[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 81 (Friday, April 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21017-21019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8065]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[PBS-N01]


Notice of Availability to Distribute the Record of Decision for 
the Construction of a New Border Station Facility in Madawaska, Maine

AGENCY: Public Buildings Service, GSA.

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

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

SUMMARY: The General Services Administration (GSA) announces its intent 
to distribute the Record of

[[Page 21018]]

Decision (ROD) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 
1969, as amended, 42 USC 4321 - 4347 ( NEPA ) to assess the potential 
impacts of the construction of a New Border Station Facility in 
Madawaska, Maine (the ``Proposed Action''). At the request of Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP), the GSA is proposing to construct a new 
border station facility which meets their needs, and the design 
requirements of the GSA.
    The existing facilities are undersized and obsolete, and 
consequently incapable of providing the level of security now required. 
The Proposed Action has been defined and includes: (a) Identification 
of land requirements, including acquisition of adjoining land; (b) 
demolition of existing government structures at the border station; (c) 
construction of a main administration building and ancillary support 
buildings; and (d) consequent potential alterations to secondary roads.
    Studied alternatives have identified alternative locations for the 
components of the border station including the main administration and 
ancillary support buildings, the associated roadway network and 
parking. A No Action alternative has also been studied and evaluates 
the consequences of not constructing the new border station 
facility.This alternative has been included to provide a basis for 
comparison to the action alternatives described above as required by 
NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1002.14(d)).

DATES: May 29, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David M. Drevinsky P.E., PMP, Regional 
Environmental Quality Advocate (REQA), U.S. General Services 
Administration, 10 Causeway Street, Room 975, Boston, MA 02222. Fax: 
(617) 565-5967. Phone: (617) 565-6596. E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c383d2a353872382e392a35322f37251c3b2f3d723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="670306110e0349031502110e09140c1e2700140649000811">[email protected]</span></a>.

 DISTRIBUTION:
    GSA will distribute ten reading copies of the Record of Decision at 
both the Middle / High School Library located on 135 Seventh Avenue in 
Madawaska and the Madawaska Library located on 393 Main Street.

Glenn C. Rotondo,
Assistant Regional Administrator,Public Buildings Service, New England 
Region

Record of Decision

    The General Services Administration has published a final 
environmental impact statement on the following project:
    Madawaska Border Station
    Madawaska, Aroostook County, Maine

Purpose and Needs

    The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the undersized 
and functionally obsolete land port of entry at Madawaska with a new 
facility that meets the needs of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP), complies with the design requirements of the GSA, and provides 
efficient and safe inspection and processing of vehicles and people at 
the border crossing.
    The proposed project is needed because the size and conditions of 
the existing building and overall site are substandard, preventing the 
agencies assigned to the port from adequately fulfilling their 
respective missions. This condition has become more noticeable in 
recent years due to the increase in commercial truck traffic and 
heightened security at the border following the terrorist attacks in 
2001. The deficiencies with the existing facilities have led to 
extensive traffic delays, for vehicles entering the U.S., of up to 2 
miles on the streets of Edmundston. The deficiencies fall into three 
broad categories: 1) Building deficiencies, 2) overall site 
deficiencies, and 3) insufficient security.

Alternatives

    The following alternatives were analyzed to determine which best 
satisfied the purpose and needs:
    The No-build Alternative
    Under the no-build alternative, operation of the border station 
would continue at its existing location and using the existing 
facilities. With the exception of minor repairs and upgrades to 
existing equipment, no new construction or demolition would take place. 
No new inspection lanes or facilities would be built.
    The Selected Alternative
    The selected alternative, initially known as Alternative D, 
consists of a new facility on property that is not immediately adjacent 
to the existing border station. The approximately 12.9-acre site used 
for alternative D is about 1,600 feet west of the existing border 
station and owned by Fraser Papers, the MM&A Railroad, and the 
Madawaska Regional Health Center. Vehicles traveling from the 
International Bridge would make a 90-degree turn west, and proceed 
approximately 1,600 feet on a secure access road and bridge over the 
MM&A railroad tracks to the site of the new border station. The GSA 
would own and maintain the access road and bridge. A pedestrian-only 
processing facility would be located at the U.S. end of the 
International Bridge on the site of the current border station.
    Alternative D was identified as GSA's preferred alternative in the 
draft environmental impact statement, and as the selected alternative 
in the final environmental impact statement, because it best satisfied 
the project purpose and needs with the least adverse environmental 
impact. Three alternatives - alternatives A, B, and C -were developed 
that attempted to locate the new port facilities within a small 
geographical area immediately adjacent to the existing port site, 
roughly bordered by the Fraser Papers mill, the Saint John River, and 
Bridge and Mill Streets. These three alternatives only marginally met 
the project`s purpose and need and had greater adverse environmental 
impacts than the selected alternative. The GSA identified Alternative D 
as the environmentally preferable alternative.
    Alternatives Dismissed
    Alternative A consisted of demolishing the existing building, 
building new ones on the existing site, and expanding it in an attempt 
to meet the required space standards and increased security 
requirements of the CBP. This alternative locates the entire border 
station between the Fraser Papers mill and the Saint John River, 
straddling the MM&;A railroad tracks. Alternative A had the advantages 
of reusing the existing site of the border station, having a compact 
layout requiring acquisition of less property than the other 
alternatives, and using property not intensely used by Fraser Papers. 
However, the compact layout of alternative A results in several 
disadvantages. The three at-grade crossings of the MM&A railroad tracks 
would cause train-vehicle conflicts; traffic circulation would be 
cumbersome and non-intuitive; trucks would have to back up into the 
travel lane to exit the secondary inspection area; and the VACIS unit 
could not be enclosed.
    Alternative B consisted of demolishing the existing border station 
building and constructing a new border station immediately south of the 
MM&A railroad tracks within Bridge Street and on property owned by 
Fraser Papers along Bridge Street and Mill Street. The primary 
inspection area for all vehicles would be in Bridge Street and on 
property owned by Fraser Papers. Secondary inspection for trucks and 
personally owned vehicles (POVs) and buses would take place in Mill 
Street and on property to the south of Mill Street owned by Fraser 
Papers and used for employee parking. Thirteenth through Sixteenth 
Avenues and a portion of Mill Street would be closed to through 
traffic. Vehicle circulation through the secondary POV and bus 
inspection area would be challenging, because there is a dramatic rise 
in grade

[[Page 21019]]

from one side of this area to the other. The exit of the secondary 
inspection area would intersect with a steep portion of Bridge Street, 
which is a safety concern. Following secondary inspection, alternative 
B would require trucks returning to Canada to be escorted by border 
station personnel back to the International Bridge, by way of public 
streets. This alternative would remove a considerable amount of 
employee parking from Fraser Papers and would require trucks to 
circulate through town to access the paper mill.
    Alternative C consisted of demolishing the existing border station 
building and constructing a new border station along the MM&A railroad 
tracks, Bridge Street, and a portion of the Fraser Papers parking areas 
adjacent to Mill Street. Alternative C proposed the complete separation 
of inspections for trucks and POVs and buses. Primary and secondary 
inspection of trucks would occur on the existing border station site 
and additional MM&A railroad-owned property to the south and west. 
Primary inspection of POVs and buses would occur in Bridge Street and 
on property owned by Fraser Papers and used for employee parking. 
Secondary POV and bus inspection would occur on land owned by Fraser 
Papers at the corner of Bridge and Mill Streets. Thirteenth Avenue 
would be closed to through traffic.
    Alternatives A, B, and C would only marginally satisfy the 
project's purpose and needs because the building and site layout are 
not ideal, on-site traffic circulation is cumbersome, and security, 
while improved over existing conditions, would not fully meet the CBP's 
requirements. Additionally, they would likely result in substantial 
disruption to operations of Fraser Papers and the MM&A Railroad. Due to 
the many problems associated with them and because another alternative 
exists that fully satisfies the project's purpose and needs with less 
adverse impact, alternatives A, B, and C were dismissed from further 
consideration.

Environmental Consequences of the Project

    The selected alternative would have a small impact on the natural 
and social environment of Madawaska. The selected alternative would 
impact Fraser Papers' use of the site for truck and outdoor material 
storage, a railroad siding and buildings owned by the MM&A Railroad, 
and displace the Madawaska Regional Health Center, a medical office and 
outpatient care facility. The selected alternative would result in 
minor changes or impacts in traffic, noise, surface water runoff, and 
increased lighting. In each case, the changes would not be significant. 
The selected alternative would not adversely impact special events like 
the International Snowmobile Festival.
    According to officials at the CBP, it is anticipated that vehicle 
idle time will be significantly less than 5 minutes. As a final design 
for the facility is developed, the GSA/CBP will evaluate traffic 
processing flow and wait times and, if necessary, identify appropriate 
idling reduction strategies. Such strategies may include development of 
signage at strategic locations and/or educational outreach to local 
industries whose drivers frequently use the border crossing.

Decision

    The GSA has decided to construct the selected alternative because 
it best meets the purpose and needs of the project, and would have 
positive impacts on inbound traffic compared to the no-build 
alternative. The traffic circulation patterns of the selected 
alternative, with the installation of increased security and technology 
measures, would result in shorter vehicle queues and more effective and 
faster processing times for inbound vehicles. The separation of POVs 
from trucks and buses would greatly reduce queuing that occurs with the 
no-build alternative when more than one truck is present for 
processing. The number of inbound booths for processing vehicular 
traffic would increase from two (one POV lane and one shared lane) to 
four (two POV lanes, one truck lane, and one bus lane). Traffic backups 
into Canada would be reduced with the additional lanes combined with 
the increased stacking area along the proposed access road.
    The GSA selected the environmentally preferable alternative. The 
selected and environmentally preferable alternative best met the 
purpose and needs for the project with the least impact to the natural 
and social environments, and best protects, preserves, and enhances the 
historic, cultural, and natural resources of the area.
    The following economic, technical, and GSA mission considerations 
were weighed in reaching the decision: The selected alternative would 
adequately address the problem that the existing building, although 
well maintained, does not meet the GSA's or accessibility guidelines 
and provides only a small percentage of the total building square foot 
area required to meet the needs of the CBP and other agencies. It also 
addresses the problem that the existing border station suffers from a 
variety of basic deficiencies that hamper the CBP and other agencies in 
providing safe and efficient processing of vehicular and pedestrian 
traffic including:
    <bullet>Deficiencies in the main building (size, accessibility, 
structural, etc.)
    <bullet>Deficiencies in site circulation and layout
    <bullet>Deficiencies in processing of inbound commercial and non-
commercial vehicles, especially in the lack of space to perform 
secondary inspections of large commercial vehicles
    <bullet>Deficiencies in processing outbound vehicular and 
pedestrian traffic
    <bullet>Lack of parking spaces
    <bullet>Lack of designated delivery area
    <bullet>Deficiencies in exterior lighting
    <bullet>Deficiencies related to security measures (equipment, 
fencing, building setbacks, etc.)
    The DEIS identified a preferred alternative. The DEIS was 
circulated and a public hearing was held to receive comments. No major 
substantive comments on the DEIS were received.
    All practicable means of avoiding or minimizing environmental harm 
from the selected alternative were adopted, through the attached 
program of mitigation, monitoring, or enforcement.
[FR Doc. E7-8065 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-A8-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>