MX Coordination Office MX Draft Environmental Impact Statement evaluation records
Some records may not be available for research from June 1-11, 2015 due to equipment upgrades. Please consider visiting beforehand or contacting the Research Center for more information.
These records are housed in the Utah State Archives' permanent storage room.
An agency history is available.
Scope and Content
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 from receipt 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 MX Coordination 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 used by Air Force subcontractors in studying environmental impacts. Technical reports that accompanied the DEIS were also criticized for being incomplete, repetitive, and superficial.
Alphabetical by subject.
Administrative records from the MX Coordination Office, Series 4246, contains the evaluation of the environmental impact statements.
MX missile deployment impact planning and subject files from the MX Coordination Office, Series 4250, contains a formal evaluation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Draft environmental impact statements and technical reports from the MX Coordination Office, Series 4254, contains the Environmental Impact Statement evaluated by this series.
Records produced by the Coordination Office were stored by the State Office of Planning and Budget until their transfer to the archives in 1984.
This series is classified as Public.
Cite the Utah State Archives and Records Service, the creating agency name, the series title, and the series number.
Archival processing was completed in 1987 by Brent Brinkerhoff.
- Intercontinental ballistic missile bases—Utah.
- MX (Weapons system).
- Nuclear arms control—Utah.
|1||1||Air Force Description of Proposed Actions and Alternatives|
|1||2||Bureau of Land Management Review|
|1||3||Bureau of Land Management Review (Cont.)|
|1||4||Bureau of Land Management Review (Cont.)|
|1||5||Center for Resource Policy Review|
|1||7||Distribution List (Cont.)|
|1||8||Environmental Quality Correspondence|
|1||9||Environmental Technical Report Titles|
|1||10||Evaluations by Utah Committees|
|1||11||Evaluations by Utah Committees (Cont.)|
|1||12||Evaluations by Utah Committees (Cont.)|
|1||13||Evaluations by Utah Committees (Cont.)|
|1||14||Evaluations by Utah Committees (Cont.)|
|1||15||Evaluations by Utah Committees (Cont.)|
|1||16||Legal Committee Comments|
|1||17||Legal Sufficiency Review|
|1||18||Legal Sufficiency Review (Cont.)|
|1||19||Legal Sufficiency Review (Cont.)|
|1||21||Nevada Review Process|
|1||22||New Mexico's Evaluation of the DEIS|
|1||23||New Mexico's Evaluation of the DEIS (Cont.)|
|1||24||New Mexico's Evaluation of the DEIS (Cont.)|
|1||25||New Mexico's Evaluation of the DEIS (Cont.)|
|1||26||New Mexico's Evaluation of the DEIS (Cont.)|
|1||27||Public Health Impacts|
|1||29||Review Process (Cont.)|
|1||30||Review Process (Cont.)|
|1||31||Review Process (Cont.)|
|1||32||Review Process (Cont.)|
|1||33||Review Process (Cont.)|
|1||34||Review Process (Cont.)|
|1||35||Review Process (Cont.)|
|1||36||Review Process (Cont.)|
|1||39||Scoping Documents (Cont.)|
|2||2||Scoping Documents (Cont.)|
|2||3||Scoping Documents (Cont.)|
|2||4||Scoping Documents (Cont.)|
|2||5||Scoping Documents (Cont.)|
|2||6||Scoping Documents (Cont.)|
|2||7||Scoping Documents (Cont.)|
|2||8||Scoping Documents (Cont.)|
|2||9||Scoping Documents (Cont.)|
|2||10||Scoping Documents (Cont.)|
|2||11||Scoping Documents (Cont.)|
|2||12||Scoping Documents (Cont.)|
|2||13||Scoping Documents (Cont.)|
|2||14||Technical Interchange Meetings|
|2||15||Utah Agencies DEIS Comments|
|2||16||Utah Agencies DEIS Comments (Cont.)|
|2||17||Utah Agencies DEIS Comments (Cont.)|
|2||18||Utah Audubon Society's Evaluation of the DEIS|
|2||19||Utah's DEIS Committees|
|2||20||Utah's Official Response to the DEIS|
|2||21||Utah's Scoping Comments|
|2||22||Utah State University Consortium|
|2||23||Utah State University Scoping Document|
|2||24||State of Nevada Official Response to the United States Air Force Deployment Area Selection and Land Withdrawal/Acquisition Draft Environment Impact Statement: Volumes I and II|
|2||25||State of Nevada Official Response to the United States Air Force Deployment Area Selection and Land Withdrawal/Acquisition Draft Environment Impact Statement: Volumes I and II (Cont.)|
|2||26||Review of The US Air Force's Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Deployment Area Selection and Land Withdrawal/Acquisition for the MX Missile System-A Report to Governor Scott M. Matheson|
|2||27||State of Utah Technical Review Comments for U.S. Air Force Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Area Selection/Land Withdrawal|