[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42596-42598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-15892]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[USCG-2000-8229]


Notice of the Record of Decision for the Integrated Deepwater 
System Project

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice; record of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public of the U.S. Coast Guard's 
Record of Decision for the Integrated Deepwater System Project. The 
full text of the Record of Decision is included below under 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The Department of Transportation Docket Management Facility 
maintains the public docket for the Integrated Deepwater System Project 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The Record of Decision 
will become part of this docket and will be available along with the 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for inspection or 
copying at Room PL-401, located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. 
You may also view this docket, including this record of decision, on 
the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on the Record of 
Decision, the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, or the 
Integrated Deepwater System, call LCDR Eric Johnson, Deepwater 
Environmental Planner, by telephone at 202-267-1665 or by e-mail at 
[email protected] or read the Coast Guard's Deepwater EIS Web 
page at http://www.deepwatereis.com/. If you have questions on viewing 
material on the docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief, Dockets, Department 
of Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard has issued its Record of 
Decision for the Integrated Deepwater System Project. The full text of 
the Record of Decision follows:
U.S. Coast Guard,
Record of Decision
    The United States Coast Guard has published a Final Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on the following project:

Integrated Deepwater System Project
Nation-wide

[[Page 42597]]

Purpose and Need

    Most of the U.S. Coast Guard's mandated missions involve Deepwater 
operations. Deepwater operations are generally defined as those that 
require an extended on-scene presence, long transit times to reach the 
operating area, and/or the forward deployment of forces. The existing 
system of Deepwater assets has excessive operating and maintenance 
costs and lacks essential capabilities in speed, sensors, and 
interoperability, that limit overall Deepwater mission effectiveness 
and efficiency. Moreover, most of these assets will reach the end of 
their economically useful lives within the next 10 years (block 
obsolescence). The Coast Guard's fleet of medium and high endurance 
cutters are older than 36 of the world's 39 major naval fleets. This 
comes at a time when the demand on Deepwater missions is steadily 
increasing. The most recent increase in demand is in the area of 
homeland security. The need to defend our country against terrorism and 
rogue nations' hostilities has put a very large demand on the Coast 
Guard's limited resources. To address these issues, the Coast Guard is 
proposing to acquire an integrated system of new and/or modernized 
surface and air assets and logistics, communication, and sensor 
systems. This system of systems is designed to maximize operational 
effectiveness at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer. It will 
minimize total ownership costs because new equipment is not as 
expensive to staff, operate and maintain. It will facilitate readiness. 
It will increase interoperability of assets among different mission 
areas and geographic districts. It will minimize disposal costs by 
utilizing more environmentally friendly components.

Alternatives Examined

    No-Action Alternative: The Coast Guard would continue to operate 
existing assets, performing periodic upgrades to those assets until the 
end of their service lives. The Coast Guard would continue to replace 
assets on an asset-by-asset basis, as is traditionally done. One of the 
major problems with this alternative is that the Coast Guard would not 
have an integrated system; thus assets would not be able to communicate 
in real time, they would operate at different levels of efficiency 
(resulting in decreased efficiency throughout the system) and their 
maintenance costs would be higher.
    Action Alternative: The Coast Guard would replace the existing 
collection of Deepwater assets with a system of integrated new assets. 
The new system of assets would be designed to work together to deliver 
maximum operational effectiveness for the lowest possible total 
ownership cost. The Coast Guard would continue to operate existing 
assets for as long as they can contribute to the maximum operational 
effectiveness/lowest total ownership cost concept.

Environmental Consequences

    Environmental consequences of the Action Alternative would, in 
general, have a net minor to moderate beneficial impact on most 
resource areas. Specific impacts would vary across specific resources 
and regions; however, the overall collective effect would be better for 
the environment than the No Action Alternative. This is primarily due 
to the fact that the Action Alternative provides an efficient and 
integrated system of assets that would provide shorter response times 
and increased levels of protection for biological resources over the No 
Action Alternative. All current policies and guidelines designed to 
safeguard the environment from Coast Guard operations will continue 
under the Action Alternative.

Decision

    The decision is the Action Alternative because it best meets the 
Coast Guard's mission needs in the 21st Century.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    The environmentally preferable alternative is the Action 
Alternative because it provides an efficient and integrated system of 
assets that would provide shorter response times and increased levels 
of protection for biological resources over the No Action Alternative.

Relevant Decision Factors

    The following are the economic, technical, USCG statutory missions, 
national policy considerations that were weighed in reaching my 
decision.
    Economic: From an economic standpoint, the Action Alternative is 
less expensive in the long-term. Toward the end of an asset's economic 
service life, it is generally more prohibitive to maintain that asset 
than replace it. As time progresses, maintenance costs will escalate, 
resulting in the inefficient use of resources. Newer assets, with more 
environmentally friendly components will cost less to dispose of at the 
end of their service life.
    Technical: From a technical standpoint, the Action Alternative will 
result in a modern system of systems with increased interoperability 
and efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out mandated missions. Due 
to size, weight, age and power concerns, existing assets cannot fully 
capture the benefits of changes in technology. The Action Alternative 
will resolve these problems. Many manufacturers have cancelled 
production and support for the equipment on existing assets. The Action 
Alternative will also resolve these problems.
    USCG Statutory Missions: The Coast Guard must maintain mission 
effectiveness in all 14 of the currently mandated Deepwater missions. 
Studies by the Office of Naval Intelligence and others foresee global 
events, such as the doubling world population, the continued decline in 
marine fisheries, the end of the Cold War and the associated rise in 
ethnic and cultural conflicts worldwide, and the tripling of 
international commerce, as greatly increasing the nation's reliance on 
the Coast Guard. In addition, increases in the numbers of cruise ships 
and recreational boats will create more requirements for Coast Guard 
services. These increases in demand have required the Coast Guard to 
increase its efforts toward environmental and living marine resources 
protection, illegal immigration, and drug smuggling, and vessel 
inspection. The Action Alternative will help to support these increased 
demands.
    National Policy Considerations: One of the 14 mandated Coast Guard 
Deepwater missions is National Defense. In addition, the most recent 
increase in demand in the area of homeland security has increased the 
demand on the Coast Guard's limited resources. Homeland security 
initiatives have also increased the demand for international 
operations, either individually or jointly with other armed forces. The 
Action Alternative will help to support these increased demands.

Mitigation

    On a programmatic level, all practical means to avoid or minimize 
environmental harm from the selected alternative have been adopted. 
This is due primarily to the three environmental requirements placed on 
the competing industry teams in the System Performance Specification. 
These were: (1) Minimize the negative impact on the environment; (2) 
meet current and projected international, federal, state and local 
environmental regulations throughout its life cycle; and (3) minimize 
energy consumption for all Deepwater assets. Environmental harm will be 
avoided or minimized during design, construction, deployment, operation 
and disposal of Deepwater assets by the actions of the

[[Page 42598]]

Environmental Protection Working Group as described in section 2.2.1 of 
the Programmatic EIS. The Coast Guard also stated in the Programmatic 
EIS that all Coast Guard regulations concerning environmental 
protection will remain in force for the Integrated Deepwater System.
    Because of the broad, programmatic nature of the Integrated 
Deepwater System Project Programmatic EIS, it is not currently possible 
to state emphatically that all practical means of avoiding or 
minimizing environmental harm have been adopted at the site-specific 
level. However, as a means to avoid or minimize environmental harm at 
the site-specific level, the Coast Guard has stated in the Programmatic 
EIS and restates here that follow-on NEPA documentation will address 
site-specific issues including potential mitigation measures. This 
tiered documentation will be completed on a level as comprehensive as 
possible while remaining commensurate with Coast Guard decisions being 
made.
    In reaching my decision on the U.S. Coast Guard's proposed action, 
I have considered the information contained in the Integrated Deepwater 
System Project Programmatic EIS on the potential for environmental 
impacts.

    Dated: June 18, 2002.
Robert S. Horowitz,
Director of Finance and Procurement, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 02-15892 Filed 6-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P