MX Missile Policy Board Draft environmental impact studies, 1980-1981.

All studies and reports included in this series were produced in response to the Deployment Area Selection and Land Withdrawal/Acquisition Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which was completed by the U.S. Air Force in 1980. This report was made after the Great Basin had been selected as the primary basing region for the MX Missile Defense System. The creation of the DEIS was one step in a tiered process of evaluation and study as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The reports from this series focus on a variety of issues related to the DEIS, and offer numerous comments on the study (with most coming from the office of the MX Missile Policy Board). Reports in this series that were not expressly produced by the MX Missile Policy Board were presumably kept in the office as reference for crafting the agencies comments on the DEIS.

The first set of reports in this series (folders 1-9) contain the published copies of the U.S. Air Force MX Deployment AreaSelection and Land Withdrawal/Acquisition Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The DEIS was produced for the Air Force by chief subcontractor Henningson, Durham, and Richardson (HDR). Released in 1980, the statement compares the alternatives for site selection and describes in greater detail than preliminary studies, and possible environmental impacts of missile deployment in Utah/Nevada and Texas/New Mexico. Considered also in the selection process were the mitigation measures proposed to reduce deployment impacts on threatened resources in these areas.

The State of Utah Technical Review Comments for U.S. Air Force Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Area Selection/Land Withdrawal (folder 10) contains official comments from the State of Utah on the DEIS organized by Page - Paragraph - Sentence - Comment.

The Comments on the MX Draft Environmental Impact Statement and ETR's (folder 11) consist of comments from various teams reporting to the MX Missile Impact Policy Board.These teams include: Local Wildlife Review Team; Local Land Use and Rights Review Team; Local Health and Social Services Review Team; Local Public Safety Review Team; Local Geology and Minerals Review Team; Local Energy and Non-Renewable Resources Review Team; Local Agriculture Review Team; Local Environmental Health Review Team; Local Water Resources Review Team; Local Manpower and Employment Review Team; Local Rapid, Large-Scale Growth Review Team; Local Recreation Review Team; and the Local Archaeology and History Review Team.

The Legal Analysis and Issues report (folder 12) assesses the DEIS in light of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Wilderness Act of 1964, and other key pieces of federal land use legislation.

The MX Missile Policy Board - Phase I Baseline Study (folder 13) was prepared by the Five County Association of Governments for the MX Missile Policy Board with the intent of generating "response of the electedofficials of the impacted communities to the problem of growth." Utilizing federal funds made available for research and study through the Four Corners Regional Commission (FCRC) the report was compiled by local sources in the five-county region that would have been most impacted by MX basing. The report provides a baseline study of existing infrastructures and services in the region and spells out the potentially massive need for federal support in the event of preparing for MX basing in the state. This was the first of three separate studies conducted by the MX Missile Policy Board. Phase I served as an assessment of existing communities , Phase II acted as a comprehensive study of a particular impacted region, and Phase III served as a comprehensive planning document for MX impact.

The report from the Utah Consortium for Energy Research and Education to Governor Scott M. Matheson (folder 14) was conducted by a coalition of faculty from Utah's higher education institutions, andincludes members from Brigham Young University, the University of Utah, Utah State University, and Weber State. The introduction to that report states that "the main thrust of the review has been to evaluate how adequately the DEIS has assessed and projected the social , economic, and environmental impacts of the Multiple Protective Shelter (MPS) basing mode."

The Phase II-B Base Operation Impact Study - Long Ridge Site (folders 15-18) are the second comprehensive study following on the MX Missile Policy Board - Phase I Baseline Study (folder 13). According to the introduction of the report, "two f the Utah counties that have been targeted for significant population and economic impacts, Millard and Juab, are the subject of this report." The report contains a comprehensive study focusing on the issues of planning for growth/quality of life, land use ordinances and codes, transportation systems, utilities, health services, social and mental health services, and police protection inthe region. It also contains community assessments and conclusion for towns in Juab (Eureka, Levan, Mona, and Nephi) as well as towns in Millard (Delta, Fillmore, Hinckley, Holden, Kanosh, Leamington, Lynndyl, Meadow, Oak City, and Scipio).

The Initial Assessment: Program Management and Reporting system for the State of Utah's MX Special Impact Assistance Program (folder 19) was conducted by subcontractor Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, and Company. its purpose was "to define the general parameters for a system to manage the Special Impact Assistance Program for the Utah State and local agencies, as well as to develop a work plan for the initial phase for developing such a system. The report documents the program research, interview findings, the system concept, and a requirements definition workplan for the next phase of the system design."

The Phase II - Base Operations Impact Study Proposed Utah MX Deployment Area (folders 20-21) were produced as part of a six part planning processconsisting of 1). Phase I: Baseline Study; 2). Phase II: Base Operation Impact Study; 3). Phase III: Construction Impact Study; 4). Phase IV: Fiscal Impact Study; 5). Phase V: Regional Master Capital Facilities Plan; and 6). Phase VI: Actual Impact Mitigation. This specific portion of the larger comprehensive study was made "to assist communities and resident understand the types and magnitude of adverse impacts which might result from unplanned growth." The study is divided into two separate volumes. Volume I (folder 20), provides "a careful identification and analysis of the issues and problems associated with growth." Volume II (folder 21) contains complete reports of individual study teams assigned to assess the implications of growth for particular community services or functional areas.

The final report in this series is an Assessment of the Government Revenue Consequences of MX Deployment in Southwestern Utah (folder 22). The study was made by subcontractor, John Short andAssociates, Inc who was contracted by MX Missile Policy Board in June 1981 to assess the governmental revenue consequences of MX deployment in Utah. Topics focused on in the study include revenue, debt constraints, debt inventories, revenue/debt forecasting, the implications of immunity, financing priorities and recommendations, and detailed jurisdiction revenue data for school districts and local government.