[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1334-1335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-525]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Public Buildings Service; Record of Decision; Proposed Expansion
Pacific Highway Port of Entry, Blaine, Whatcom County, Washington
I. Introduction
The United States General Services Administration (GSA) announces
its decision, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the regulations issued by the Council on Environmental
Quality, to expand to existing Pacific Highway Port of Entry (POE) in
Blaine, Whatcom County, Washington. This Record of Decision (ROD)
documents my decision regarding this proposal.
The existing facility is located on the west side of State Route
543 in Blaine, and serves as a major Port of Entry between the United
States and the province of British Columbia, Canada. This ROD describes
the alternatives considered and the rationale for selecting the
environmentally preferred alternative.
The principal function of the proposed facility will be to
accommodate the expansion requirements of the U.S. Customs Service, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Health Inspection Service, Food and Drug
Administration, Food and Safety Inspection Service, U.S. General
Services Administration/Public Buildings Service, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The proposed expansion would replace the present
facility, which is overcrowded and functionally obsolete.
II. Decision
Based upon review of the written materials associated with the
environmental process, including the transcripts of the Scoping and
Public Hearings and the comments received from those who reviewed the
Draft, Final, and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements, I have
decided to proceed with the expansion of the POE. The site will expand
from approximately 7 acres to 16 acres, part of which is already owned
by the U.S. Government (approximately 9 acres would be acquired prior
to construction). This ROD is in keeping with the statutory mission of
General Services Administration to design, build, or lease, appraise,
repair, operate, protect, and maintain federal properties. My decision
is based upon the following factors:
The Pacific Highway POE is the largest commercial truck crossing
port in Washington state, and is the U.S. Customs headquarters for
Western Whatcom County, Washington and ports. Serving a major arterial
highway, the POE also processes a significant amount of auto traffic as
well as a majority of the state's bus traffic. Inspection agencies at
the POE are responsible for monitoring vehicular and pedestrian traffic
entering the U.S. This entails the use of surveillance equipment,
inspection and detainment facilities for vehicles and cargo, and
detention facilities for people.
The present facility in Blaine can no longer efficiently nor
effectively accommodate the volume of traffic encountered at this
location, which has increased steadily in recent years. From 1978 to
1992, auto crossings have increased approximately 172 percent and truck
crossings have increased approximately 252 percent. Between 1986 and
1991, the POE processed more than 6.7 million cars, trucks and buses.
The flow of all traffic north and south bound has been severely
affected. Furthermore, it is anticipated the growth in border traffic
volume would continue, resulting from the 1989 Free Trade Agreement and
the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), between the U.S. and
Canada.
Because of the POE's location on a major north-south trucking
route, traffic volumes that are processed directly reflect the level of
trade between the two countries. Therefore, the continued increase in
trade is anticipated to result in a concomitant increase in border
traffic especially truck traffic, in the near future. In FY 1994, truck
traffic increased 10.4 percent according to U.S. Customs. The inability
of the POE to process current traffic volumes is not only related to
the lack of capacity of individual processing units, but also because
of an outdated site layout and inadequate site size, both of which are
inadequate to ensure a safe and expedient flow of traffic.
In addition to the increase in traffic volume, the nature of
transportation has changed a substantial degree during the past 20
years since the facility was constructed. New transportation technology
that requires specific dimensions and handling systems, as well as
automated cargo processing systems have rendered the existing
facilities obsolete. The present 20-year facility is inadequately
equipped to handle increasingly large loads of cargo and livestock at
one time both in terms of space and processing equipment. Finally,
structural and utility constraints of existing buildings do not allow
for full utilization of modern office technology.
III. Alternatives Considered
The GSA has examined a range of alternatives that could feasibly
attain the objectives of the proposed project. These alternatives are
described in the Final EIS and Final Supplemental EIS and are
summarized as follows:
A. Site Configuration
As reflected in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements
and the Draft and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements,
the GSA has conducted an intensive effort over a two-year period to
study the best way to expand the POE facility. Because of the unique
requirements of POE's, alternative sites on State route 543 have not
been considered. POE's must, by law, be located at treaty designated
locations set by the International Boundary Commission. Federal
inspection facilities are by policy, situated at these points in order
to perform their legal mission requirements. Therefore, expansion of
the existing site was considered the only feasible alternative. A
number of potential site configurations were investigated, two of which
were deemed more desirable for expansion of the POE: Alternative 3B and
Alternative 5.
[[Page 1335]]
B. Take No Action
This alternative assumes the existing facility would be maintained
in its current condition. Existing processing capacities would become
increasingly more inadequate as the volume of border traffic,
particularly trucks, continues to increase. Increased traffic and
processing delays would result in queuing conditions at the POE and
possible also on State Route 543 north of the POE and into Canada. The
absence of adequate facilities at Pacific Highway and associated delays
may ultimately force truck traffic to utilize smaller border crossings
not located along a major state highway. The inefficiencies and
disadvantages associated with inadequate facilities would be worsened
if the Take No Action Alternative were selected.
IV. Environmentally Preferred Alternative
As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a lead
agency must identify its preferred alternative. The environmentally
preferred alternative is the alternative which best promotes the
national environmental policies incorporated in NEPA. In general, this
would be the alternative resulting in the least damage to the human
environment and which best protects natural and cultural resources.
While Design Alternative 3B and 5 are similar, Design Alternative
5, is identified as GSA's environmentally preferred alternative. Design
Alternative 5 would impact the least amount of wetlands by shifting the
development focus on the western side of the site farther south than
Design Alternative 3B. Design Alternative 5 would also include
additional northbound truck parking to the east of State Route 543 for
use by our client agencies.
V. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
In terms of environmental harm, this alternative would have only
minor impacts to: topography; soils; hydrology; visual resources;
fiscal considerations; land use and zoning; transportation; and noise.
However, moderate impacts would occur to biological resources
(wetlands). No significant impacts were identified.
All practicable means to alleviate, minimize and/or compensate
environmental harm will be considered in the development of the
project. Although several mitigation measures were recommended in the
Draft EIS, only those that can be implemented under the authority of
GSA were adopted. For example, additional land is to be purchased to
minimize the loss of wetlands. GSA shall monitor the implementation of
those adopted mitigation measures necessary to assure measures
specified in the Draft and the Record of Decision are carried out.
VI. Conclusion
Environmental and other relevant concerns presented by interested
agencies and private citizens have been addressed sufficiently in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement and are hereby acknowledged and
incorporated into this ROD by reference. The General Services
Administration believes there are no outstanding environmental issues
to be resolved with respect to the proposed project and which are
within the mission capabilities of this agency.
After consulting with the GSA staff, reviewing both the Final EIS
and the Final Supplemental EIS and all of its related materials, it is
my decision the GSA will proceed with Design Alternative 5 as the
environmentally preferred alternative for the expansion of the Pacific
Highway Port of Entry in Blaine, Whatcom County, Washington.
Dated: December 23, 1996.
L. Jay Pearson,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-525 Filed 1-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-23-M
