[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 120 (Thursday, June 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-15220]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 23, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

 

Public Buildings Service; Proposed Port of Entry, Located North 
of Oroville, WA; Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment or 
Environmental Impact Statement

ACTION: The General Services Administration (GSA) hereby gives notice 
it intends to prepare either an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for the proposed port of entry 
located north of Oroville, Washington. The decision on whether to 
prepare an EIS would be made following the completion of scoping and 
the Environmental Assessment. The EA would evaluate the proposed 
project, expansion of the existing port of entry, the no-action 
alternative, and other reasonable alternatives that might be identified 
during the scoping process.

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

ADDRESSES: Scoping will be accomplished by correspondence and through a 
public meeting with interested persons, organizations, and Federal, 
state, and local agencies. Written comments on the scope of 
alternatives and potential impacts should be addressed to the GSA's EIS 
subconsultant, ABAM Consulting Engineers, at the following address: 
33301 Ninth Avenue South, Federal Way, Washington 98003-6395, 
Attention: Carol Beck.

DATES: Written comments should be sent by July 15, 1994. Comments and 
suggestions will also be accepted at a public scoping meeting from 5:30 
p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday June 27, 1994 at the Oroville Railroad 
Depot, 1210 Ironwood, Oroville, WA 98844. All comments received during 
the meeting will be made part of the administrative record for the EA 
and will be evaluated as part of the scoping process.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Carol Beck at ABAM Consulting 
Engineers, 33301 Ninth Avenue South, Federal Way, Washington 98003-
6395, (206) 241-2040 or Donna M. Meyer at General Services 
Administration, (206) 931-7675.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The GSA, assisted by our contractor will 
prepare an Environmental Assessment on a proposal to design and 
construct a new border station to be located approximately 5 miles 
north of the town of Oroville, Washington. The scoping process will 
determine the issues to be addressed in the EA, identify the potential 
adverse environmental issues related to the proposed expansion, and 
assist to determine whether an EIS should be prepared. Scoping will be 
conducted in a manner consistent with NEPA guidelines. If an EIS is 
required, GSA will serve as the lead agency pursuant to Section 
1501.5(a) of the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations for 
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508).

SCOPING: GSA invites interested individuals, organizations, affected 
tribes and Federal, state and local agencies and officials to 
participate in defining the reasonable alternatives to be evaluated in 
the EA and in identifying any adverse social, economical, or 
environmental issues related to the alternatives. Scoping comments can 
be made verbally or in writing (see DATES and ADDRESS sections above 
for location and time of meeting). During scoping, comments should 
focus on identifying specific impacts to be evaluated and suggesting 
alternatives or mitigation that minimize adverse impacts while 
achieving similar objectives. Comments may also identify issues which 
are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental 
review. Scoping should be limited to commenting on alternatives and not 
indicating preferences. If an EIS is undertaken, there will be an 
opportunity to comment on impacts of the selected alternatives upon 
release of the draft document.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: A project information packet will be available 
at the public meeting or can be obtained by contacting the above 
referenced personnel. The packet will describe in more detail the 
proposed project, alternatives and the EA/EIS process.

MAILING LIST: If you wish to be placed on the mailing list to receive 
further information for this proposal as the EA process develops, 
contact the above referenced personnel.

PROJECT PURPOSE, HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 
project purpose is the design and construction of a new Port of Entry 
at the U.S. and Canadian border near the town of Oroville, Washington. 
The new station would replace the existing station, which is 
overcrowded and functionally obsolete. The new facility would be 
constructed on 9.1 acres of land by utilizing the existing site of 3.7 
acres and acquiring an additional 5.4 acres to the south. This 
additional acreage is necessary for maneuverability, reconfiguration 
and expansion.
    This facility is the only 24-hour multi-vehicle port in Eastern 
Washington located on a major arterial roadway, U.S. Route 97. It is 
also the only port in Eastern Washington designated as a commercial 
cargo center. The present configuration is unable to satisfactorily 
accommodate the volume of southbound traffic generated by Canadian 
tourists, day-trippers, shoppers, and commercial truck and bus traffic 
entering into the United States.
    At completion, the new port facility would provide 68,757 gross 
square feet of space, including canopy areas. The new facility would 
include a new main administration and inspection facility, a new multi-
purpose building, and an animal inspection building. The primary 
inspection lanes would increase from two to four; secondary lanes from 
three to ten; primary commercial truck inspection lanes from zero to 
two; secondary commercial truck lanes from one to three; and the bus 
port bays from zero to two. A total of 124 outside parking spaces, 
seven truck and 117 visitor/staff would be provided for travelers, 
employees, seized vehicles, commercial vehicles, and government 
vehicles.

ALTERNATIVES: The EA would consider an action alternative (Federal 
construction) and a no-action alternative. Due to the unique 
requirements for port of entry's, GSA has found it is impractical to 
consider leasing an existing office building to meet these needs. GSA 
is proposing to construct the facility at the site of the existing port 
of entry and to acquire a parcel of land lying directly to the south. 
The no-action alternative would continue the use of the overcrowded and 
obsolete station.

PROBABLE EFFECTS: GSA will evaluate significant environmental, social, 
and economical impacts of the alternatives in the EA. Potential impacts 
include, but are not limited to, changes in geological characteristics, 
changes in drainage and absorption patterns, water quality, new sources 
of light or glare, loss of agricultural acreage, impacts to local 
residences and businesses, loss of open space, and changes in traffic 
and circulation patterns. The impacts will be evaluated both for the 
construction period and for the life of the project. Measures to 
mitigate any identifiable adverse impacts will be addressed.

PROCEDURES: The EA will be prepared based on the scoping report. After 
its publication, GSA will make a decision whether an EIS will be 
required. If an EIS is to be prepared, a Draft EIS would be made 
available for public and agency review and comment, and a public 
hearing would be held. A Final EIS would be prepared following the 
closing of the comment period of the Draft.

    Dated: June 8, 1994.
L. Jay Pearson,
Regional Administration (10A).
[FR Doc. 94-15220 Filed 6-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-23-M