MX Coordination Office MX Draft Environmental Impact Statement evaluation records, 1979-1981.

Records in this series document the efforts of the Utah MX Coordination Office to evaluate the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which was produced in the attempt to assess the environmental and social impacts of MX missile deployment in the Great Basin area. Included are the completed formal evaluation reports written by staffs of both the Nevada and Utah MX coordination offices; drafts of sections of these reports written by individual evaluators; and supporting lists, schedules, and correspondence, etc. that show how the evaluation process progressed. The federal Bureau of Land Management also evaluated the DEIS, because they needed to approve the withdrawal of all public lands that were to be used for deployment of the missile. Their comments are included in this series as well. Evaluations of the DEIS were based upon standards established by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

The states had eighty days fromreceipt of the DEIS to submit their evaluation to the Air Force. Their specific goal was to identify, assess, and propose mitigation measures for potential environmental impacts and not to act as advocates for specific basing locations or basing modes. The adequacy of the document was to be evaluated before the President's scheduled siting decision in the spring of 1981.

In Utah three groups evaluated the technical merits of the DEIS. The teams consisted of technical experts from Utah's colleges and universities, state agency personnel, and representatives from the proposed MX deployment areas. Evaluations done at Utah's colleges were coordinated by Frederic Wagner of Utah State University; state agency evaluations were coordinated by Ann Keegan from the Utah MX Coordination Office; and evaluations by residents of Juab, Millard, Iron, and Beaver counties were coordinated by Ralph Starr of the MX Missile Policy Board. All evaluations were then organized and edited by the Utah MXCoordination Office staff.

Nevada organized two main committees: a review committee, which consisted of residents in the proposed deployment areas, and an advisory committee which consisted of several technical experts representing private agencies, private citizens, and universities. Nevada Governor List encouraged Nevadans to become involved and to submit their opinions to be considered for inclusion in the Nevada report. As in Utah, the MX Project Coordination Office organized and edited the reports.

The final evaluation reports of the DEIS written by staff members in the Utah and Nevada offices are detailed and comprehensive summaries of the many separate reports completed by these other local groups. Their findings are highly critical of the DEIS. The DEIS was seriously flawed, they concluded, and these problems could not be corrected in the six months scheduled before the final draft was due. Recurring criticisms concerned the validity and reliability of the methodology usedby Air Force subcontractors in studying environmental impacts. Technical reports that accompanied the DEIS were also criticized for being incomplete, repetitive, and superficial.