Public Buildings Service; Record of Decision; Proposed Expansion Pacific Highway Port of Entry, Blaine, Whatcom County, Washington

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