[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71690-71696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24445]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
[PBS-N01]
Notice of Availability to Distribute a Record of Decision for the
Construction of a New U.S. Commercial Port of Entry in Derby Line,
Vermont
AGENCY: Public Buildings Service, GSA.
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The General Services Administration (GSA), along with the
Federal Highway Administration and the Vermont Agency of Transportation
as cooperating agencies, announces its intent to distribute a Record of
Decision (ROD) prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, 42 USC 4321--4347 (NEPA) that documents
GSA's efforts to assess the potential impacts of the construction of a
new U.S. Commercial Port of Entry in Derby Line, Vermont (the
``Proposed Action''). At the request of Customs and Border Protection
(CBP), the GSA is proposing to construct a new Commercial Port of Entry
which meets their needs as well as the design requirements of GSA.
The existing Port of Entry site and facilities are inefficient and
are very difficult to maneuver through, especially for large trucks,
resulting in extensive queuing and delays. Additionally, all building
spaces are currently fully occupied and there is no swing or vacant
space that could be utilized to house the additional requirements at
this site. Due to the current layout, expansion of existing spaces is
not possible. Due to organizational changes within CBP in the past few
years, as well as changes in requirements and usage of the Port of
Entry, the existing facility is outdated and no longer adequately meets
its current or future requirements.
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
Port of Entry; (c) construction of a main administration building and
ancillary support buildings; and (d) consequent potential alterations
to Route I-91 and secondary roads.
Studied alternatives have identified alternative locations for the
components of the Port of Entry 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 facility. This alternative
has been included to provide a basis for comparison to the action
alternatives as required by NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1002.14(d)).
DATES: January 17, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT David M. Drevinsky P.E., PMP, Regional
Environmental Quality Advocate, U.S. General Services Administration,
10 Causeway Street, Room 975, Boston, MA 02222. Fax: (617) 565--5967.
Phone: (617) 565--6596. E-mail: [email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Distribution:
GSA will distribute 10 copies of the Record of Decision to the
Haskell Free Library, 96 Caswell Avenue, Derby Line, Vermont, the Daily
Memorial Library, 101 Jr. High Drive, Derby, Vermont and the Goodrich
Memorial Library, 202 Main Street, Newport, Vermont.
Dated: December 11, 2007.
Glenn C. Rotondo,
Assistant Regional Administrator, Public Buildings Service, New England
Region.
Record of Decision
The U.S. General Services Administration has published a Final
Environmental Impact Statement on the following project:
New U.S. Commercial Port of Entry Derby Line, Vermont
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the undersized
and functionally obsolete Commercial Port of Entry at Derby Line with a
new facility that meets the needs of the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Service (CBP), complies with the design requirements of 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 buildings, as well as the overall site configuration, 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., frequently resulting in backups of over one mile on
Highway 55 in Canada. 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 project's purpose and need:
The No-Build Alternative
Under the No-Build Alternative, operation of the Port of Entry
would continue at its existing location using the existing facilities.
With the exception of minor repairs and upgrades to existing buildings,
no new construction or demolition would take place. No new inspection
lanes or facilities would be built.
The Selected Alternative
The selected alternative (the Build Alternative) consists of a new
facility on the existing property and requires the full or partial
acquisition of several adjacent parcels.
The Build Alternative 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's purpose and need with the least adverse
environmental impact. Three alternatives--Alternatives 1, 2, and 3--
were developed to locate the new port facilities within different
configurations on the existing port site. However none of these
alternatives were found to be feasible from a traffic engineering
perspective, as described below.
Alternatives Dismissed
Alternative No. 1 would locate the Main Port Building to the east
of the existing Port Building, generally in the undeveloped area
situated between the northbound lanes of Route I-91 and the Caswell
Avenue exit ramp. The primary inspection lanes/booths would be
connected to the building's northwest corner and the Non-Commercial
Secondary Inspection Building would be connected to the south. A
combined Commercial Secondary Inspection and NII Building would be
located to the west-southwest of the Main Port
[[Page 71691]]
Building, immediately south of the existing non-commercial secondary
inspection facilities. A new Agency Vehicle Storage Garage would be
located south of the existing Commercial Secondary Inspection Building
and west of the existing primary inspection lanes/booths. Finally, an
outbound inspection lane/booth would be located in one of the
northbound lanes of Route I-91, northeast of the Main Port Building.
Alternative No. 1 has the following negative aspects:
Trucks would be required to back-up from the NII Building
to access the Commercial Secondary Inspection Building's loading docks,
although this movement would not impact through travel lanes;
A vacant commercial property on Maple Street would be
displaced to accommodate the relocated Route I-91 southbound ramp, and
a vacant commercial property on Herrick Road would be displaced to
accommodate the relocated Route I-91 northbound exit ramp;
Secondary RPMs (SRPMs) would be located in a tight
location, possibly complicating access and circulation;
The provision of an appropriate deceleration lane on Route
I-91 Southbound at Exit 29 would be required;
Trucks may have difficulty accessing the parking area when
exiting the NII building;
The truck exit lane from the primary inspection lanes/
booths onto Route I-91 Southbound has tight clearances near the NII
building, complicating circulation;
The proposed Route I-91 northbound geometry does not
fulfill the requirements of a 40 mph design speed. Examples include the
substandard length of the horizontal curve passing under Caswell
Avenue, as well as its close proximity (inadequate separation) to the
next horizontal curve immediately to its south;
Poor sight distance for Route I-91 northbound traffic to
the nose of the proposed northbound off-ramp (approximately 400 feet);
The alternative does not include safety improvements to
provide positive separation between opposing traffic on the northbound
and southbound ramps to Caswell Avenue;
Parking facilities for the proposed Port fall within the
clear zone of the proposed Route I-91 northbound lanes, and;
The length of the proposed northbound off-ramp would be
substantially reduced from the existing condition. This is very
problematic for two reasons:
The deceleration length for vehicles exiting the
highway would be reduced by approximately 50 percent.
Local residents have complained of their inability to
exit the highway due to queued vehicles on Route I-91 from the
Canadian port. The proposed layout for this alternative would
seriously exacerbate the existing problems.
Because Alternative No. 1 does not meet the proposed project's
goals, and because it is inadequate from a traffic engineering
standpoint, it was eliminated from further consideration.Alternative
No. 2 is similar to Alternative No. 1 in many respects, but with
several clear differences. Under this alternative, the Main Port
Building would be located in the same general area as in Alternative
No. 1; however Alternative No. 2 reorients the Main Port Building and
combined Commercial Secondary Inspection and NII Building to be
parallel, thereby creating a straight line through the inspection area.
The primary inspection lanes/booths would be connected to the Main Port
Building's northwest corner and the Non-Commercial Secondary Inspection
Building would be connected to the south. The Agency Vehicle Storage
Garage would be located farther north under this alternative, which
would provide additional truck parking and improves truck access to the
Route I-91 southbound off-ramp to Caswell Avenue.
Alternative No. 2 has the following negative aspects:
Local access to the Port of Entry would require the use of
a turnout located north of the Port of Entry;
Trucks would be required to back-up from the NII Building
to access the Commercial Secondary Inspection Building's loading docks,
although this movement would not impact through travel lanes;
A vacant commercial property on Maple Street would be
displaced to accommodate the relocated Route I-91 southbound ramp and a
vacant commercial property on Herrick Road would be displaced to
accommodate the relocated Route I-91 northbound ramp;
The horizontal alignment of Route I-91 Southbound near
Exit ramp is a concern. The provision of appropriate acceleration and
deceleration lanes would be needed;
Utilizing the truck parking area located near the Agency
Vehicle Storage Garage would require trucks to back-up into the
circulation area;
The proposed Route I-91 northbound geometry does not
fulfill the requirements of a 40 mph design speed. Examples include the
substandard length of the horizontal curve passing under Caswell Avenue
(Curve A), as well as its close proximity (inadequate separation) to
the next horizontal curve immediately to its south (Curve B);
Curve B is substandard in length and curvature, and;
The proposed Route I-91 northbound geometry consists of a
``broken back'' configuration, i.e., two adjacent horizontal curves in
the same direction (both to the left in this instance) with minimal
separation. This is a poor design practice.
Because Alternative No. 2 does not meet the proposed project's
goals, and because it is inadequate from a traffic engineering
standpoint, it was eliminated from further consideration.
Unlike Alternative Nos. 1 and 2, Alternative No. 3 would retain the
existing Route I-91 Southbound entrance/exit ramp, and the NII Building
would be a separate structure from the Commercial Secondary Inspection
Building. The Main Port Building would be located in the same general
area as in the other two alternatives; however its orientation would
not be parallel to the NII Building, which also would be located in the
same general area as in the other two alternatives. The primary
inspection lanes/booths would be connected to the Main Port Building's
northwest corner and the Non-Commercial Secondary Inspection Building
would be connected to the south. The Commercial Secondary Inspection
Building would be located in the same general area as the existing
broker building, and the Agency Vehicle Garage would be located
immediately north, both along the site's western perimeter.
Alternative No. 3 has the following negative aspects:
Southbound movements to and from Route I-91's Exit 29
would complicate circulation;
Trucks would be required to back-up from the NII Building
to access the Commercial Secondary Inspection Building's loading docks;
Would result in a tight turning radius from the NII
Building to Exit 29;
Would result in difficult truck maneuvering and parking
when trucks leave the primary inspection lane/booth and are destined to
the secondary inspection area;
Would result in a higher potential for pedestrian/motor
vehicle circulation conflicts on the property;
Access to the Port of Entry from Herrick Road would
require the use of
[[Page 71692]]
a turnout located north of the Port of Entry;
Secondary RPMs would be located in a tight location,
possibly complicating access and circulation.
The proposed Route I-91 northbound geometry does not
fulfill the requirements of a 40 mph design speed. Examples include the
substandard length of the horizontal curve passing under Caswell
Avenue, as well as its close proximity (inadequate separation) to the
next horizontal curve immediately to its south;
Poor sight distance for Route I-91 northbound traffic to
the nose of the proposed northbound off-ramp (approximately 400 feet);
The alternative does not include safety improvements to
provide positive separation between opposing traffic on the northbound
and southbound ramps to Caswell Avenue;
Parking facilities for the proposed Port fall within the
clear zone of the proposed Route I-91 northbound lanes;
The length of the proposed northbound off-ramp would be
substantially reduced from the existing condition. This is very
problematic for two reasons:
The deceleration length for vehicles exiting the
highway would be reduced by approximately 50 percent.
Local residents have complained of their inability to
exit the highway due to queued vehicles on Route I-91 from the
Canadian port. The proposed layout for this alternative would
seriously exacerbate the existing problems;
The proposed angular parking adjacent to Route I-91 for
``Referrals'' will pose a severe safety concern, and;
The Route I-91 southbound off-ramp geometry is poor and
will result in poor vehicular flow exiting the Port.
Because Alternative No. 3 does not meet the goals of the proposed
project, and because it is inadequate from a traffic engineering
standpoint, it was eliminated from further consideration.
Due to the many problems associated with them and because another
alternative exists that fully satisfies the project's purpose and need
with less adverse impact, Alternative Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were dismissed
from further consideration.
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Project
The Build Alternative would have a small impact on the natural and
social environment of the Derby Line region. The Build Alternative
would require the full or partial acquisition of several adjacent
properties. The Build 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.
As a final design for the facility is developed, 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
GSA has decided to proceed with the design of the Build Alternative
because it best meets the purpose and need of the proposed project, and
would have positive impacts on inbound traffic compared to the No-Build
Alternative. The traffic circulation patterns of the Build 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 non-commercial
traffic from commercial traffic 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
change from one commercial and four non-commercial lanes to one
commercial, three non-commercial and one ``dual-use'' lane, with space
reserved for the future addition of a second ``dual-use'' lane. The
rearrangement of inspection lanes, as well as a general reconfiguration
of the entire site, will result in the safer and more efficient
processing of inbound vehicles. Traffic backups into Canada would be
reduced with the new lane and site configurations.
GSA selected the environmentally preferable alternative. The
selected and environmentally preferable alternative best met the
purpose and need 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 Build Alternative would
adequately address the problem that the existing facility, although
well maintained, does not meet 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 Commercial Port of Entry
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:
Deficiencies in the main building (size, accessibility,
structural, etc.)
Deficiencies in site circulation and layout
Deficiencies in processing of inbound commercial and non-
commercial vehicles, especially in the lack of space to perform
secondary inspections of large commercial vehicles
Deficiencies in processing outbound vehicular and
pedestrian traffic
Lack of parking spaces
Lack of a designated delivery area
Deficiencies in exterior lighting
Deficiencies related to security measures (equipment,
fencing, building setbacks, etc.)
Comments
The Draft EIS was issued on July 28, 2006, initiating a 45-day
public comment period. A public hearing was held on August 29, 2006 to
receive comments. Comments received on the DEIS were responded to in
the Final EIS.
The Final EIS was issued on July 6, 2007, initiating a 30-day
comment period which ended on August 6, 2007. Letters were received
from USEPA, USACOE, State Senator Vince Illuzzi, the Town of Derby
Select Board, the Village of Derby Line Trustees and two private
citizens.
Federal Agencies
USEPA
Comment: The Environmental Protection Agency--New England Region
(EPA) has reviewed the U.S. General Services Administration's (GSA)
Final Environmental Impact Statement for a new U. S. Border Station and
Commercial Port of Entry in Derby Line, Vermont. We continue to have no
objections to the project as described.
Response: GSA appreciates EPA's lack of objections to the project
and their designation of the EIS as adequate. As a final design for the
facility is developed, GSA/CBP will evaluate traffic processing flow
and wait times and, if necessary, identify appropriate idling reduction
strategies.
USACOE
Comment 1: During a February 2, 2006 on-site meeting and in an
April 4, 2006 e-mail message with your consultant, The Louis Berger
Group, they were informed that the proposed project will require a
Department of the Army permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and that the New England Division Highway Methodology will be
followed.
This process integrates the Corps of Engineers Section 404 process
and the
[[Page 71693]]
NEPA EIS process. To this date we have not received an application to
perform the proposed work discussed in the Final EIS. For individual
permits you must submit information that thoroughly and clearly
documents the need for the fill, alternatives, and mitigation
possibilities. Without this information, we could not issue a permit to
place the fill. Additionally, in accordance with our regulations, no
permit can be issued unless it complies with the Environmental
Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guideline. These guidelines prohibit
discharges where less environmentally damaging, practicable
alternatives (LEDPA) exist.
Although, the Final EIS has chosen a Build Alternative, the Corps
has insufficient information at this time to select the LEDPA.
Therefore, our comments on the Final EIS are relatively brief and
relate to the information that would be required in the future to
evaluate a Department of the Army permit application to construct the
proposed project.
Response 1: GSA recognizes that the Army Corps of Engineers will
require additional information to evaluate the project. This
information will be developed as the project advances through the
design phase and will be furnished with the Department of the Army
permit application.
Comment 2: The document generally addresses the environmental
impacts of the project and of the preferred alternative. We believe
that additional narrative descriptions of the aquatic resources that
would be impacted and the nature of the impacts should be provided in
order to provide a complete understanding of the project and its'
effects. This information will be required for our permit review.
Response 2: As the project advances through the design phase,
additional information will be developed that will be submitted with
all permit applications.
Comment 3: Summary Page S-2, Hydrology: The brief summary mentions
that the wetlands on the site are Class Three wetlands, which are not
subject to the Vermont Wetland Rules. However, there is no mention that
a permit will be required by the Corps of Engineers. The project will
involve the placement of fill into the streams and wetlands on the site
and, therefore, require a Department of the Army permit under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The need for potential mitigation for
the proposed impacts to the aquatic resources should be mentioned.
Response 3: GSA recognizes that a permit from the Corps of
Engineers will be required. As the design progresses to a point where
it can support a permit application, the application will be submitted
and mitigation measures will be discussed.
Comment 4: Alternatives: Three alternatives were initially
considered and eliminated from further considerations based primarily
on engineering. It's likely that these alternatives would have similar
waterway and wetland impacts as the Build Alternative. Was any
consideration given to the elimination of these alternatives based on
their impact to the aquatic resources?
Response 4: GSA agrees that each of the eliminated alternatives
would have similar waterway and wetland impacts as the Build
Alternative. Because each initially failed from an engineering
standpoint, no further consideration was given to them.
Comment 5: Build Alternative: Figure 6 is difficult to read with
the yellow and green shading of the proposed highway alignments. The
dark lines used to show proposed alignments in Figures 3, 4 & 5 allow
you to view existing conditions.
Response 5: Comment noted.
Comment 6: Chapter 3, Hydrology: There is a lack of a clear
understanding that a Department of the Army permit under the CWA will
be required for the proposed project.
Response 6: GSA understands that a Department of the Army permit
under the CWA will be required for the proposed project. An application
for said permit will be submitted once the project's design advances to
a point where sufficient detail is available to support the
application.
Comment 7: Pg. 3-5: The Corps of Engineers does not have a
``programmatic'' General Permit in Vermont.
Response 7: Comment noted.
Comment 8: Pg. 4-3: Surface Water--There is no discussion of the
proposed project's impact to the two streams within the project area.
The on-site stormwater system has the potential to impact the streams
and wetlands. These potential impacts should be mentioned in this
chapter.
Response 8: As stated on Page 4-3, the existing facility has
limited stormwater management measures in place; the proposed project
will represent a substantial improvement over existing conditions. As a
result, no significant impacts to surface water conditions are
anticipated.
Comment 9: Wetlands--Figure 17 indicates that about 1.786 acres of
wetlands will be impacted. Yet, here about 2.1 acres of wetland will be
impacted. Check these calculations.
Response 9: Comment noted. Table 18 contains the correct
information.
Comment 10: Table 18--Approximately 1.02 acres of Wetland E will be
filled. Yet in Figure 17 about 0.721 acre of Wetland E will be filled
and about 1.022 acres of Wetland E will remain. Check these
calculations.
Response 10: Comment noted. Table 18 contains the correct
information.
State Officials
State Senator Vince Illuzzi
Comment: Enclosed are two letters, one from the Village of Derby
Line and the other from the Town of Derby, expressing relatively
serious concerns, based on available information, about the proposed
construction of a new commercial I-91 Derby Line port of entry and
border station.
In addition to the concerns articulated in these two letters, I
have heard from a number of area residents expressing similar concerns
about the project.
Please give serious consideration to addressing and resolving the
issues raised by these two letters.
I am also taking the liberty of sending copies of this letter with
enclosures to Vermont's congressional delegation. This will enable our
two U. S. Senators and our Congressman to more closely monitor the
local issues and concerns.
Response: GSA appreciates Senator Illuzzi's interest in the
proposed project. GSA is in receipt of the letters from the Village of
Derby Line and the Town of Derby and has provided responses to them
(see below).
Local Officials
Derby Select Board
Comment 1: We would like to address various concerns we have with
the Final EIS for the proposed new commercial Port of Entry and Border
Station, Route 1-91 Derby Line, Vermont. We do understand the need for
a new Port of Entry and hope that it will have a minimal impact on the
Town and Village during the entire process.
Response 1: GSA appreciates the Town's interest in the proposed
project and will continue to make every reasonable effort to minimize
potential impacts to the Town and Village.
Comment 2: The federal government will be taking significant
portions of commercially zoned property. The remaining commercially
zoned property will not be as valuable. The current and future effects
of this land acquisition have not been considered as the value to the
Town and Village is important for future economic development.
Response 2: On the east side of Route I-91, the proposed project
will potentially acquire a vacant commercial parcel as well as an
amount of frontage along Herrick Road. The amount to be
[[Page 71694]]
acquired is small relative to the total area that has been commercially
re-zoned. It should be noted that Herrick Road would merely be shifted
to the east; access to all commercial parcels would remain. Further,
the decrease in traffic congestion on Route I-91 would make the area
more attractive to potential investors. It should also be noted that
the amount of land estimated to be acquired is based upon the project's
conceptual design, as the project advances through the design process
the amount of land to be acquired could change and possibly be reduced.
Comment 3: The staffing increase has not been adequately answered
either. We know the numbers have increased since 2001. What are those
numbers? What are the current staffing levels? How many employees of
Homeland Security? GSA? Section 1.2.2.1 mentions the increased
staffing, but no numbers.
Response 3: Staffing levels are an operational issue rather than an
environmental issue.
Comment 4: A greater concern is addressed in the Hazardous Cargo
Plan of the EIS. The increasing numbers of trucks carrying hazardous
materials going through the Port is worrisome. A truck that has a
problem is allowed to stay at the Port in a restricted area for up to
48 hours. That is to (sic.) long for us to feel that the area residents
are safe. The Town and Village should be notified immediately if this
situation arises so that citizens can be notified and given the option
to leave the area if they choose.
Response 4: As a result of the Trade Act of 2002, Advance
Electronic Information is required for all cargo types entering the
U.S., including hazardous materials. The Advance Electronic Information
system requires that manifests for all commercial loads coming into the
U.S. be sent to CBP at least one hour prior to arrival at the Port of
Entry. If the one hour pre-clearance is not submitted, the truck is
refused entry and turned back to Canada. In addition, all hazardous
materials being imported into the U.S. must make a formal entry through
a certified Customs broker and filed with CBP. Also, all drivers
importing into the U.S. must have a valid FAST (Free and Secure Trade)
card from CBP, if they do not possess a FAST card the shipment will not
be allowed to enter the U.S. and will be returned to Canada. Each of
these programs gives CBP advance warning of any hazardous cargo that
would be arriving at the Port.
According to CBP operating procedures, if a truck (or any vehicle
for that matter) arrived at the border with serious equipment issues
constituting a hazardous situation, CBP would contact state and local
authorities through 911 and would attempt to isolate the vehicle until
emergency responders arrived at the scene to stabilize and remove the
vehicle as soon as possible. Any truck that has a problem is not
allowed to stay at the Port for up to 48 hours. CBP does not hold
trucks at the Port at any time for reasons of unsafe operating
conditions.
Comment 5: The Town of Derby has a Solid Waste Plan which needs to
be followed along with the Northeast Kingdom Solid Waste Management
District, of which Derby is a member.
Response 5: It is the policy of GSA to meet or exceed local
regulations when it does not compromise the mission of the tenant
agencies. To the extent possible, GSA will adhere to the Town's Solid
Waste Plan and the regulations of the Northeast Kingdom Solid Waste
Management District.
Comment 6: The truck traffic on Caswell Avenue as mentioned in
section 3.2.7 is too high. The Village has been trying for years to
reduce the heavy truck traffic through the Village. During construction
and after, what assurance do we have that more trucks will stay on the
interstate highway system?
Response 6: In order to reduce truck traffic on Caswell Avenue, the
weight limits on Route I-91 would need authority to increase the weight
limits on Route I-91; FHWA is the federal agency that regulates weight
limits, which can only be done through Congressional action. Since this
is an existing border station that must remain in operation for the
duration of the construction process, the construction will be phased
in such a way that the facility continues to effectively operate and
perform its daily functions. Route I-91 would not be closed.
Comment 7: The air quality issues have not been adequately
addressed either. The increased truck traffic only increases poor air
quality. When traffic is backed up in both directions for a mile or
more each way, the air quality is going to be effected. Studies need to
be done in this area, not Chittenden County. On hot summer days we have
truck and vehicular traffic backed up idling for hours in the Port
area. What is the air quality for our residents like then, especially
the residents at Michaud Manor who are elderly and may have breathing
problems already?
Response 7: The proposed project will not result in increased truck
traffic. It will provide more queuing space, which should help to
alleviate traffic backups into Canada. Depending upon the CBP
guidelines for vehicle processing in place at the time, it is possible
that traffic backups could continue. During the project's design phase,
additional traffic circulation modeling will be done to ascertain
whether the proposed future 6th processing lane would be included as
part of the project now.
Comment 8: We hope that these issues will be considered and answers
provided to the questions we have as well as the citizens we represent,
prior to any final decisions being made. We would gladly invite you to
come back to Derby/Derby Line and address the questions we still have.
Response 8: GSA appreciates the Town's concerns and will continue
to work with local officials to address these concerns as the project
advances through the design process.
Trustees of the Village of Derby Line
Comment 1: We are writing this letter to address issues that we
feel were not explained adequately in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) for the proposed new Port of Entry on 1-91 in Derby
Line. We know that the existing building is too small and is outdated,
but we think that some issues need to be either explained more fully or
changed in some way.
Response 1: GSA appreciates the interest of the Village of Derby
Line in the proposed project and will endeavor to address any
outstanding issues below.
Comment 2: First, we are concerned about both air and noise
pollution. In the past year, Customs and Border Protection has
instituted new inspection procedures that make the time to clear a
vehicle (especially a passenger vehicle) much more lengthy. This means
that vehicles stay in line longer and backups are longer, which means
that there are more exhaust fumes and noise. The Sound Level table that
you have page 3-47 of the FEIS is no longer valid as it dates before
the new procedures. We would like tosee a new table based on
measurements done under the new conditions. In addition we would like
to see new air quality data.
Response 2: The proposed project will provide more queuing space,
which should help to alleviate traffic backups into Canada. Depending
upon the CBP guidelines for vehicle processing in place at the time, it
is possible that traffic backups could ontinue. During the project's
design phase, additional traffic circulation modeling will be done to
ascertain whether the proposed future 6th processing lane would be
included as part of the project now.
Comment 3: Also, the EPA has issued an anti-idling policy which
cuts down
[[Page 71695]]
on air pollution and saves on fuel. We would like to see this policy
enforced at the new facility. In connection with noise pollution, we
trust that you will continue to maintain the line of trees on the west
side of I-9l as a buffer, but we also would like to see more of a noise
barrier put in place. This could be a vegetated berm or a wall. Both of
these structures could reduce noise by up to 20 decibels or more, while
the tree barrier reduces it by just 5 decibels.
Response 3: As a final design for the facility is developed, 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.
With regard to noise, because of the expected improvement to
traffic flow, future noise levels will not approach the FHWA abatement
criteria of 67 dBA. As such, mitigation measures would not be required.
GSA will, however, continue to evaluate potential noise impacts as the
project progresses and will work with the community to reach a mutually
agreeable scenario.
Comment 4: We are concerned about the number of trucks carrying
hazardous materials though the I-91 port. Should there be a spill or
explosion, the Village and its residents would be immediately affected.
We would like to see a detailed hazmat plan that would be followed in
the event of such an accident. In addition we would like to be informed
of what extra safety precautions are taken for such cargo in the case
that the truck has problems and must be held for 48 hours.
Response 4:As a result of the Trade Act of 2002, Advance Electronic
Information is required for all cargo types entering the U.S.,
including hazardous materials. The Advance Electronic Information
system requires that manifests for all commercial loads coming into the
U.S. be sent to CBP at least one hour prior to arrival at the Port of
Entry. If the one hour pre- clearance is not submitted, the truck is
refused entry and turned back to Canada. In addition, all hazardous
materials being imported into the U.S. must make a formal entry through
a certified Customs broker and filed with CBP. Also, all drivers
importing into the U.S. must have a valid FAST (Free and Secure Trade)
card from CBP, if they do not possess a FAST card the shipment will not
be allowed to enter the U.S. and will be returned to Canada. Each of
these programs gives CBP advance warning of any hazardous cargo that
would be arriving at the Port.
According to CBP operating procedures, if a truck (or any vehicle
for that matter) arrived at the border with serious equipment issues
constituting a hazardous situation, CBP would contact state and local
authorities through 911 and would attempt to isolate the vehicle until
emergency responders arrived at the scene to stabilize and remove the
vehicle as soon as possible. Any truck that has a problem is not
allowed to stay at the Port for up to 48 hours. CBP does not hold
trucks at the Port at any time for reasons of unsafe operating
conditions.
Comment 5: The FEIS states that the Village is due no compensation
for the commercial land that is being appropriated due to the fact that
no one is using it at this time, and future possibilities cannot be
taken into account. This is ludicrous; the reason that commercial
entities have not established themselves on the property is due to the
very event that we are studying. No one is going to start a business on
land that may well be appropriated by the government for port of entry
expansion. We feel that the Village should be considered for some type
of compensation for lost tax revenue.
Response 5: GSA will compensate individual property owners from
whom land is acquired according to the fair market value of the land to
be acquired. The fair market value considers a parcel's zoning and its
future development potential and makes adjustments for it. The fact
that Herrick Road would be shifted to the east, without cutting off
access to any properties, should not discourage commercial entities
from locating to the area. The laws and regulations that control land
acquisition allow for direct compensation to the landowner whose
property is taken, but prohibit payments to local governments for loss
of tax revenue.
Comment 6: We are concerned about the increased paved area and the
amount of stormwater runoff that will ensue. The Village already has an
inadequate stormwater system. To burden it with more runoff could lead
to serious flooding on Main Street in the Village. The FEIS says that
provisions have been made for a stormwater system at the port of entry.
The Village would like to be able to see and review this plan.
Response 6: The project site (the existing facility) sits at an
elevation lower than the surrounding terrain; it is unlikely that any
flooding would occur on Main Street, which is located over 2,000 feet
to the west and at a higher elevation. As the project advances through
the design process a detailed stormwater management plan will be
developed. This plan will be shared with local officials.
Comment 7: The unnamed brook that flows from the east under the
highway has been a brook trout habitat. We trust that every precaution
will be taken to keep it so.
Response 7: During the project's design phase, all precautions will
be taken to minimize impacts to the aforementioned brook.
Comment 8: The FEIS states that economic benefits will accrue to
the six counties nearest the proposed new port of entry mainly in the
labor and supplies needed to build the new building. However, this will
last only as long as it takes to finish construction--approximately 2
years. The Village will bear the brunt of the costs (i.e., loss of tax
revenue, cost of infrastructure changes, etc.), and could lose jobs if
plans to automate commercial entries eliminate customs brokers
businesses. There should be some compensation for this.
Response 8: As stated in the response to Comment 5, the laws and
regulations that control land acquisition allow for direct compensation
to the landowner whose property is taken, but prohibit payments to
local governments for loss of tax revenue. During the design process,
GSA will work with the Village to address the Village's concerns with
regard to the cost of infrastructure changes.
Comment 9: Our last concern is that construction of the new
facility will cause 1-91 to close for periods of time, rerouting the
traffic to Rt. 5 through the Village. Since this crossing is already
overtaxed, and long lineups are creating both traffic safety problems
and difficulties in accessing businesses on the west side of Main
Street, additional traffic would be a disaster. We want assurance that
this event will not happen, and that vehicles will be able to cross the
border at 1-91 at all times for the duration of the project.
Response 9: Since this is an existing border station that must
remain in operation for the duration of the construction process, the
construction will be phased in such a way that the facility continues
to effectively operate and perform its daily functions. Route I-91
would not be closed.
Comment 10: Finally, we want to be consulted and have input on the
final plan before it is published.
Response 10: It is the policy of GSA to meet or exceed local
regulations when it does not compromise the
[[Page 71696]]
mission of the tenant agencies. GSA will continue to solicit and
welcome the coordination and cooperation of many entities from several
local and state jurisdictions as the project advances.
Private Individuals
Randall Bronson
Comment 1: I am writing you concerning the proposed upgrading and
reconstruction of the I-91 Customs and Immigration facility in Derby
Line. As a nephew of Royce and Joyce Wilson, owners of the Wilson
property (last home on Maple Street) that directly borders land that
will be used as part of this upgrading, I need to once again make my
concerns noted and seek a solution to these concerns. I am taking this
step on behalf of my aunt and uncle (Royce Wilson and Joyce Wilson),
the owners of this property and also because I do not want undue stress
placed upon my Uncle (Royce Wilson) if the Build Alternative, as it
seems, is the choice. His health has been impacted over the past few
years and any move forward to construct the Build Alternative will
certainly be an impact to his quality of life. As a matter of fact, if
any of construction proposals impact or impede on the Wilson property,
they will significantly reduce his quality of life. Please note that my
Uncle, Bernard Wilson, passed away in 2005, after the previous letter I
sent you.
Response 1: GSA appreciates Mr. Bronson's concerns and is sensitive
to how the proposed project could affect Mr. Wilson's quality of life.
Comment 2: As clarification to some of the history provided by some
of the historians you quoted during the last printing of the Impact
Study, the changes should be noted as follows:
Elton Bennett farm and house used to exist between the I-91 South
bound on-ramp and the current Customs Commercial Building. The house
was moved towards Holland and located on the Jim Jacobs property during
the construction of I-91.
There used to be a hay barn located south of the Wilson House, by
about. 100-200 feet, where the Brokers Building is located. This
property was not owned by the Wilson's.
The Cowle House was moved up Herrick Road to its present location.
The Wilson's did not own any land south or east of their current
property, nor did they farm any of the land. The Wilson residence did
enjoy fresh spring water that was supplied by a spring located of a
mile southeast of the residence. The connection to this well was
severed during the construction of I-91.
Response 2: Comment noted.
Comment 3: First of all, I still believe the only option that will
not impact the Wilson residence and property, is to not build. Not
building will preserve the quality of the property and will have the
least impact on the Royce and Joyce Wilson's ability to market the
property and home in the future, if needed.
Response 3: The No-Build Alternative has been rejected because it
does not meet the project's purpose and need and is not in the best
interest of the United States.
Comment 4: The BUILD ALTERNATIVE will impact our homestead as
follows:
1. The I-91 Southbound on-ramp will be unacceptably close to our
property.
2. Loss of privacy will be realized and the closeness of the on-
ramp could subject the property to invasion and unlawful trespass.
3. Noise level increases will be realized, even though you claim
they won't.
4. The front door of the house will be within 75 to 100 feet of the
on-ramp, taking away from the esthetic value of the house, not to
mention public safety concerns.
5. This option will render the property unmarketable for
residential or commercial sale because of the closeness to the I-91
ramp. No one will want to live that close to an on-ramp.
6. The stresses to Royce Wilson will be enormous as he has lived in
this house and on this property for the majority of his life.
Response 4: GSA acknowledges the concerns of Mr. Bronson and will
work with him and other members of the community to reach mutually
agreeable mitigation scenarios.
Comment 5: In conclusion, as the concerned nephew of Royce and
Joyce Wilson, I am advocating that I do not agree to the BUILD
ALTERNATIVE. If GSA wishes to proceed with the BUILD ALTERNATIVE, the
only option should be to negotiate monetary purchase of Royce and Joyce
Wilson's homestead at current fair market value and not the value of
the property post I-91 upgrade. The GSA purchase of their homestead
could then be used as a buffer zone that could be used to allow for
more privacy and. quality of life for remaining residents along Maple
Street.
Response 5: GSA is willing to work with Mr. Bronson to achieve a
mutually agreeable solution.
John Bullis
Comment 1: In regards to the proposed changes to the 1-91 POE. I
have the same concerns as many others regarding noise, lighting, air
pollution's.
Response 1: Comment noted.
Comment 2: However I have another and that is the fact that there
exists a drainage ditch between the properties of 83 and 125 Highland
Avenue. This ditch is fed on it's West end by a culvert under Highland
Avenue and empties on it's East end into a field that will contain the
1-91 Southbound ramp. While most of the time this ditch is dry, there
are times when it is full. During heavy rain and Springtime melts. Also
there is a large amount of underdrain located under the ground proposed
for the on ramp (165 feet I believe maybe more).
Response 2: Comment noted. As the project advances through the
design process a detailed stormwater management plan will be developed.
Conclusion
GSA has reached its decision based upon information and analysis
contained in the FEIS and outlined in this document. Based on these
considerations, GSA has determined that the Build Alternative: (1) best
satisfies the project's Purpose and Need, (2) poses the least impact to
the natural and human environments, (3) has been selected based on
processes in compliance with NEPA and other applicable requirements,
and (4) may be advanced through detailed design and construction.
[FR Doc. E7-24445 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-A8-S