[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