportation roadway intersections associated
with operations and maintenance when impacts of the selected action are
combined with those of other actions. Implementation of the Proposed
Action would generate increased traffic due to other ongoing projects
on Guam.
H. Agency Coordination
The MDA and USA have consulted and coordinated with appropriate
agencies and representatives, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), Guam State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and
Bureau of Statistics and Plans (BSP), during planning and development
of the EIS. A summary of the results from each consultation and
coordination process is included below:
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In accordance with
the USFWS under Section 7 of the Federal ESA, the MDA and USA received
a Biological Opinion (BO) on July 9, 2025 and the associated terms and
conditions are addressed in this ROD. Species addressed in the BO
include Mariana fruit bat, Mariana common moorhen, Mariana swiftlet,
Guam kingfisher, Guam rail, Mariana crow, Mariana eight-spot butterfly,
and eight plant species: Bulbophyllum guamense, Cycas micronesica,
Dendrobium guamense, Eugenia bryanii, Heritiera longipetiolata,
Phyllanthus saffordii, Tabernaemontana rotensis, and Tuberolabium
guamense. The USFWS estimates the Proposed Action will potentially
result in the incidental take of Mariana fruit bat in the form of
harassment due to nighttime construction and ungulate control
activities. Further, the USFWS estimates that incidental take in the
form of capture and collection and mortality of Mariana eight-spot
butterfly due to the development of the AAFB Munitions Storage Area
(MSA) site. The USFWS determined the Proposed Action including the
estimated anticipated take is likely to adversely affect, but is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of, the Mariana fruit bat,
Mariana eight-spot butterfly, Bulbophyllum guamense, Cycas micronesica,
Dendrobium guamense, Eugenia bryanii, Heritiera longipetiolata,
Phyllanthus saffordii, Tabernaemontana rotensis, Tuberolabium guamense,
or the three extirpated species, the Guam kingfisher, Mariana crow, or
Guam rail. The USFWS concurred with the determination the Proposed
Action may affect but is unlikely to adversely affect Guam tree snail,
humped tree snail, fragile tree snail, Mariana common moorhen and
Mariana swiftlet. The MDA and USA commit to all the conservation
measures, best management practices, the reasonable and associated
terms, prudent measure, and terms and conditions in the BO.
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The MDA and USA
are required to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA for the EIAMD
undertaking. Joint Region Marianas (JRM), MDA, and USA, through
consultations with the Guam SHPO, have determined the Programmatic
Agreement among the Commander, Navy Region Marianas (CNRM); the
Advisory Council on
[[Page 43418]]
Historic Preservation; and the Guam SHPO regarding Navy Undertakings on
the Island of Guam, November 20, 2008, applies to the Proposed Action
and thus fulfills the federal agency obligations under Section 106. The
2008 Programmatic Agreement applies to all undertakings initiated
within the USN's area of responsibility, regardless of whether they are
initiated, funded, or carried out by CNRM (now JRM) or by another
command or lessee of the USN. AAFB, MCBCB, NMS, and NBG are currently
under USN joint command. The 2008 Programmatic Agreement provides
alternate, streamlined procedures for completing the Section 106
process for agreed-upon undertakings. Any adverse effects on historic
properties in the study area will be mitigated in accordance with the
2008 Programmatic Agreement.
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The MDA and USA
completed the CZMA federal consistency process for the Proposed Action
on Guam. JRM submitted the Coastal Consistency Determination to BSP on
March 11, 2025. JRM received conditional concurrence from BSP that the
Proposed Action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with
the enforceable policies of Guam's Coastal Management Program (GCMP) on
May 8, 2025. The Proposed Action was updated as part of the Final EIS
to clarify it will be implemented consistent with the enforceable
policies of the GCMP to the maximum extent practicable, satisfying the
conditions in the BSP's conditional concurrence. Thus, the Proposed
Action, as described in the Final EIS, is fully consistent with GCMP's
enforceable policies to the maximum extent practicable.
I. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring
The MDA and USA will take all practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm while still fulfilling the need for the
360-degree defense of Guam. Mitigation measures are summarized below.
The MDA and USA will use a mitigation monitoring database to track the
implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EIS.
1. Biological Resources
The following is a general summary of the mitigation measures that
will be implemented commensurate with impacts to minimize impacts on
terrestrial biological resources. A detailed list of the conservation
and mitigation measures, best management practices, the reasonable and
prudent measures, and associated terms and conditions included in the
incidental take statement are included in the USFWS BO (see Appendix E
[Agency Coordination, Consultation, and Correspondence]).
Establish Habitat Enhancement Sites (HESs)
[cir] Several potential HESs have been identified in northern Guam
on AAFB and in southern Guam on NMS that could be used to compensate
for impacts associated with the Proposed Action. The location and size
of these HESs will be commensurate with the amount of limestone forest
and savanna complex removed under the Proposed Action. The number,
size, and location of potential HESs will be finalized in conjunction
with ongoing coordination with JRM and the installation site approval
process.
[cir] Habitat enhancement activities will include the following:
[ssquf] Installation of ungulate exclusion fences around the HESs;
[ssquf] Removal of ungulates (i.e., trapping, snaring, and
shooting) with the goal of eradication within the fenced areas;
[ssquf] Invasive plant removal; and
[ssquf] Propagation, planting, and establishment of dominant and
rare species characteristic of native limestone forest and savanna
complex habitats.
[cir] Prior to any site preparation at the AAFB MSA site, ungulate
exclusion fencing would be installed commensurate with the amount of
limestone forest removal associated with the AAFB MSA site.
Pre-Construction Surveys, General ESA-Listed Plant Salvage
and Transplantation
[cir] If pre-construction surveys identify an ESA-listed plant as
present in the construction area, one of the following will occur:
1. Salvageable ESA-listed plants will be directly transplanted into
HESs. Transplantation will occur after fencing and ungulate removal is
complete (see CM-3) and the site is reasonably likely to support the
transplants; or
2. If individuals cannot be directly transplanted, then propagules
will be salvaged or collected, and such material housed in a native
plant nursery until they are ready for transplant into the HESs.
3. If there is an insufficient number of propagules or whole plants
from within the project footprint to collect or salvage, then propagule
collection from other sources outside the project footprint will be
conducted to provide seedlings to meet transplanting/outplanting
establishment targets. Transplantation/outplanting timing will be site
specific for each EIAMD system site.
Mariana Eight-Spot Butterfly Host Plant Outplanting at
HESs
[cir] The DoD will plant Mariana eight-spot butterfly host plants
within the HESs. The number of host plants established within the HESs
will be commensurate with the number of individuals removed with the
implementation of the Proposed Action.
2. Transportation
The MDA and USA recognize potential impacts on transportation
associated with implementation of the Proposed Action. To minimize
these impacts, any mitigation measures would be coordinated with the
Guam Department of Public Works for the most appropriate solution.
Mitigations would be implemented where practical and feasible, and
applicable permits would be obtained. These solutions would also be
coordinated with stakeholders prior to implementation. Any such
mitigations would only be accomplished if duly authorized and funded by
Federal legislation.
J. Environmentally Preferred Alternative
Based on the findings of the EIAMD System on Guam Final EIS, the No
Action Alternative would be the environmentally preferred alternative
because the significant, adverse, cumulative impacts from the Proposed
Action would not occur. However, under the No Action Alternative,
defensive capabilities would not be expanded to provide enhanced
defense capability for Guam, nor would it satisfy the purpose of or
need for the Proposed Action.
K. Post-Final Environmental Impact Statement Comments
On August 15, 2025, the Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Guam
submitted a letter to the MDA Director responding to the EIAMD System
on Guam Final EIS on behalf of the people of Guam and the Government of
Guam. The letter indicates the Final EIS does not sufficiently address
cumulative impacts on Guam's infrastructure, public services, economy,
and natural and cultural resources, noting two reports issued in 2025
by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO-25-108187 and GAO-25-
107453). While neither of these GAO reports were specifically addressed
in the Final EIS, we reviewed the reports and determined they provide
no new information or data and the reports' conclusions were based
significantly upon the same available information and data analyzed in
the EIS. In fact, both reports make reference to MDA resources,
including in one
[[Page 43419]]
report, the EIAMD System on Guam Draft EIS. We have determined the
August 15, 2025, letter from the Governor and Lieutenant Governor of
Guam does not provide new data or information that would necessitate
supplementing the Final EIS before a decision may be made. Further, the
conclusions and recommendations made in the letter were taken into
consideration before this decision was made.
No other comments were received after the EIAMD System on Guam
Final EIS was published that need be addressed before a decision may be
made.
L. Decision
In accordance with NEPA, we have considered the information
contained within the EIAMD System on Guam Final EIS, comments from the
public, input from regulatory agencies, EIAMD system capabilities
including system performance and operation effectiveness, the analysis
of the missile threat to Guam, and other relevant factors in deciding
whether to implement the EIAMD system on Guam. We have decided to
select the Proposed Action over the No Action Alternative. Although the
No Action Alternative would have fewer environmental impacts, it would
not support the purpose and need of a 360-degree defense of Guam. While
this decision reflects the intent of the MDA and the USA to proceed
with the Proposed Action, not all of the Proposed Action is immediately
funded. In accordance with the BO, site-specific mitigations, which are
yet to be authorized and funded, would only be accomplished should the
portion of the Proposed Action necessitating mitigation proceed. No
subsequent decision is required to proceed with the mitigations
described in the Biological Opinion or the construction, deployment,
operations, and maintenance of any of the sites described in the Final
EIS.
(Authority: The DoD NEPA Implementing Procedures, Part 4.1[d] [June
20, 2025] [90 FR 27857] allow for the publication of notices in the
Federal Register for ROD notices)
Dated: September 5, 2025.
Stephanie J. Bost,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2025-17312 Filed 9-8-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P