Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Expansion and Modernization of Base Seattle, 90302-90304 [2024-26393]
Download as PDF
90302
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 221 / Friday, November 15, 2024 / Notices
Number of
respondents
42 CFR citation and purpose
Responses
per
respondent
Total
responses
Hours per
response
Total hours
54.6(b) Documentation must be maintained to demonstrate significant burden for program participants
under 42 U.S.C. 300x–57 or 42 U.S.C. 290cc–
33(a)(2) ......................................................................
60
1
60
1
60
Part 54—Subtotal ..................................................
116
........................
389
........................
279
Part 54a—States, local governments and religious organizations receiving funding under Title V of the PHS Act for substance use prevention,
treatment and recovery services
Reporting:
54a.8(c)(1)(iv) Program participant notification to state
or local government of a referral to an alternative
provider .....................................................................
54a(8)(d) Program participant notification to SAMHSA
of referrals. (NOTE: This notification will occur during the course of the regular reports that may be
required under the terms of the funding award) .......
Disclosure:
54a.8(b) Program participant notice to program beneficiaries of rights to referral to an alternative service
provider .....................................................................
25
4
100
.083
8
20
2
40
.25
10
1,460
1
1,460
1
1,460
Part 54a—Subtotal .......................................................
1,505
........................
1,600
........................
1,478
Total .......................................................................
1,621
........................
1,989
1
1,757
Send comments to SAMHSA Reports
Clearance Officer, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Room 15E57–A, Rockville, Maryland
20857, OR email a copy to samhsapra@
samhsa.hhs.gov. Written comments
should be received by January 14, 2025.
Krishna Palipudi,
Social Science Analyst.
[FR Doc. 2024–26641 Filed 11–14–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162–20–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
[Docket Number USCG–2021–0183]
Final Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement for the Expansion
and Modernization of Base Seattle
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Availability of the
Final Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement Expansion and
Modernization of Base Seattle.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast
Guard) announces the availability of the
Final Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement (PEIS) for the
Expansion and Modernization of Base
Seattle. In accordance with National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations,
the Final PEIS analyzes the potential
environmental and socioeconomic
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Nov 14, 2024
Jkt 265001
impacts, and identifies related
mitigation measures, associated with
land acquisition, facility and
infrastructure modernization, and
continued operation to support current
and future Coast Guard missions at Base
Seattle.
DATES: The Coast Guard will not issue
a final decision on the proposed action
until at least December 16, 2024, or at
least 30 days after the Environmental
Protection Agency publishes its Notice
of Availability of this Final PEIS in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: The complete text of the
Final PEIS is available in the docket,
which can be found by searching the
docket number USCG–2021–0183 using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov or at
https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/NEPA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information
should be sent to U.S. Coast Guard,
Shore Infrastructure Logistics Center,
Environmental Management Division,
ATTN: Dean Amundson, 1301 Clay
Street, Suite 700N, Oakland, CA 94612–
5203. ; phone 510–637–5541; email
BaseSeattlePEIS@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final
PEIS was prepared in accordance with
the requirements of NEPA, the CEQ
regulations implementing NEPA (40
CFR 1500–1508), DHS procedures for
implementing NEPA (DHS Instruction
Manual 023–01–001–01 (series)), Coast
Guard Environmental Planning Policy
(Commandant Instruction
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[COMDTINST] 5090.1), and other
applicable DHS and Coast Guard
policies and guidance. A Notice of
Intent (NOI) to prepare the PEIS was
published in the Federal Register on
May 7, 2021 (86 FR 24637). On October
11, 2022, the Coast Guard published a
Notice of Availability (NOA) and a
request for comments on the Draft PEIS
(87 FR 61344). In response to a
comment in the docket the Coast Guard
extended the public comment period
until December 16, 2022, which was
announced in the Federal Register (87
FR 73011) and in local newspapers on
November 28, 2022.
The purpose of the proposed action is
to provide adequate and efficient shore
facilities and infrastructure at Base
Seattle to support the Coast Guard’s
execution of its current and future
statutory missions, pursuant to 14
United States Code (U.S.C.) 102. Base
Seattle is the largest Coast Guard
installation in the Pacific Northwest and
is an essential facility to support Coast
Guard missions in the Pacific Northwest
and polar (the Arctic and Antarctica)
areas of responsibility (AOR), now and
for the foreseeable future.
The Coast Guard identified three
reasonable alternatives that would meet
the purpose and need of the proposed
action. The PEIS analyzed the potential
environmental and socioeconomic
impacts associated with the proposed
action, action alternatives and the no
action alternative; including direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects, and
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 221 / Friday, November 15, 2024 / Notices
potential mitigation measure to
minimize impacts. The Coast Guard has
actively considered the full range of
alternatives when determining the
preferred alternative for the Final PEIS.
The Coast Guard continues to consider
each alternative and will document the
Guard’s decision as part of the Record
of Decision.
The Draft PEIS identified Alternative
1 as the Coast Guard’s preferred
alternative. Based on public comments,
the Coast Guard conducted additional
technical analysis which provided
greater detail about the context and
intensity of environmental impacts.
While the significant findings remained
consistent, additional information was
obtained to better inform the Coast
Guard decision-maker. The
socioeconomic analysis considered each
of the alternatives, as well as different
land acquisition options, based on
acreage, within each alternative to
establish a range of impacts. The
socioeconomic study found that the
magnitude of socioeconomic impacts to
the Port of Seattle are largely dependent
upon the amount of acreage that is
acquired.
Therefore, acquiring fewer acres of
land in Alternative 1 would cause less
long-term socioeconomic impacts than
acquiring more acres of land in
Alternatives 2 or 3. Additionally,
Alternative 1 is the environmentally
preferable alternative as it avoids and
minimizes impacts to biological, visual,
and cultural resources. Finally,
Alternative 1 would enable the Coast
Guard to more quickly achieve the
purpose of the proposed action.
Consequently, Alternative 1 remains the
Coast Guard’s preferred alternative in
the Final EIS.
The details of all three Action
Alternatives are provided in Section 2.5.
The Socioeconomic Report can be found
in Appendix R of the Final PEIS.
Alternative 1: Modernization with
Additional Land and Two Berths at
Terminal 46 (Preferred Alternative).
Alternative 1 would involve acquisition
of land to the north at Terminal 46,
including onshore development and
access to existing berth space for two
Coast Guard cutters. While additional
work would occur on the existing Base
property, this alternative would provide
a single, large piece of property that
would enable efficient expansion of
Base facilities while providing the
capability to incorporate the most
effective Anti-Terrorism/Force
Protection (AT/FP) setbacks of all the
alternatives. Acquiring two existing,
structurally adequate berths would be
the most cost-effective and efficient
action and would reduce potential
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Nov 14, 2024
Jkt 265001
effects by eliminating the need to
construct new berths. Under Alternative
1, approximately 27 to 54 acres of land
would be acquired from the Port of
Seattle, including the 1.1-acre Belknap
property, and between 26 and 53 acres
from the Port of Seattle at Terminal 46.
The acquired property at Terminal 46
would provide 1,070 linear feet of new
Coast Guard berthing space. The
alternative would provide flexible space
for parking, equipment staging,
emergency storage, and other similar or
related uses would distributed
throughout the current Base boundaries
as well as on acquired property at
Terminal 46 acquired property.
Alternative 1 would include
construction of several new facilities on
Base.
Alternative 2: Modernization with
Additional Land from Terminals 30 and
46. Alternative 2 would expand Base
Seattle both to the north and south.
Under Alternative 2, many of the
proposed infrastructure modernization
and expansion elements would occur
within the current Base boundaries or
on land acquired at Terminal 30, and
berthing requirements would be
satisfied by the development of two new
berths to the south at Pier 35 E/F. Land
acquired at Terminal 46 would be used
for active cutter support services,
material laydown areas for cutter
materials and equipment, and AT/FP
setbacks. Existing Base Seattle
deficiencies would be resolved, AT/FP
measures would be implemented, and
aging infrastructure would be upgraded
to meet current building codes
(including seismic). Land acquisition
under Alternative 2 would include 21.5
to 29.5 acres of land with the majority
being 13.5 to 21.5 acres at Terminal 30
and would include Jack Perry Memorial
Park. Two new berths would provide
1,120 linear feet (LF) of wharf space.
The berths would be constructed with
one berth on currently owned Coast
Guard property and a second berth
constructed on property acquired at
Terminal 30. Flexible space for parking,
equipment staging, emergency storage,
and other similar or related uses would
be distributed throughout the current
Base boundaries as well as a portion of
the newly acquired property at Terminal
30. Alternative 2 would include
construction of several new facilities on
Base.
Alternative 3: Modernization with
Additional Land and One Berth at
Terminal 46. Alternative 3 would
expand Base Seattle to the north
through land acquisition at Terminal 46
and would infill the current Base
footprint by acquiring currently leased
properties. Under Alternative 3, many of
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
90303
the proposed infrastructure
modernization and expansion elements
would occur within the current Base
boundaries and on land acquired at
Terminal 46. These elements include
satisfying berthing requirements with
construction of one new berth within
the current Base boundaries (Pier 35 E)
and one additional existing berth at
Terminal 46. Under Alternative 3,
existing Base Seattle deficiencies would
be resolved, AT/FP measures upgraded,
and aging infrastructure would be
upgraded to meet current building codes
(including seismic). Under Alternative
3, the minimum acquired land would
total approximately 24.25 to 32.25 acres,
with the majority of land 21.75 to 29.75
acres at Terminal 46. Under this
alternative, one existing berth totaling
560 LF would be acquired at Terminal
46. No further modifications are
required for this berth. A new berth
would be constructed on Coast Guard
property at Pier 35 E. Work would likely
include typical construction for
waterfront facilities, such as pile and
decking installation and possibly
dredging. The construction
configuration and details for this berth
are unknown at this time due to the
unknown extent of a Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) action that would have to
occur prior to any pier construction.
Flexible space for parking, equipment
staging, emergency storage, and other
similar or related uses would be
distributed throughout the current Base
boundaries as well as a portion of the
newly acquired property at Terminal 46.
Alternative 3 would include
construction of several new facilities on
Base.
No-Action Alternative. Under the NoAction Alternative, the Coast Guard
would not implement land acquisition,
facility modernization requirements, or
infrastructure enhancements. Base
Seattle would not be upgraded to make
it a suitable location to homeport up to
eight future major cutters. The NoAction Alternative would also eliminate
the possibility of Coast Guard personnel
relocating to Base Seattle from current
facilities in downtown Seattle. Further,
several buildings on Base could be
forced to reduce capacity or risk losing
functionality altogether if ongoing
structural deterioration is not addressed.
Delaying necessary demolition and
construction projects would result in
increased risks to the environment, the
public, and the health and safety of
Coast Guard personnel and visitors.
Selecting the No-Action Alternative
would significantly impair the Coast
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
90304
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 221 / Friday, November 15, 2024 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Guard’s ability to accomplish its
operational mission requirements
throughout the Pacific Northwest and
Arctic operational areas from Base
Seattle. The No-Action Alternative
would also leave requirements
unfulfilled. The Coast Guard would not
be able to continually comply with its
statutory mandated missions effectively
and efficiently. This alternative was
analyzed in the PEIS to comply with
Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ)
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) regulations (40 Code of Federal
Regulations [CFR] § 1502.14[c]) and to
provide a comparative baseline against
which to evaluate impacts of the
Proposed Action and alternatives.
Resource areas analyzed in the Final
PEIS include land use and coastal zone
management, geological resources,
water resources, transportation, air
quality, biological resources,
socioeconomics and environmental
justice, cultural resources, noise,
utilities and public services, hazardous
materials and wastes, visual resources,
recreational resources, and greenhouse
gases and climate change.
Based on the analysis presented in the
Final PEIS, potentially significant direct
or indirect adverse impacts could occur
to land use, socioeconomics and
environmental justice, and cultural
resources. Adverse cumulative impacts
could occur to geological resources,
water resources, biological resources,
cultural resources, hazardous materials
and wastes, and visual resources.
Impacts to all other resource areas
would be less-than-significant or
beneficial. Base facilities and
infrastructure improvements represent a
long-term development program that
will require a multi-year capital
investment strategy. Specific projects
may require additional NEPA evaluation
and compliance with other
environmental laws and regulations
when they are programmed for
implementation.
Following a 30-day waiting period,
after publication of the Environmental
Protection Agency’s NOA in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard will announce
its Record of Decision, which will be
published in the Federal Register.
Dated: November 5, 2024.
A. Grable,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant
Commandant for Engineering and Logistics.
[FR Doc. 2024–26393 Filed 11–14–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Nov 14, 2024
Jkt 265001
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
[Docket ID FEMA–2024–0002; Internal
Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–2475]
Proposed Flood Hazard
Determinations
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security.
ACTION: Notice.
Comments are requested on
proposed flood hazard determinations,
which may include additions or
modifications of any Base Flood
Elevation (BFE), base flood depth,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
boundary or zone designation, or
regulatory floodway on the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting
Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for
the communities listed in the table
below. The purpose of this notice is to
seek general information and comment
regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) has provided to the affected
communities. The FIRM and FIS report
are the basis of the floodplain
management measures that the
community is required either to adopt
or to show evidence of having in effect
in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP).
DATES: Comments are to be submitted
on or before February 13, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report for
each community are available for
inspection at both the online location
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/
prelimdownload and the respective
Community Map Repository address
listed in the tables below. Additionally,
the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are
accessible online through the FEMA
Map Service Center at https://
msc.fema.gov for comparison.
You may submit comments, identified
by Docket No. FEMA–B–2475, to Rick
Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services
Branch, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400
C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646–7659, or (email)
patrick.sacbibit@fema.dhs.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick
Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services
Branch, Federal Insurance and
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
FEMA
proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community
listed below, in accordance with section
110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard
determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required
by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that
are required. They should not be
construed to mean that the community
must change any existing ordinances
that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements.
The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or
pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities.
These flood hazard determinations are
used to meet the floodplain
management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the
flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any
request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown
on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report
that satisfies the data requirements
outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered
an appeal. Comments unrelated to the
flood hazard determinations also will be
considered before the FIRM and FIS
report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel
(SRP) is available to communities in
support of the appeal resolution
process. SRPs are independent panels of
experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and
other pertinent sciences established to
review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide
recommendations for resolution. Use of
the SRP only may be exercised after
FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation
process for at least 60 days without a
mutually acceptable resolution of an
appeal. Additional information
regarding the SRP process can be found
online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/
srp_overview.pdf.
The watersheds and/or communities
affected are listed in the tables below.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where
applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection
at both the online location https://
hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400
C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646–7659, or (email)
patrick.sacbibit@fema.dhs.gov; or visit
the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://
www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_
main.html.
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 90302-90304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26393]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
[Docket Number USCG-2021-0183]
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the
Expansion and Modernization of Base Seattle
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Final Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement Expansion and Modernization of Base Seattle.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) announces the availability
of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the
Expansion and Modernization of Base Seattle. In accordance with
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations, the Final
PEIS analyzes the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts,
and identifies related mitigation measures, associated with land
acquisition, facility and infrastructure modernization, and continued
operation to support current and future Coast Guard missions at Base
Seattle.
DATES: The Coast Guard will not issue a final decision on the proposed
action until at least December 16, 2024, or at least 30 days after the
Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability of
this Final PEIS in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: The complete text of the Final PEIS is available in the
docket, which can be found by searching the docket number USCG-2021-
0183 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov or at https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/NEPA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information
should be sent to U.S. Coast Guard, Shore Infrastructure Logistics
Center, Environmental Management Division, ATTN: Dean Amundson, 1301
Clay Street, Suite 700N, Oakland, CA 94612-5203. ; phone 510-637-5541;
email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final PEIS was prepared in accordance
with the requirements of NEPA, the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA
(40 CFR 1500-1508), DHS procedures for implementing NEPA (DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01 (series)), Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Policy (Commandant Instruction [COMDTINST] 5090.1), and other
applicable DHS and Coast Guard policies and guidance. A Notice of
Intent (NOI) to prepare the PEIS was published in the Federal Register
on May 7, 2021 (86 FR 24637). On October 11, 2022, the Coast Guard
published a Notice of Availability (NOA) and a request for comments on
the Draft PEIS (87 FR 61344). In response to a comment in the docket
the Coast Guard extended the public comment period until December 16,
2022, which was announced in the Federal Register (87 FR 73011) and in
local newspapers on November 28, 2022.
The purpose of the proposed action is to provide adequate and
efficient shore facilities and infrastructure at Base Seattle to
support the Coast Guard's execution of its current and future statutory
missions, pursuant to 14 United States Code (U.S.C.) 102. Base Seattle
is the largest Coast Guard installation in the Pacific Northwest and is
an essential facility to support Coast Guard missions in the Pacific
Northwest and polar (the Arctic and Antarctica) areas of responsibility
(AOR), now and for the foreseeable future.
The Coast Guard identified three reasonable alternatives that would
meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. The PEIS analyzed the
potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with the
proposed action, action alternatives and the no action alternative;
including direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, and
[[Page 90303]]
potential mitigation measure to minimize impacts. The Coast Guard has
actively considered the full range of alternatives when determining the
preferred alternative for the Final PEIS. The Coast Guard continues to
consider each alternative and will document the Guard's decision as
part of the Record of Decision.
The Draft PEIS identified Alternative 1 as the Coast Guard's
preferred alternative. Based on public comments, the Coast Guard
conducted additional technical analysis which provided greater detail
about the context and intensity of environmental impacts. While the
significant findings remained consistent, additional information was
obtained to better inform the Coast Guard decision-maker. The
socioeconomic analysis considered each of the alternatives, as well as
different land acquisition options, based on acreage, within each
alternative to establish a range of impacts. The socioeconomic study
found that the magnitude of socioeconomic impacts to the Port of
Seattle are largely dependent upon the amount of acreage that is
acquired.
Therefore, acquiring fewer acres of land in Alternative 1 would
cause less long-term socioeconomic impacts than acquiring more acres of
land in Alternatives 2 or 3. Additionally, Alternative 1 is the
environmentally preferable alternative as it avoids and minimizes
impacts to biological, visual, and cultural resources. Finally,
Alternative 1 would enable the Coast Guard to more quickly achieve the
purpose of the proposed action. Consequently, Alternative 1 remains the
Coast Guard's preferred alternative in the Final EIS.
The details of all three Action Alternatives are provided in
Section 2.5. The Socioeconomic Report can be found in Appendix R of the
Final PEIS.
Alternative 1: Modernization with Additional Land and Two Berths at
Terminal 46 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 1 would involve
acquisition of land to the north at Terminal 46, including onshore
development and access to existing berth space for two Coast Guard
cutters. While additional work would occur on the existing Base
property, this alternative would provide a single, large piece of
property that would enable efficient expansion of Base facilities while
providing the capability to incorporate the most effective Anti-
Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) setbacks of all the alternatives.
Acquiring two existing, structurally adequate berths would be the most
cost-effective and efficient action and would reduce potential effects
by eliminating the need to construct new berths. Under Alternative 1,
approximately 27 to 54 acres of land would be acquired from the Port of
Seattle, including the 1.1-acre Belknap property, and between 26 and 53
acres from the Port of Seattle at Terminal 46. The acquired property at
Terminal 46 would provide 1,070 linear feet of new Coast Guard berthing
space. The alternative would provide flexible space for parking,
equipment staging, emergency storage, and other similar or related uses
would distributed throughout the current Base boundaries as well as on
acquired property at Terminal 46 acquired property. Alternative 1 would
include construction of several new facilities on Base.
Alternative 2: Modernization with Additional Land from Terminals 30
and 46. Alternative 2 would expand Base Seattle both to the north and
south. Under Alternative 2, many of the proposed infrastructure
modernization and expansion elements would occur within the current
Base boundaries or on land acquired at Terminal 30, and berthing
requirements would be satisfied by the development of two new berths to
the south at Pier 35 E/F. Land acquired at Terminal 46 would be used
for active cutter support services, material laydown areas for cutter
materials and equipment, and AT/FP setbacks. Existing Base Seattle
deficiencies would be resolved, AT/FP measures would be implemented,
and aging infrastructure would be upgraded to meet current building
codes (including seismic). Land acquisition under Alternative 2 would
include 21.5 to 29.5 acres of land with the majority being 13.5 to 21.5
acres at Terminal 30 and would include Jack Perry Memorial Park. Two
new berths would provide 1,120 linear feet (LF) of wharf space. The
berths would be constructed with one berth on currently owned Coast
Guard property and a second berth constructed on property acquired at
Terminal 30. Flexible space for parking, equipment staging, emergency
storage, and other similar or related uses would be distributed
throughout the current Base boundaries as well as a portion of the
newly acquired property at Terminal 30. Alternative 2 would include
construction of several new facilities on Base.
Alternative 3: Modernization with Additional Land and One Berth at
Terminal 46. Alternative 3 would expand Base Seattle to the north
through land acquisition at Terminal 46 and would infill the current
Base footprint by acquiring currently leased properties. Under
Alternative 3, many of the proposed infrastructure modernization and
expansion elements would occur within the current Base boundaries and
on land acquired at Terminal 46. These elements include satisfying
berthing requirements with construction of one new berth within the
current Base boundaries (Pier 35 E) and one additional existing berth
at Terminal 46. Under Alternative 3, existing Base Seattle deficiencies
would be resolved, AT/FP measures upgraded, and aging infrastructure
would be upgraded to meet current building codes (including seismic).
Under Alternative 3, the minimum acquired land would total
approximately 24.25 to 32.25 acres, with the majority of land 21.75 to
29.75 acres at Terminal 46. Under this alternative, one existing berth
totaling 560 LF would be acquired at Terminal 46. No further
modifications are required for this berth. A new berth would be
constructed on Coast Guard property at Pier 35 E. Work would likely
include typical construction for waterfront facilities, such as pile
and decking installation and possibly dredging. The construction
configuration and details for this berth are unknown at this time due
to the unknown extent of a Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) action that would have
to occur prior to any pier construction. Flexible space for parking,
equipment staging, emergency storage, and other similar or related uses
would be distributed throughout the current Base boundaries as well as
a portion of the newly acquired property at Terminal 46. Alternative 3
would include construction of several new facilities on Base.
No-Action Alternative. Under the No-Action Alternative, the Coast
Guard would not implement land acquisition, facility modernization
requirements, or infrastructure enhancements. Base Seattle would not be
upgraded to make it a suitable location to homeport up to eight future
major cutters. The No-Action Alternative would also eliminate the
possibility of Coast Guard personnel relocating to Base Seattle from
current facilities in downtown Seattle. Further, several buildings on
Base could be forced to reduce capacity or risk losing functionality
altogether if ongoing structural deterioration is not addressed.
Delaying necessary demolition and construction projects would result in
increased risks to the environment, the public, and the health and
safety of Coast Guard personnel and visitors. Selecting the No-Action
Alternative would significantly impair the Coast
[[Page 90304]]
Guard's ability to accomplish its operational mission requirements
throughout the Pacific Northwest and Arctic operational areas from Base
Seattle. The No-Action Alternative would also leave requirements
unfulfilled. The Coast Guard would not be able to continually comply
with its statutory mandated missions effectively and efficiently. This
alternative was analyzed in the PEIS to comply with Council of
Environmental Quality (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Sec. 1502.14[c]) and
to provide a comparative baseline against which to evaluate impacts of
the Proposed Action and alternatives.
Resource areas analyzed in the Final PEIS include land use and
coastal zone management, geological resources, water resources,
transportation, air quality, biological resources, socioeconomics and
environmental justice, cultural resources, noise, utilities and public
services, hazardous materials and wastes, visual resources,
recreational resources, and greenhouse gases and climate change.
Based on the analysis presented in the Final PEIS, potentially
significant direct or indirect adverse impacts could occur to land use,
socioeconomics and environmental justice, and cultural resources.
Adverse cumulative impacts could occur to geological resources, water
resources, biological resources, cultural resources, hazardous
materials and wastes, and visual resources. Impacts to all other
resource areas would be less-than-significant or beneficial. Base
facilities and infrastructure improvements represent a long-term
development program that will require a multi-year capital investment
strategy. Specific projects may require additional NEPA evaluation and
compliance with other environmental laws and regulations when they are
programmed for implementation.
Following a 30-day waiting period, after publication of the
Environmental Protection Agency's NOA in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will announce its Record of Decision, which will be
published in the Federal Register.
Dated: November 5, 2024.
A. Grable,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Engineering
and Logistics.
[FR Doc. 2024-26393 Filed 11-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P