Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Notices development of one new berth on current Coast Guard property and one new berth on acquired property at Terminal 30.
Alternative 3Modernization With Reduced Land Acquisition at Terminal 46
Under Alternative 3, the Coast Guard would acquire approximately 24.25
acres from the Port of Seattle, including two currently leased properties within the existing Base footprint, totaling approximately 2.2 acres, approximately 0.3 acre BNSF property, and approximately 21.75 acres of Terminal 46. This alternative would allow for development of one new berth on current Coast Guard property and include acquisition of one existing berth at Terminal 46.
No-Action Alternative The Coast Guard will also analyze a No-Action Alternative. For the purposes of this PEIS, the No-Action Alternative is defined as not implementing Base expansion and facility and infrastructure modernization requirements. This would result in a loss of operational capabilities.
Scope of Analysis for the PEIS
The Coast Guard is proposing to undertake a removal action at Base Seattle pursuant to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act actions CERCLA 42 United States Code 9601
in conjunction with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, to address known contamination. The Coast Guard will not make a decision on any CERCLA actions since they fall outside of the scope of a NEPA analysis, consistent with 40 CFR 1501.1a6.
The impacts of any current and potential future CERCLA projects will be considered within the baseline of the affected environment under the PEIS.
Summary of Expected Impacts Acoustic and physical stressors associated with the Proposed Action may potentially impact the physical and biological environment in and around Base Seattle. The primary potential physical stressor is from the construction and operation of facilities and infrastructure. Stressors associated with the Proposed Action may potentially impact air quality, ambient sound, biological resources including critical habitat, coastal resources, cultural resources including Tribal fishing rights, traffic and circulation, and socioeconomic resources.
The PEIS will evaluate the likelihood that a resource would be exposed to or
VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 May 06, 2021

Jkt 253001

encounter a stressor and identify the potential impact associated with that exposure or encounter. The likelihood of an exposure or encounter is based on the stressor, location, and timing relative to the spatial and temporal distribution of each biological resource or critical habitat. Most work associated with the proposed action would occur on shore and could potentially affect terrestrial resources; there is the potential for some in-water activities that could affect aquatic resources.
Anticipated Permits and Authorizations The Proposed Action is programmatic in nature and specific projects are anticipated to occur over the next decade. Many of the site-specific project details are not known. As such, permits and authorizations will be identified in the PEIS. Certain approvals may be completed as part of the PEIS, but many of the specific permits and authorizations would not necessarily be issued for site-specific projects until they are programmed, funded, and design details are developed.
Implementation of all alternatives will ultimately require compliance with the following laws and regulations through issuance of permits and/or authorizations:
The Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA; 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. was enacted to protect the coastal environment from demands associated with residential, recreational, and commercial uses. The Coast Guard would determine the impact of the Proposed Action and provide a Coastal Consistency Determination or Negative Determination to the Washington Department of Ecology for the proposed modernization activities at Base Seattle.
The Endangered Species Act ESA of 1973 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. provides for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems on which they depend. The Coast Guard anticipates engaging with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, which have jurisdiction over ESA-listed species and critical habitat 50 CFR 402.14a.
Project specific consultation under Section 7 may not necessarily occur until a later date when site specific project details are known.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
regulates take of marine mammals in U.S. waters. The term take as defined in Section 3 16 U.S.C. 1362 of the MMPA, means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Harassment was further defined in
PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

24639

the 1994 amendments to the MMPA as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which i has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild i.e., Level A
Harassment; or ii has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering i.e., Level B Harassment.
The Coast Guard anticipates engaging with the National Marine Fisheries Service although actual authorization for potential Level B Harassment from construction activities may not necessarily occur until a later date when site specific project details are known.
The Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States and the Rivers and Harbors Act 33 U.S.C. 403, Section 10 regulates the obstruction or alteration of navigable waters of the United States. The Coast Guard anticipates that a very limited amount of work conducted as part of the Proposed Action may require a permit from the Corps of Engineers under either the Clean Water Act or Rivers and Harbors Act. Actual authorization for permits will be obtained, if necessary, once site specific project details are known.
The National Historic Preservation Act NHPA; 16 U.S.C. 470, et seq., Section 106, requires that each federal agency identify and assess the effects its actions may have on historic resources, including potential effects on historic structures, archaeological resources, and tribal resources. The Coast Guard would determine if any historic resources are present in the project area, evaluate the potential for the proposed action to adversely affect these resources, and consult with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer and any interested or affected Tribes to resolve any adverse effects by developing and evaluating alternatives or measures that could avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts.
The Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. regulates emissions from both stationary industrial sources and mobile sources. The Coast Guard would evaluate the potential for increased emissions during construction and operation of modernized facilities to determine if the emissions would be in conformity with the State Implementation Plan for attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
In addition, Coast Guard will complete Consultation with all affected Federally Recognized Tribes on a
E:FRFM07MYN1.SGM

07MYN1