NEPA Process and Specific Requirements - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 83

protection. There was extensive NEPA and litigation history confirming a
Congressional mandate as a legitimate and in fact a primary purpose and
need for an EIS. In addition, the USCG had an overall organizational mis-
sion, and meeting the goals of the mission was an important purpose and
need of any USCG action. Thus they developed a purpose and need state-
ment that met their Congressional directive, was supportive of the organiza-
tional goals, and took into account their background knowledge to exclude,
for detail, evaluation alternatives that were inconsistent with their directive
and goals.
The purpose and need statement consisted of the following:
r Limitation of the regulations and EIS to nonhazardous, nontoxic
DCR discharges from vessels in the Great Lakes that fall under the
jurisdiction of the United States.
r Satisfying Congress's direction to develop a regulation that meets
the mandate of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act
(ACMTA) of 2004 Public Law 108-293 §623.
r Incorporating language from the ACMTA that gave the USCG the
authority to develop regulations that “grant[s] the Commandant
of the Coast Guard notwithstanding any other law the permanent
authority to promulgate regulations governing the discharge of
DCR on the Great Lakes.” Thus alternatives which might be incon-
sistent with other laws (e.g., the Clean Water Act) could be consid-
ered in detail as long as they meet all the provisions of the purpose
and need statement.
r Optimizing the DCR management to address the USCG organi-
zational strategic goals, of maritime safety, protection of natural
resources, maritime mobility, and maritime security.
This purpose and need statement formed the basis of screening criteria
such that alternatives that met the criteria met the purpose and need and
were evaluated in detail in the EIS. The resulting screening criteria and their
link to the purpose and need statement are summarized in Table 3.2.
A comprehensive list of alternatives was developed based on: historic
knowledge of the USCG; input from stakeholders, including Lake Carriers
Association and environmental advocacy groups during scoping; and EIS
team (including technical consultants) evaluation. The alternatives identi-
fied were measured against the criteria designed to determine the achieve-
ment of purpose and need (Table 3.2). The alternatives that did not meet the
purpose and need were eliminated from detailed evaluation in the draft EIS
with the caveat that insufficient information available at the time of screen-
ing would result in retaining the alternative for detailed evaluation. Three of
the alternatives were eliminated from full evaluation in the draft EIS because