98-30627. Ballistic Missile Defense Organization; Preparation of the National Missile Defense Deployment Environmental Impact Statement  

  • [Federal Register Volume 63, Number 221 (Tuesday, November 17, 1998)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 63915-63916]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 98-30627]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
    
    
    Ballistic Missile Defense Organization; Preparation of the 
    National Missile Defense Deployment Environmental Impact Statement
    
    AGENCY: Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, DOD.
    
    ACTION: Notice of intent.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: This notifies the public that the Ballistic Missile Defense 
    Organization (BMDO) intends to prepare an Environmental Impact 
    Statement (EIS) for a potential National Missile Defense (NMD) 
    deployment, should the U.S. Government make such a decision. In 1996, 
    at the direction of the Secretary of Defense, NMD was designated a 
    Major Defense Acquisition Program. Concurrently, BMDO was tasked with 
    developing an NMD system that could be deployed within three years. 
    This three-year development period is to culminate in the year 2000. In 
    the year 2000, a Department of Defense (DoD) Deployment Readiness 
    Review will be held to review the technical readiness of NMD elements. 
    Thereafter, the United States government will determine whether the 
    threat, developed capability, and other pertinent factors justify 
    deploying an operational NMD system by the year 2003. BMDO is preparing 
    an EIS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of deployment of 
    an NMD system.
        Because the three-year development period is combined with an 
    additional three-year deployment option, the total effort is referred 
    to as the NMD ``3+3'' program. Should the deployment option not be 
    exercised in the year 2000, improvements in NMD system element 
    technology would continue, while an ability to deploy a system within 
    three years of a decision would be maintained.
        The EIS is intended to support BMDO's planning for a potential 
    deployment of an NMD system. The decision to be made is whether to 
    deploy such a system. This decision will be based on an analysis of the 
    potential limited strategic ballistic missile threat to the United 
    States from a rogue nation, technical readiness of the NMD system for 
    deployment, and other factors including potential environmental 
    impacts. If the decision is to deploy, then sites would be selected 
    from the range of locations studied in the EIS. The EIS will provide 
    the U.S. Government with the information necessary to properly account 
    for the environmental impacts of this decision.
        The NMD system would be a fixed, land-based, non-nuclear, hit-to-
    kill missile defense system with land and space-based sensor support 
    capable of responding to a limited strategic ballistic missile threat 
    to the United States by a rogue nation. The NMD system would consist of 
    five elements: Ground-based Interceptors (GBIs); Battle Management 
    Command, Control, and Communications, which includes the Battle 
    Management Command and Control (BMC2), communication lines, and the In-
    Flight Interceptor Communications System (IFICS) as subelements; X-Band 
    Radar (XBR); Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR); and Defense Support 
    Program (DSP) satellites/Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) 
    satellites. All elements of the NMD system would work together to 
    protect the 50 United States against a limited strategic ballistic 
    missile attack by a rogue nation.
    
    Proposed Action and Alternatives
    
        The alternatives to be considered in this EIS are the No-Action 
    Alternative and the Proposed Action. A No-Action Alternative would be a 
    DoD recommendation not to deploy an NMD
    
    [[Page 63916]]
    
    system but to continue NMD system development to improve NMD system 
    capabilities. With the Proposed Action Alternative, NMD elements and 
    element locations would be selected from the range of locations studied 
    in the EIS. The potential NMD element deployment locations would made 
    maximum use of existing DoD land. The following paragraphs detail 
    potential regions and locations that the U.S. Government would consider 
    as possible sites for each element.
        Under the current Proposed Action an initial GBI missile field of 
    20 missiles could be located at one of the following locations: Clear 
    Air Station (AS), Alaska; Eielson AFB, Alaska; Fort Greely, Alaska; 
    Yukon Maneuver Area (Fort Wainwright), Alaska; Grand Forks Air Force 
    Base (AFB), North Dakota; or Stanley R. Mickelsen Safeguard Complex 
    (SRMSC) Missile Site Radar Site, North Dakota (the SRMSC is centered 
    around the town of Langdon). Wherever the GBIs may be deployed, they 
    would not be fired from their deployment site except in the Nation's 
    defense.
        A BMC2 site could be located at one of the following locations: 
    Clear AS, Alaska; Eielson AFB, Alaska; Fort Greely, Alaska; Yukon 
    Maneuver Area (Fort Wainwright), Alaska; Cavalier AS, North Dakota; 
    Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota; or SRMSC Missile Site Radar Site, North 
    Dakota. Also, additional BMC2 facilities would be retrofitted into the 
    existing United States Space Command communication and control 
    facilities at Colorado Springs and other DoD command centers in the 
    United States.
        Approximately 14 IFICS could be located at geographically separated 
    locations in the general vicinity of other NMD elements and in the New 
    England states. Identification of potential locations for IFICS is 
    still in progress and will be based on operational requirements. When 
    possible, the IFICS would be located on or near existing DOD 
    installations. Locations tentatively identified to date include: Clear 
    AS, Alaska; Eareckson AS (Shemya Island), Alaska; Eielson AFB, Alaska; 
    Fort Greely, Alaska; Yukon Maneuver Area (Fort Wainwright), Alaska; 
    Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota; Minot AFB, North Dakota, Missile Alert 
    Facility ECHO (near the town of Hampden), North Dakota; SRMSC Missile 
    Site Radar Site, North Dakota; and the Western Aleutians. Studies for 
    potential locations for IFICS sites are still in their early stages. As 
    the studies progress the North Dakota and Alaska locations listed above 
    may be refined and potential locations identified in the New England 
    states. This updated information will be announced in the Federal 
    Register and additional scoping will be conducted to obtain public 
    input regarding the potential environmental effects of deploying an 
    IFICS at those locations.
        One XBR would be deployed and the following locations are under 
    consideration: Eareckson AS (Shemya Island), Alaska; Cavalier AS, North 
    Dakota; SRMSC Missile Site Radar Site, North Dakota; SRMSC Remote 
    Sprint Launch Site 1, North Dakota; SRMSC Remote Sprint Launch Site 2, 
    North Dakota; and SRMSC Remote Sprint Launch Site 4, North Dakota.
        Any deployment may require elements of the system to utilize 
    existing fiber-optic lines, power lines, and other utilities. Some 
    existing lines used to support the deployed system may require 
    modifications. Deployment of elements to some locations may require the 
    acquisition of new rights-of-way and installation of new utility and 
    fiber optic cable. Potential new fiber optic cable locations include 
    North Dakota and Alaska and an oceanic fiber optic cable along the 
    Aleutian Islands from Seward or Whittier, Alaska, to Eareckson AS 
    (Shemya Island), Alaska.
    
    Scoping Process
    
        This EIS will assess environmental issues associated with 
    deployment alternatives. Scoping will be conducted to identify 
    environmental concerns and issues to be addressed in the EIS. Public 
    scoping meetings will be held as part of the process. The schedule for 
    the scoping meetings is as follows: (1) 1 December from 5-8 p.m. at the 
    Cavalier County Courthouse Meeting Room, 901 3rd Street, Langdon, North 
    Dakota; (2) 2 December from 5-8 p.m. at the Grand Forks Civic 
    Auditorium, 615 1st Avenue, North, Grand Forks, North Dakota; (3) 7 
    December from 5-8 p.m. at the Carlson Community Activity Center, 2010 
    2nd Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska; (4) 8 December from 5-8 p.m. at Anderson 
    School, Main Street, Anderson, Alaska; (5) 9 December from 5-8 p.m. at 
    the Delta Junction Community Center, 2288 Deborah Street, Delta 
    Junction, Alaska; (6) 10 December from 5-8 p.m. at Loussac Library, 
    3600 Denali Street, Anchorage, Alaska; and (7) 16 December from 3-8 
    p.m. at the Days Inn, 2000 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, 
    Virginia.
        Public input and comments are solicited concerning the deployment 
    alternatives and environmental issues related to the proposed NMD 
    deployment program. To ensure the program office will have sufficient 
    time to fully consider public input on issues, written comments should 
    be mailed to ensure receipt no later than January 15, 1999.
        Comments concerning the EIS should be addressed to: SMDC-EN-V 
    (Julia Hudson), U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 106 Wynn 
    Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805, telephone (256) 955-4822.
    
        Dated: November 10, 1998.
    L.M. Byrum,
    Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 98-30627 Filed 11-16-98; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
11/17/1998
Department:
Defense Department
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Notice of intent.
Document Number:
98-30627
Pages:
63915-63916 (2 pages)
PDF File:
98-30627.pdf