![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Record of Decision
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: January 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3034-3035]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19ja05-66]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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