MX Coordination Office Draft environmental impact statements and technical reports, 1978-1981.

All studies and reports included in this series were produced as part of the larger national defense planning process begun by the federal government in the 1970s. The U.S. Air Force sponsored most of these missile planning and environmental evaluation activities. The first studies done as part of this larger process are not collected in this series, but they compared the merits of various types of missiles and alternate deployment systems. A site selection process then narrowed down potential locations in the U.S. for deployment of the system. Once selected as a potential location, the environmental impact of deploying the missile had to be studied before deployment could be approved.

Collected in this series are those reports and studies that were undertaken after the Great Basin area had been selected as a prime location for deployment of the system and after the missile basing mode had been selected. Federal law required that an environmental impact statement be written before theMX missile system could be deployed. Most of the studies now part of this series were undertaken in response to this requirement and were produced by U.S. Air Force subcontractors.

Hennigson, Durham, and Richardson (HDR) was hired as the Air Force's chief subcontractor, and they either hired other subcontractors to complete specific studies, or they completed the work themselves. Still other subcontractors studied potential sites for the main operating bases and for missile storage and tracking facilities. These included FUGRO inc., its successor, Earth Technology Resources Corp., (ERTEC), and EDAW CO.

Both the environmental studies and those done to select locations for facilities were part of the "tiered" process of evaluation. Usually, subcontractors did preliminary studies to identify what types of impacts could be expected from the project and which sites would be the most ideal for physical deployment. Based on these, plans for later work were developed and recommendations formore detailed studies were made. The later more detailed reports focus more upon the specific impacts that missile deployment would have on social, economic, and cultural life in the Great Basin area, or they evaluate specific missile basing and storage sites. This progression of more detailed reports that expanded upon data collected earlier, explains the similarity between contents and organization of each group.

Data was collected at different points in the planning and evaluation process and were then often circulated to others in state government or to private contractors who also evaluated them.

The eight different subseries can therefore be grouped loosely into two categories: those that were produced directly because of the environmental evaluation process, and those that were produced to study the best sites, from a technical standpoint, where the missiles could be physically located. The missile siting studies contain more technical data than do the environmental impactsstatements, some of this was also used in the preparation of the environmental impact statements, even though this was not their main purpose. Each subseries is described in more detail below.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement - MX Milestone II are the earliest set of reports in the series and were completed in 1978. They compare the various basing mode options then available for deploying the MX missile system. The environmental implications for the main deployment areas of using each basing mode are analyzed. Like environmental impact statements produced later, the Milestone II statement follows a very structured format. The first chapter gives an overview of the project; the interior chapters compare the various alternatives and make judgments about the merits of each; the appendices contain various technical reports or planning data; and the final chapter collects and summarizes public comments.

Environmental Technical reports were produced by HDR as the project movedinto its second phase in 1979/80. The subject of each report is a separate aspect of the anticipated problems that would be caused by missile deployment. Many are obviously planning reports, designed to survey potential impacts or to set direction for further detailed study. Others summarize current economic and social conditions or legal requirements affecting the project. The reports are numbered consecutively, although there are many gaps. Apparently these were acquired individually by MX Coordination Office staff as the state's effort to plan for deployment expanded.

The Deployment Area Selection and Land Withdrawal/Acquisition Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) and accompanying environmental technical reports were also produced for the Air Force by HDR. Released in 1980, the statement compares the alternatives for site selection and describes in greater detail than the preliminary studies, possible environmental impacts of missile deployment in Utah/Nevada and Texas/NewMexico. Considered also in the selection process were the mitigation measures proposed to reduce deployment impacts on threatened resources in these areas. Attached to the statement itself is a group of technical reports that compares anticipated environmental impacts in specific alternative siting areas. Resource needs for the construction phase of the project, or anticipated impacts on wildlife, vegetation, transportation networks, etc. are the focus of others. It is this subseries which is the focus of detailed evaluation by the Utah MX Coordination Office staff.

The Preliminary Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement (PDFEIS) is essentially an updated version of DEIS. After President Reagan announced the cancellation of the MX MPS system in October, 1981, the Air Force abandoned its plan to file a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). However, since the FEIS was nearing completion when plans for deployment were canceled, the Air Force decided to publish the work inprogress at that point as a Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (PFEIS)

The MX Missile Base Siting Verification Studies were prepared by FUGRO, a consultant for the Air Force between 1978 and 1980. The purpose of these survey reports was to evaluate the physical characteristics of potential MX missile basing sites in Utah and Nevada. Focusing upon the geologic or natural factors which might affect physical deployment of the system, the reports contain surveys of biological resources, earthquake zones, soil characteristics, gravity surveys for predicting ground motion, water location and availability data. etc..

MX Missile Site Field Survey Studies, prepared for the Air Force by ERTEC Corp., consist of maps, survey data, and an assessment of construction needs for proposed basing sites. Biological and cultural resources of Dry Lake Valley, Nevada, and Pine and Wah Wah Valleys, Utah, are described. The studies were conducted in 1981 and focus upon specific sites whereconstruction of storage sites and the tracking system would most likely begin.

The MX Base Comprehensive Planning Reports consist of interim and final reports produced by EDAW, another major consultant hired by the Air Force. The focus of these is the standards to be used in the selection of the locations of main operating bases as well as plans for their construction. Comprehensive data management systems, social and environmental effects of missile bases, and the most efficient building and site layouts are all considered.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Life Support Concept Study is intended to identify the number and types of personnel that would be needed for the construction of main operating bases, and to study the living conditions under which they would work. The ability of the local area to provide support facilities and services to the construction effort and to provide a comfortable living environment is assessed.