90302 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 221 / Friday, November 15, 2024 / Notices 

42 CFR citation and purpose Number of 

respondents 

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 ..................................................................... 25 4 100 .083 8 

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) ....... 20 2 40 .25 10 

Disclosure: 

54a.8(b) Program participant notice to program beneficiaries of rights to referral to an alternative service 

provider ..................................................................... 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 

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 

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 

[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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 221 / Friday, November 15, 2024 / Notices 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 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
90304 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 221 / Friday, November 15, 2024 / 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 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

[Docket ID FEMA–2024–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–2475] 

Proposed Flood Hazard 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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/ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES