[Federal Register: April 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 79)]
[Notices]
[Page 21921-21924]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23ap08-57]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Record of Decision To Develop, Test, Deploy, and Plan for
Decommissioning of the Ballistic Missile Defense System
AGENCY: Missile Defense Agency, Department of Defense.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is issuing this Record of
Decision (ROD) to develop, test, deploy, and plan for decommissioning
of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). This decision includes
the development, testing, deployment, and planning for decommissioning
of land-, sea- and air-based platforms for BMDS weapons components and
space-based sensors. This action will enable MDA to develop and field
an integrated, layered, BMDS to defend the United States (U.S.), its
deployed forces, allies, and friends against all ranges of enemy
ballistic missiles in all phases of flight. The BMDS is a key component
of U.S. policy for addressing ballistic missile threats worldwide.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the BMDS
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) or this ROD please
contact Mr. Rick Lehner, MDA Director of Public Affairs at (703) 697-
8997. Downloadable electronic versions of the Final PEIS and ROD are
available on the MDA public access Internet Web site http://
www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/enviro.html. Public reading copies of the
Final PEIS and the ROD are available for review at the following public
libraries:
Anchorage Municipal Library (Anchorage, AK).
Mountain View Branch Library (Anchorage, AK).
California State Library (Sacramento, CA).
Sacramento Public Library (Sacramento, CA).
Hawaii State Library (Honolulu, HI).
University of Hawaii at Manoa (Honolulu, HI).
Arlington County Public Library, Central Branch
(Arlington, VA).
District of Columbia Public Library, Central Branch
(Washington, DC).
Dated: April 11, 2008.
Patricia Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. MDA Decision
The MDA is issuing this ROD, selecting Alternative 1 as described
in the BMDS PEIS, to develop, test, deploy, and plan for
decommissioning of the BMDS. This decision includes the development,
testing, deployment, and planning for decommissioning of land-, sea-,
and air-based platforms for BMDS weapons components. Alternative 1 also
includes space-based sensors. MDA is deferring a decision on the
development, testing, and deployment of space-based interceptors
(Alternative 2) pending further concept development and policy
discussion.
B. Background
The MDA has a requirement to develop, test, deploy, and prepare for
decommissioning the BMDS to protect the U.S., its deployed forces,
friends, and allies from ballistic missile threats. The proposed action
would provide an integrated BMDS using existing infrastructure and
capabilities, when feasible, as well as emerging and new technologies,
to meet current and evolving threats in support of the MDA's mission.
Consequently, the BMDS would be a layered system of defensive weapons,
sensors, command and control, battle management, and communications
(C2BMC), and support assets; each with specific functional
capabilities, working together to defend against all classes and ranges
of ballistic missile threats in all phases of flight. Multiple
defensive weapons would be used to create a layered defense comprised
of multiple intercept opportunities along the trajectory of the
incoming ballistic missiles. This would provide a layered defensive
system of capabilities designed to back up one another.
On December 17, 2002, the President announced his decision to field
an initial defensive operation capability. The initial fielding would
provide a modest protection of the U.S. and would be improved over
time. Prior to the initiation of the BMDS PEIS, MDA and its predecessor
agencies prepared several programmatic National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) documents regarding ballistic missile defense. In addition,
each program
[[Page 21922]]
element prepared extensive NEPA documentation to cover its own specific
test and development activities. Ballistic missile defense has evolved
to the point that the BMDS PEIS was prepared to consider the integrated
BMDS as envisioned in the evolution of the MDA.
A Programmatic EIS, or PEIS, analyzes the broad envelope of
environmental consequences in a wide-ranging Federal program like the
BMDS. A PEIS addresses the overall issues in a proposed program and
considers related actions together in order to review the program
comprehensively. A PEIS is appropriate for projects that are broad in
scope, are implemented in phases, and are widely dispersed
geographically. A PEIS creates a comprehensive, global analytical
framework that supports subsequent analysis of specific activities at
specific locations, which could then be tiered from the PEIS.
The BMDS PEIS is intended to serve as a tiering document for
subsequent specific BMDS NEPA analyses and includes a roadmap for
considering environmental impacts and resource areas in developing
future documents. This roadmap identifies how a specific resource area
can be analyzed and also includes thresholds for considering the
significance of environmental impacts to specific resource areas. This
means that ranges, installations, and facilities at which specific BMDS
activities may occur in the future could tier their documents from the
PEIS and have some reference point from which to start their site-
specific analyses.
C. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process
The MDA prepared the BMDS PEIS pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the NEPA (40 CFR
Parts 1500-1508); Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 4715.9,
Environmental Planning and Analysis; the applicable service
environmental regulations that implement these laws and regulations;
and Executive Order (EO) 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major
Federal Actions (whose implementation is guided by NEPA and the CEQ
implementing regulations).
On April 11, 2003, MDA initiated the public scoping process by
publishing the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the PEIS for the BMDS
in the Federal Register. MDA held public scoping meetings in Arlington,
Virginia; Sacramento, California; Anchorage, Alaska; and Honolulu,
Hawaii. The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the MDA BMDS Draft PEIS was
published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2004. This initiated
a public review and comment period for the Draft PEIS. MDA held public
hearings in Arlington, Virginia; Sacramento, California; Anchorage,
Alaska; and Honolulu, Hawaii. MDA received approximately 8,500 comments
on the Draft PEIS; MDA considered all of these comments in preparing
the Final PEIS. Responses to all of the in-scope comments can be found
in Appendix K of the PEIS. Three recurring issues of public concern--
orbital debris, perchlorate, and radar impacts to wildlife--were
addressed in more technical detail in Appendices L, M, and N,
respectively, of the PEIS.
The NOA for the Final PEIS was published in the Federal Register on
February 16, 2007. This ROD is the culmination of the NEPA process.
D. Alternatives Considered
In developing the alternatives, MDA reviewed the various components
of the BMDS (i.e., weapons, sensors, C2BMC, and support assets) and the
acquisition process common to all components (i.e., development,
testing, deployment, and planning for decommissioning). The components
are the systems and subsystems of logically grouped hardware and
software that perform interrelated tasks to provide the BMDS functional
capabilities. The acquisition process is capability driven and
component-based. Capability-based planning allows MDA to develop
capabilities and system performance objectives based on technological
feasibility, engineering analyses, and the potential capability of the
threat. Spiral development is an iterative process for developing the
BMDS by refining program objectives as technology becomes available
through research and testing with continuous feedback among MDA, the
test community, and the military operators. Each new technology goes
through development; promising technologies go through testing and
demonstration; and proven technologies are incorporated into the BMDS.
Development. Development includes the various activities
that support research and development of the BMDS components and
overall systems. This includes planning, budgeting, research and
development, systems engineering, site preparation and construction,
repair, maintenance and sustainment, manufacture of test articles and
initial testing, including modeling, simulation, and tabletop
exercises.
Testing. Testing of the BMDS involves demonstration of
BMDS elements and components through test and evaluation. The
successful demonstration of the BMDS would rely on a robust testing
program aimed at producing credible system characterization,
verification, and assessment data. To confirm these capabilities, MDA
would continue to develop test beds using existing and new land-, sea-,
air-, and space-based assets. Some construction at various geographic
locations would be required to support infrastructure and assets where
BMDS components and the overall system would be tested. Testing of the
BMDS includes ongoing and planned tests (e.g., ground tests, flight
tests) of components that might be incorporated into the BMDS, as well
as tests of the layered, integrated BMDS through increasingly realistic
system integration tests through 2012 and beyond.
Deployment. Deployment of the BMDS refers to the fielding
(including the manufacture, site preparation, construction, and
transport of systems) and sustainment (including operations and
maintenance, training, upgrades, and service life extension) of the
BMDS. The evolving BMDS is intended to have the capability over time to
deploy different combinations of interoperable components. Deployment
also would involve the transfer of facilities, elements, and programs
to the military services.
Decommissioning. Decommissioning would involve the
demilitarization and final removal and disposal of the BMDS components
and assets. Plans would be made for decommissioning BMDS components by
either demolition or transfer to other uses or owners.
The following presents a discussion of the alternatives considered
by MDA and presents and contrasts the components and acquisition phases
that are unique to each alternative.
No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, the MDA
would not develop, test, deploy, or plan for decommissioning activities
for an integrated BMDS. Instead, the MDA would continue existing
development and testing of discrete systems as stand-alone ballistic
missile defense capabilities. Individual systems would continue to be
tested but would not be subjected to System Integration Tests.
Alternative 1 (selected alternative): Under Alternative 1, the MDA
will develop, test, deploy, and plan to decommission an integrated
BMDS, composed of land-, sea-, and air-based components. Alternative 1
also includes space-based sensors, but does not include space-based
interceptors.
Alternative 2: Under Alternative 2, the MDA would develop, test,
deploy, and plan to decommission an integrated
[[Page 21923]]
BMDS, composed of land-, sea-, air-, and space-based components.
Alternative 2 would be identical to Alternative 1, with the addition of
space-based interceptors. A space-based test bed would be considered
and evaluated to determine the feasibility of using kinetic energy
interceptors on space platforms to intercept threat missiles.
E. Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
The PEIS evaluated potential impacts associated with each
alternative for each acquisition life cycle phase (i.e., development,
testing, deployment, and planning for decommissioning) by component
(i.e., weapons, sensors, C2BMC, and support assets). To evaluate the
potential impacts of implementing one of the alternatives (i.e., No
Action Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2) considered for the
BMDS, the MDA characterized the existing condition of the affected
environment in the locations where various BMDS implementation
activities would occur. The affected environment includes all land,
air, water, and atmospheric environments where proposed activities are
reasonably foreseeable. For this PEIS, the affected environment
includes all locations, ranges, installations, and facilities that the
MDA has used, uses, or proposes to use for the BMDS both within and
outside the U.S. The MDA determined that activities associated with the
proposed BMDS might occur in locations around the world. Therefore, the
affected environment has been considered in terms of global biomes,
broad ocean areas, and the atmosphere.
Each biome covers a broad region, both geographically and
ecologically for both domestic and international locations where
components of the proposed BMDS may be located or operated. Climate,
geography, geology, and distribution and abundance of vegetation and
wildlife determine the range of the biomes. Using biomes as affected
environmental designations facilitates future site-specific
environmental documentation to tier from the BMDS PEIS. Further, BMDS
test activities would often occur over broad ocean areas, and the
necessity of launching targets and interceptors to support testing
would indicate that consideration of the atmosphere and broad ocean
areas as parts of the affected environment was appropriate.
To evaluate the potential environmental consequences of the
alternatives, the components of the BMDS (i.e., weapons, sensors,
C2BMC, and support assets) were evaluated as they proceed through
acquisition life cycle phases. MDA evaluated each of the BMDS
acquisition phases including development, testing, deployment, and
decommissioning. Not all activities associated with the BMDS are
expected to produce environmental impacts. Only those activities with
expected impacts during one or more acquisition phases were identified
in the PEIS. Further, only those activities that are considered
reasonably foreseeable were analyzed in the PEIS. Four steps were used
to analyze impacts in the BMDS PEIS. Step 1 included the identification
and characterization of BMDS activities. Step 2 included the
identification of activities with no potential for impact. Step 3
included the identification of similar activities occurring across
acquisition life cycle phases. Step 4 included the conduct of
environmental analyses. The analyses for each alternative are specific
to each resource area based on the impacts from the activities
associated with the BMDS components.
The potential impacts of the various alternatives are summarized in
Exhibits ES-7 through ES-13 in the Final BMDS PEIS (available on the
MDA Web site http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/enviro.html and are as
discussed in the Final BMDS PEIS. This ROD presents a brief discussion
that highlights the differences between the alternatives.
Alternative 1 would result in the potential for increased
environmental consequences over the No Action Alternative due to the
additional integrated test events and the development and testing of an
integrated C2BMC. The additional potential for environmental
consequences associated with the development, testing, deployment, and
planning for decommissioning of the space-based interceptors in
Alternative 2 could result in environmental consequences that would be
in addition to those associated with Alternative 1.
The increase in potential impacts associated with the development
and acquisition phases of Alternatives 1 and 2 over the No Action
Alternative would result from increased testing and the site
preparation and development of new facilities or the refurbishment of
existing facilities for C2BMC, or to develop space-based missile
defense technologies. The site preparation may result in additional
impacts on the land-based resources (i.e., biological, geology and
soils, noise, water), but would not impact non-land based resources
(i.e., airspace or orbital debris).
The increase in potential impacts associated with the testing
acquisition phase of Alternatives 1 and 2 over the No Action
Alternative would result from an increased number of test events,
specifically, system integration tests. The increase in the number of
test events would result in additional impacts on all resource areas,
and based on the specific activities and objectives of an individual
test event, impacts on some resources might be insignificant as
demonstrated in the PEIS, while impacts to other resources would be
more substantial.
The increase in potential impacts associated with the deployment
acquisition phase of Alternative 2 over Alternative 1 and the No Action
Alternative would result from the site preparation, development, and
emplacement of new facilities or the refurbishment of existing
facilities for deployment of space-based interceptors. The site
preparation may result in additional impacts on the land-based
resources (e.g., biological, geology and soils, noise, water), and
placing interceptors into space could produce impacts on non-land based
resources (e.g., airspace or orbital debris).
The increase in potential impacts associated with the planning for
decommissioning of Alternative 2 over Alternative 1 and the No Action
Alternative would result from the additional BMDS components that would
require decommissioning.
No significant environmental impacts or cumulative impacts on
resource areas addressed for any activity considered in implementing
the BMDS were found in this programmatic impact analysis. There could
be impacts associated with the specific BMDS program activities at
specific locations; however, as stated in the PEIS they would be
addressed, as appropriate, in subsequent NEPA analyses that would tier
from the PEIS. As appropriate, mitigation measures would be developed
to address any site-specific significant impacts.
F. Mitigation Monitoring
MDA did not identify any significant programmatic environmental
impacts arising from the proposed action and therefore, is not
identifying specific mitigation measures. However, as discussed above,
there is the potential for specific BMDS activities at specific
locations to impact the environment, and mitigation measures would be
identified, as appropriate, in future NEPA analyses tiered from this
PEIS. MDA uses a mitigation monitoring database to track the
implementation of mitigation measures identified in previous NEPA
analyses and will continue to follow its mitigation monitoring process
(EMP-3-62, Mitigation Monitoring) to both track and
[[Page 21924]]
monitor the effectiveness of MDA's mitigation measures, including those
identified in future, site-specific NEPA analyses tiered from this
PEIS.
G. Environmentally Preferred Alternative
The findings of the PEIS indicate that the No Action Alternative,
the continuation of existing program element-based testing and
development activities with no integration testing, would be the
environmentally-preferred alternative. As a conservative estimate, MDA
assumed that stand-alone element component testing as well as system
integration testing would occur under Alternatives 1 and 2, which would
result in potentially more adverse effects than the No Action
Alternative. However, MDA believes that consolidation of stand-alone
component tests associated with Alternative 1 into the system
integration tests to the extent practicable could serve to reduce the
overall environmental consequences as the total number of tests
conducted by MDA could fall.
H. Conclusion
I have considered potential environmental impacts as defined in the
PEIS, cost, technical requirements, applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements, Presidential direction (the December 17, 2002,
Presidential announcement to field an initial defensive operation
capability), MDA's mandate and mission, and public comments in arriving
at my decision.
I select Alternative 1 over the other alternatives for
implementation of the proposed action. Although the No Action
Alternative has been identified as the environmentally-preferred
alternative, it does not support the Agency's mandate or mission.
Alternative 1 has fewer environmental consequences than Alternative 2,
as described above.
I have selected Alternative 1 because integration of missile
defense capabilities as opposed to single element development, testing,
and deployment is essential to an effective BMDS that can provide a
layered defense of the United States, its deployed troops, and its
friends and allies. Any decision to deploy a BMDS capability will be
subject to Presidential and Congressional authorization and funding.
Date: April 8, 2008.
Henry A. Obering III,
Lieutenant General, USAF, Director.
[FR Doc. E8-8800 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P