[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3034-3035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-999]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION


Record of Decision

    The General Services Administration (GSA) has published a Final 
Supplement to the 1992 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Del 
Rio Border Station Expansion, Del Rio, Texas. The Supplement to the 
1992 Final EIS is entitled:

Supplement to the 1992 Del Rio Border Station Expansion Environmental 
Impact Statement--Increased Security Measures Associated With Phase III 
Expansion at the Del Rio Port of Entry; Del Rio, Val Verde County, TX

Decision

    The GSA has decided to increase security at and around the Del Rio 
Port of Entry (POE) in accordance with measures outlined for heightened 
security along the nation's borders after the events of September 11, 
2001. The

[[Page 3035]]

increased security measures would be implemented in conjunction with 
the Phase III expansion activities described in the 1992 Final EIS.

Purpose and Need

    The purpose and need for the proposed action (as described in the 
2004 Supplement to the 1992 EIS, pages 1-1-1-3, available at http://public.geo-marine.com/) are to better secure the border at the Del Rio 
POE complex while ensuring efficient flow of lawful traffic and 
commerce.

Issues

    The 2004 Supplement to the 1992 EIS analyzed the potential impacts 
of implementing increased security measures at and around the Del Rio 
POE complex. Issues associated with the proposed increased security 
measures (identified through scoping) include land use, transportation, 
air quality, noise, socioeconomic (including environmental justice), 
and cultural resources. Issues eliminated from detailed analysis (due 
to relevancy to the proposed action or prior environmental review in 
the 1992 EIS) include soils, hydrology, vegetation and wildlife 
(including protected species), and public services and utilities.

Alternatives Considered

    The following alternatives were analyzed to determine which best 
satisfied the purpose and need for the increased security measures.
Alternative 1--No Action Alternative
    Under this alternative, no new security measures would be 
implemented to increase security at and around the Del Rio POE complex. 
This alternative would be considered environmentally preferable and 
would result in no land use, transportation, air quality, noise, 
socioeconomic (including environmental justice), or cultural resources 
impacts. However, implementing this alternative would not allow the GSA 
to increase security in accordance with measures outlined for 
heightened security along the nation's borders. The requirements for 
increased security were the primary consideration in not choosing this 
alternative.
Alternative 2--Preferred Alternative
    Under this alternative, security would be increased at and around 
the Del Rio POE complex, resulting in the elimination of all pedestrian 
and vehicular traffic/access east along Rio Grande Road. This would be 
accomplished by permanently closing a portion of Rio Grande Road 
(approximately 550 feet of road east of State Spur 239) (page 2-5 of 
the Supplement). As part of implementing this alternative, the 550-foot 
stretch of road would be immediately closed (through the placement of 
``jersey barriers'') to quickly realize increased security and to 
facilitate construction associated with Phase III expansion activities. 
Additionally, a new Commercial Exit Control Facility and exit road 
would be constructed. After construction, a portion of the exit road 
and corresponding land would be donated to the City of Del Rio as a 
public right-of-way (figure available at http://public.geo-marine.com/
). The entire length of exit road could then be used by the City of Del 
Rio and the Government for the construction of a bypass road replacing 
Rio Grande Road. As part of implementing this alternative the GSA would 
also make available approximately one acre in the northwest corner of 
the government property for an easement granted to the Faith Mission 
(figure available at http://public.geo-marine.com/). This easement 
would be out-parceled by security fencing and would allow the Faith 
Mission to construct service facilities at some time in the future.
    This alternative would be considered environmentally preferable and 
would result in no land use, transportation, air quality, noise, or 
cultural resources impacts. However, eliminating pedestrian access to 
Rio Grande Road east would result in increased travel time for a small 
population of low-income and/or minority visitors of the Faith Mission. 
Access to the Faith Mission would still be possible through alternate 
traffic routing; however, this would increase the travel time of 
approximately 42 individuals per service day that walked. Additionally, 
if the Faith Mission elects to locate some service facilities on the 
approximately one acre easement, then those services would be directly 
accessible by pedestrians immediately after processing through the POE. 
Implementing this alternative would allow the GSA to increase security 
in accordance with measures outlined for heightened security along the 
nation's borders. Although implementation of this alternative would 
increase the travel time to the Faith Mission, the requirements for 
increased security were the primary consideration in choosing this 
alternative. In choosing this alternative to implement, the GSA has 
adopted all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm 
(pages 2-4-2-7).
Alternative 3
    Similar to the previous alternative (Alternative 2), under this 
alternative, security would be increased at and around the Del Rio POE 
complex, resulting in the elimination of all pedestrian and vehicular 
traffic/access east along Rio Grande Road. However, pedestrian traffic 
would be facilitated east through the construction of an elevated 
walkway. This alternative was not carried forward for detailed analysis 
because of security concerns and the significant costs associated with 
constructing and maintaining an elevated walkway. These were the 
primary considerations in not choosing this alternative.
Alternative 4
    Similar to the previous alternatives (Alternative 2 and 3), under 
this alternative, security would be increased at and around the Del Rio 
POE complex, resulting in the elimination of all pedestrian and 
vehicular traffic/access east along Rio Grande Road. However, 
pedestrian traffic would be facilitated east through the construction 
of a pedestrian tunnel. This alternative was not carried forward for 
detailed analysis because of security concerns and the significant 
costs associated with constructing and maintaining a pedestrian tunnel. 
These were the primary considerations in not choosing this alternative.

Questions and Comments

    During the comment period for the Draft Supplement, the GSA 
received two comments; both stated no objection to the proposed 
project. The GSA believes there are no outstanding environmental issues 
to be resolved with implementing increased security measures at and 
around the Del Rio POE facility.
    Questions regarding the Supplement to the 1992 EIS may be directed 
to Lisa Schaub, Region 7 Environmental and Safety Group, GSA 819 Taylor 
Street 7PWM, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, (817) 978-4233.

    Dated: January 10, 2005.
Scott Armey,
Regional Administrator, GSA, Region 7, Fort Worth, Texas.
[FR Doc. 05-999 Filed 1-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-27-P